RPT Melita Lagoon EAP FNL 2014-02-03 SFM · 2019-01-25 · Manitoba Water Services Board Town of Melita Lagoon February, 2014 Manitoba Environment Act Proposal – Final KGS 13-0429-003

Manitoba Water Services Board Town of Melita Lagoon February, 2014 Manitoba Environment Act Proposal – Final KGS 13-0429-003

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Kontzamanis Graumann Smith MacMillan Inc. (KGS Group) was retained by Manitoba Water Services Board (MWSB) on behalf of the Town of Melita (Melita) to prepare a Manitoba Environment Act Proposal (EAP) for the proposed alterations to the existing Melita Wastewater Treatment Lagoon. Melita recently requested that MWSB assist in upgrading its existing wastewater treatment lagoon to accommodate future organic and hydraulic loading due to growth in the town including a new hotel under construction, a proposed oilfield camp as well as long term growth over the next 20 years. The upgrades to the lagoon are required because the existing lagoon is too small to accommodate current and future hydraulic capacity requirements, the tertiary cell is leaking and the lagoon perimeter dikes are too low to meet current flood protection regulations. Although the existing lagoon is licenced (Clean Environment Commission Order No. 621), the Environment Act (C.C.M.S. c. E125) requires notification and approval for alterations in a development. The proposed alterations to increase the lagoon capacity to meet the organic and hydraulic loadings for a 20 year design period and to provide flood protection for a 1:150 year flood event are considered a Class 2 Development under Manitoba Regulation 164/88. The existing lagoon site is within the limits of land owned by Melita in NW31-03-26W and NE36-03-27W and currently consists of a 3-cell facultative lagoon for wastewater treatment with a gravel access road from Highway 3 to the north. The proposed lagoon upgrades will not require the purchase of additional land. Current land use adjacent to the site is primarily agricultural farm land along with industrial land use in Machinery Row to the north and undeveloped riparian vegetation along Graham Creek to the west and Souris River to the south and east. The proposed lagoon upgrades consist of raising the lagoon access road and dikes to Elev. 431.9 m, ensuring the compacted clay liner of the cells will be a minimum of 1.0 m thick and have a permeability not exceeding 1x10-7 cm/sec and installation of an OPTAER Wastewater Treatment system with continuous discharge. The OPTAER system consists of a fine bubble partial mix aeration in the primary and secondary cells, a rapid/slow mix chamber after the primary cell for alum addition and floc formation for phosphorus removal in the secondary cell and a 2-cell Submerged Attached Growth Reactor (SAGR®) after the secondary cell for nitrification and partial disinfection. Project-environmental interactions were assessed to identify potential environmental effects associated with the project activities. As the site is an existing developed site there are no major environmental constraints such as rare species or archaeological resources on the site. In addition to increasing the capacity the proposed upgrades will address the existing problems of seepage and flooding as well as improving the wastewater treatment, which have positive effects. Mitigation and follow-up measures were identified for potential adverse environmental effects including, air quality, soils, groundwater, surface water, fish and fish habitat, wildlife and vegetation, health and well being, and worker safety. Based on the available information on the project and the environment, the assessment of environmental effects outlined in this environmental assessment report, and the application of proposed mitigation measures and the conduct of required follow-up, the proposed upgrades to the Melita lagoon will not likely result in any significant residual adverse environmental effects.


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 3

2.1 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 MINERAL RIGHTS ..................................................................................................... 3 2.3 EXISTING AND ADJACENT LAND USE ..................................................................... 3 2.4 LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING .................................................................. 4 2.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND ACTIVITIES..................................................................... 4

2.5.1 System Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................... 5 2.5.2 Geotechnical Assessment for Upgrading Lagoon Dikes ......................................... 6 2.5.3 Topographic Surveys ............................................................................................. 7

2.6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 7 2.6.1 Schedule ................................................................................................................ 7 2.6.2 Existing Capacity ................................................................................................... 8 2.6.3 Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 8 2.6.4 System Components.............................................................................................. 9 2.6.5 OPTAER Components ..........................................................................................10 2.6.6 OPTAER Treatment Process ................................................................................11 2.6.7 Discharge Route ...................................................................................................12 2.6.8 Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................................12 2.6.9 Funding.................................................................................................................13

2.7 STORAGE OF GASOLINE AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS ....................................13 3.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................................14

3.1 LOCATION, PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING AND CLIMATE ........................................14 3.2 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................14

3.2.1 Regional Geology .................................................................................................14 3.2.2 Local Geology .......................................................................................................15

3.3 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY ..............................................................................16 3.4 SURFACE WATER ....................................................................................................16 3.5 FISH AND FISH HABITAT .........................................................................................18 3.6 WILDLIFE, HABITAT AND VEGETATION .................................................................19 3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC ...................................................................................................20 3.8 HERITAGE RESOURCES .........................................................................................20

4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT .........................................21

4.1 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................21 4.2 SOILS ........................................................................................................................22 4.3 GROUNDWATER ......................................................................................................23 4.4 SURFACE WATER ....................................................................................................23 4.5 FISH AND FISH HABITAT LOSS ...............................................................................24 4.6 WILDLIFE, HABITAT AND VEGETATION .................................................................25 4.7 EMPLOYMENT/ECONOMY ......................................................................................25


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

PAGE

4.8 HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL BEING ........................................................................26 4.9 PUBLIC AND WORKER SAFETY ..............................................................................26 4.10 HERITAGE RESOURCES .........................................................................................26

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................28

5.1 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................28 5.2 SOILS ........................................................................................................................28 5.3 GROUNDWATER ......................................................................................................29 5.4 SURFACE WATER ....................................................................................................29 5.5 FISH AND FISH HABITAT .........................................................................................29 5.6 WILDLIFE, HABITAT AND VEGETATION .................................................................30 5.7 HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL BEING ........................................................................30 5.8 PUBLIC AND WORKER SAFETY ..............................................................................30 5.9 RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................30

6.0 FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................32

6.1 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................32 6.2 SOILS ........................................................................................................................32 6.3 GROUNDWATER ......................................................................................................32 6.4 SURFACE WATER ....................................................................................................33 6.5 FISH AND FISH HABITAT .........................................................................................33 6.6 WILDLIFE, HABITAT AND VEGETATION .................................................................33 6.7 HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL BEING ........................................................................33 6.8 PUBLIC AND WORKER SAFETY ..............................................................................34

7.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................35 8.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................36 FIGURES APPENDICES \\k-file-4\p-data\Projects\2013\13-0429-003\Doc.Control\Issued\SOURCE\Docs\FNLRPT_EAP_2014-02-04\RPT_Melita Lagoon_EAP_FNL_2014-02-03_SFM.doc


iv

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location Plan

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Certificates of Title B. Site Photographs C. Nelson Environmental Documents D. Government Correspondence


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Kontzamanis Graumann Smith MacMillan Inc. (KGS Group) was retained by Manitoba Water

Services Board (MWSB) on behalf of the Town of Melita (Melita) to prepare a Manitoba

Environment Act Proposal (EAP) for the proposed alterations to the existing Melita Wastewater

Treatment Lagoon. Although the existing lagoon is licenced (Clean Environment Commission

Order No. 621), the Environment Act (C.C.M.S. c. E125) requires notification and approval for

alterations in a development. The proposed alterations to increase the lagoon capacity to meet

the organic and hydraulic loadings for a 20 year design period and to provide flood protection for

a 1:150 year flood event are considered a Class 2 Development under Manitoba Regulation

164/88.

The lagoon is located within an approximately 8.4 hectare parcel of land, approximately 370 m

south of the intersection of highways 3 and 83, within the northwest quarter of Section 31

Township 3 Range 26W and northeast quarter of Section 36 Township 3 Range 27W, southeast

of Melita on the north bank of the Souris River (Figure 01). Melita is located in the southwest

corner of Manitoba, in the Souris River Valley, near the Saskatchewan border, approximately

100 km southwest of Brandon. The town has a current population of approximately 1,100

people and contains a number of amenities and developed infrastructure including schools, a

hospital, a motel, a downtown business district, a swimming pool and golf course, and other

public service facilities.

The existing secondary cell was originally constructed in 1955 and the existing tertiary cell was

originally constructed in 1965 with the lagoon operated under a Provincial Sanitary Control

Commission licence (108P) since 1964. In 1975 Melita registered the existing lagoon under the

Clean Environment Commission (Order No. 621), along with an application to expand the

lagoon adding a new primary cell to meet capacity requirements at that time.

The upgrades to the lagoon are required because the existing lagoon is too small to

accommodate current and future hydraulic capacity requirements as identified by the KGS

Group 2011 System Capacity Analysis (1). Additionally, the tertiary cell is leaking and the lagoon

perimeter dikes are too low to meet current flood protection regulations. As the proposed project

consists of upgrades to address deficiencies in the existing lagoon which will improve


2

environmental conditions, and does not consist of any major changes, a formal public

consultation process was not necessary.

Melita recently requested that MWSB assist in upgrading its existing wastewater treatment

lagoon to an aerated lagoon to accommodate future organic and hydraulic loading due to

growth in the town. This includes a new hotel under construction (108 people), a proposed

oilfield camp (600 people) as well as long term population growth over the next 20 years (1,203

people). The estimated total organic loading of 156 kg/day is based on 126 kg/day from the

Melita sewer system and 30 kg/day from wastewater hauled from the R.M. of Arthur. The

current organic lagoon treatment capacity of 148 kg/day does not meet the maximum

156 kg/day for the proposed growth. Likewise the estimated total hydraulic loading of

659,133 L/day (660 m3/day) is based on 599,133 L/day from the Melita sewer system and

60,000 L/day from wastewater hauled from the R.M. of Arthur. The lagoon does not currently

and will not receive industrial wastewater.

Constructing a new lagoon in a new location and adding a new cell at the existing lagoon were

considered as alternatives to the aerated lagoon. However, there is not sufficient space at the

existing site to expand the footprint of the lagoon and the cost to purchase new land to either

expand or relocate the lagoon made these options cost prohibitive.

This document provides the information required for Melita to obtain a Class 2 Development

Licence under the Manitoba Environment Act for the construction and operation of the proposed

upgrades to the existing wastewater treatment lagoon.


3

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

The following sections have been structured to address the requirements of the Description of

Development as outlined in the Environment Act Proposal Form.

2.1 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

The existing lagoon site is within the limits of the land owned by Melita in NW31-03-26W and

NE36-03-27W, while the access road is on land owned by the R.M. of Arthur (Figure 01). The

municipal roll assessment indicates that the Town of Melita currently has ownership of the land

on which the lagoon is located. The proposed lagoon upgrades will not require the purchase of

additional land or expansion beyond the footprint of the existing lagoon. Depending on the

outcome of other proposed flood protection works, raising the access road north of the R.M. of

Arthur dike may require purchase of additional land to the west of the access road. Copies of

the Certificates of Title for the lagoon (1702050/2 and 1622795/2) and the agreement between

the R.M and the Town regarding the access road right of way are provided in Appendix A.

2.2 MINERAL RIGHTS

The owner of the mineral rights beneath the sewage lagoon site is currently and will remain as

set forth in Transfer Numbers 53622BO, 42200BO, 53623BO and 30998BO as indicated on the

Certificates of Title (Appendix A).

2.3 EXISTING AND ADJACENT LAND USE

As the project consists of proposed upgrades to an existing lagoon, the land use of the site will

not change from the current use which consists of a 3-cell facultative lagoon for wastewater

treatment. Each cell is a man-made, vegetated dike-surrounded pond (Appendix B, Photo 1)

with a gravel access road from Highway 3 to the north, as shown in Figure 01. Based on air

photos and sizing reported by Melita, the size of the cells as measured at the top of their dikes

are as follows:


4

Primary Cell = 155m x 200m = 3.10 Ha = 7.66 acres

Secondary Cell = 95m x 200m (avg) = 1.90 Ha = 4.70 acres

Tertiary Cell = 46m x 230m (avg) = 1.06 Ha = 2.61 acres

Within the property boundaries there is agricultural farm land to the north and northwest of the

primary cell (Photo 2) and undisturbed riparian vegetation along the shorelines of Graham

Creek (Photo 3) and the Souris River.

Land use adjacent to the proposed site is as follows:

West – Graham Creek defines the western property boundary with agricultural farm land to the west (Photo 4).

North – Commercial/Industrial landuse, referred to as Machinery Row (south of Highway 3, Photo 5), is north of the Primary cell, while agricultural farm land is north of the secondary and tertiary cells (Photo 6).

East – The Souris River defines the eastern property boundary with undeveloped riparian vegetation, a gravel road and agricultural farm land to the east (Photo 7).

South – A former farmstead with miscellaneous buildings and vehicles (Photo 8) is south adjacent the secondary cell, while the Souris River and Graham Creek define the southern property boundary adjacent the primary cell with undeveloped riparian vegetation a gravel road and agricultural farm land to the south (Photo 9).

2.4 LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING

The proposed project is located in the Southwest Planning District. The land on which the

sewage lagoon is located is currently owned by the Town of Melita and the access road is

owned by the R.M. of Arthur. The land use designation is Agricultural Limited Zone.

2.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND ACTIVITIES

Since the existing lagoon was flooded in 2011 several activities and studies were initiated to

evaluate the effectiveness of the existing system and provide information for potentially

upgrading the system. A brief summary of some of the key previous studies and activities is

provided in the following sections.


5

2.5.1 System Capacity Analysis

KGS Group was retained in 2011 by MWSB and Melita to undertake a system capacity analysis

of the sewage collection and treatment infrastructure of the town (1). The impetus for the study

was a proposal to construct a 250-500 room hotel in the town to service the oil exploration and

extraction industry in the region. As such it was necessary to determine the effects of such a

development on the Melita’s existing infrastructure in particular the sewage lagoon.

Based on the Census of 2006 and a discussion with town officials concerning population trends

in Melita since that time, a population for the town of 1,100 people, and future population of

1,200 people were established. Using these population figures and allowing for either a 250 or

500 room hotel, the sewage flow estimates and organic and hydraulic loads were estimated.

The capacity of the lagoon was analyzed and a determination made as to whether upgrades

were required to accommodate the anticipated future flows. These were summarized as follows:

Organic Load (Lagoon Primary Cell) – The existing organic capacity of the lagoon’s Primary

cell is 148 kg biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)/day. The future loading on the cell from both

the town and the hotel is 132.8 kg BOD/day. The town currently allows a small amount of

sewage to be dumped at the lagoon from truck haul sources. This additional sewage uses up

the last of the organic capacity of the lagoon. The Primary Cell has sufficient capacity to

accommodate the future population of 1,200 people and the 500 room hotel, but any truck haul

will have to be restricted and carefully monitored. If the town desires to include an expanded

truck haul capability, the Primary cell will have to be expanded.

Hydraulic Load (Lagoon Secondary Cell) – The existing storage capacity of the lagoon is

undersized. The current storage capacity of the Secondary Cell is 22,600 m3. The total hydraulic

load for the future condition is 153,700 m3, requiring a secondary cell with a storage volume of

134,000 m3. To meet this volume, a 24 acre secondary cell is required. Even if present day

flows only are considered, the lagoon’s hydraulic capacity is still undersized. A total storage

volume of 100,300 m3 is required to meet present day flows without any consideration for future

development or population growth. This requires a secondary cell volume of 80,600 m3, or

approximately 15 acres.


6

2.5.2 Geotechnical Assessment for Upgrading Lagoon Dikes

During the 2011 Flood, the maximum flow rate was estimated to be 759 m3/s (26,800 ft3/s) with

a peak water elevation of Elev. 431 m on July 4, 2011. High water levels fluctuated between

430 m and 431 m between April and July 2011 with the peak water level sustained for a 30 day

period. During this time, the Melita lagoon and access road were completely inundated. In

response to this, in September 2012 Melita requested KGS Group to provide additional

geotechnical engineering services to incorporate the town’s existing lagoon and access road

into the town’s flood protection system (2). The purpose of this assessment was to analyze the

existing lagoon dikes with respect to the 2011 flood event and to provide preliminary

recommendations to upgrade the lagoon dikes and the access road to the revised Flood

Protection Level (FPL) of Elev. 431.9 m (1 in 150 year flood event) as set by the Province of

Manitoba.

A site inspection and survey was completed, which included a centreline profile survey along

the access road and the existing lagoon dikes. Based on these the top of dike elevation ranges

from Elev. 430.0 m to 430.5 m, approximately 1.4 m to 1.9 m below the designated FPL of

Elev. 431.9 m, while the top of road elevation ranges from Elev. 429.3 m to 429.9 m,

approximately 2.0 m to 2.6 m below the FPL.

The preliminary stratigraphy at the lagoon was assumed by KGS Group to consist of silty clay fill

dikes overlying silty clay and silty sand. This was based on background information from the

results of a 1976 soils investigation and test hole logs for drilling completed by KGS Group at

the R.M. of Arthur dike. Groundwater elevations for the lagoon dikes were assumed to be

consistent with those measured at the R.M. of Arthur dike, which ranged from Elev. 427.0 m to

427.5 m.

KGS Group completed preliminary seepage and slope stability analyses at one (1) critical cross

section of the lagoon dike and concluded that the existing lagoon dike meets all recommended

stability design criteria for the minimum Factor of Safety under rapid drawdown conditions,

steady state seepage and normal river levels, and the 2011 drawdown conditions. The

proposed upgraded dike geometry consisting of a 3.0 m wide crest, 5H:1V outside (riverside)

slope, 4H:1V inside (cell) side slope would also meet the seepage and slope stability criteria.


7

The upgraded dike geometry can be constructed to the outside of the dikes to prevent infilling

the existing cells except for a 175 m section along the east side of the existing secondary and

tertiary cells. Due to the proximity of the existing dike to the top of bank area this section should

be constructed to the cell side of the dike in order to maintain the existing outside toe of the

dike.

Based on the preliminary assessment it was recommended that a further geotechnical

investigation with a drilling and soil sampling program be completed. This would be to determine

the stratigraphic conditions of the existing wastewater treatment lagoon in order to identify the

existing lagoon conditions of the primary and secondary cells and delineate the extent of the

leak along the north side of the tertiary cell.

2.5.3 Topographic Surveys

As part of the Town of Melita Waste Treatment Lagoon Study (3) KGS Group completed a

topographic survey of the existing lagoon area in August 2013 to determine the existing site

geometry. Additionally KGS Group completed a sonar survey and a sludge survey to determine

the lagoon bottom bathymetry and the depth of the sludge deposit for the cells. The purpose of

these studies was to determine the capacity of the existing lagoon system to facilitate

assessment and design of upgrade options.

2.6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.6.1 Schedule

Final design of the lagoon and procurement of funding for construction is proposed to begin

upon receipt of the Environment Act Licence. Lagoon construction works are proposed to begin

in the summer of 2014, dependent upon funding. Commissioning and operation of the lagoon is

proposed to begin upon completion of construction and after approval for use is obtained from

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (CWS). No date for decommissioning has been

set for the lagoon.


8

2.6.2 Existing Capacity

The current capacity of the Melita lagoons was previously analyzed and compared to estimates

for future hydraulic and organic loads (Section 2.5.1) and it was determined that the hydraulic

storage is at maximum capacity and the organic treatment capacity would need to be increased.

The current lagoon design at Melita (Figure 01) is a controlled discharge type which requires

considerable storage volume to prevent discharge of treated wastewater outside of the

allowable periods. Under current regulations, the hydraulic loading period (the amount of water

the lagoon must be capable of storing over the winter) is 227 days. The average daily

wastewater flow into the lagoon is approximately 659,133 litres (approximately 660 m3) and the

required hydraulic storage capacity of the lagoon is 149,820 m3 (660 m3/day X 227 days) (3).

The current hydraulic capacity of the lagoon is 42,300 m3 (half the primary cell volume plus the

volume of the secondary cell). If the tertiary cell leakage issue was solved, the total storage

volume would only be increased to 52,700 m3. The current size of the secondary cell is 2.1 ha

(5.16 acres) but it is estimated that a cell size of 9.8 ha (24.2 acres) would be required to meet

the future hydraulic loading.

As described in Section 1, since there is insufficient space at the existing site to expand the

footprint outward, increasing the height of the dikes around the primary and secondary cells

would increase the hydraulic capacity slightly but the increased volume would still be insufficient

to store wastewater for 227 days. It has been determined however, that increasing the height of

the dikes in combination with continuous discharge and aeration would provide system

improvements within the existing lagoon footprint. In addition to increasing hydraulic storage

aeration can achieve more rapid organic degradation by increasing the availability of oxygen for

BOD requirements.

2.6.3 Design Criteria

New or expanded wastewater treatment lagoons are required to meet the Manitoba Water

Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (MWQSOG) – Tier 1 Water Quality Standards for

discharge effluent. These include a limit of 200 fecal coliform (E.Coli) per 100 mL, 25 mg/L BOD

(or CBOD), 25 mg/L total suspended solids (TSS), 1 mg/L total phosphorus (TP) and a site-


9

specific total ammonia limit derived from the Manitoba Water Quality Objectives. Small

wastewater treatment facilities that serve less than 2,000 people, such as the Melita lagoon,

have the option of implementing a demonstrated nutrient reduction strategy instead of meeting

the 1 mg/L phosphorus limit. Additionally, the facility will adhere to the provisions of the

Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (SOR/2012-139) for a continuously discharging small

(>500 to 2,500 m3/day) wastewater facility. The effluent quality standards that apply to the

Melita lagoon under this regulation include a limit of 25 mg/L CBOD, 25 mg/L TSS and

1.25 mg/L un-ionized ammonia (NH3).

The system design parameters used by Nelson Environmental Inc. (NE) for the proposed

upgrades included lagoon influent with an average design flow of 690 m3/day, a CBOD of 340

mg/L, TSS of 340 mg/L, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) of 67 mg/L, and TP of 12 mg/L (4). The

proposed system is expected to have effluent concentrations of <20 mg/L CBOD, <20 mg/L

TSS and <1 mg/L TP (4). The Total Ammonia concentration of the effluent will vary and is

expected to be <1 mg/L during summer and <7 mg/L during the winter. These expected total

ammonia concentrations will result NH3 concentrations less than the required 1.25 mg/L based

on the typical winter operating temperatures and pH levels.

The NE Submerged Attached Growth Reactor (SAGR) system has been extensively tested in

Steinbach, Manitoba to demonstrate lagoon based cold climate ammonia removal and

BOD/TSS polishing. Data from these tests indicate that this technology is suitable to treat

wastewater with a side benefit that it also provides reductions in both total coliform and E. coli in

order to meet current provincial standards. A description of the OPTAER wastweater treatment

system from NE, a white paper describing the SAGR and case studies of previously installed

systems are included in Appendix C.

2.6.4 System Components

The proposed system upgrade would result in an aerated wastewater lagoon treatment system

with continuous discharge and hydraulic detention > 5 days. The treatment system is shown in

Appendix C, Drawings NE01 to NE04 and would require:


10

Raising the height of the dikes and access road to meet the current flood protection regulation;

Implementation of OPTAER fine bubble partial mix aeration in cells 1 and 2 with lagoons operating in continuous discharge mode;

Installation of a rapid mix/slow mix tank between Cell 1 and Cell 2 for addition of alum to be used in phosphorus removal via floc formation in Cell 2;

Increasing Cell 2 volume capacity by incorporating part of the Tertiary cell; Repairing leakage in the dike (from former Tertiary cell); Installation of a 2-cell SAGR for nitrification and partial disinfection in a portion of the

area currently used for the Tertiary cell; Installation of aeration pipe with blowers for cells 1 and 2 and for SAGR; Installation of a splitter structure at the SAGR influent; Installation of a prefabricated insulated blower building to house aeration blowers; and Installation of power to the proposed blower building.

The geotechnical investigation completed by KGS Group indicated that suitable clay is available

to construct/repair the lagoon liner and raise the dike elevation (3). Raising the dike heights

around Cell 1 and Cell 2 would increase the water depth to 3.05 m. This would provide a volume

of approximately 95,556 m3 and 138.4 days retention time in Cell 1 and volume of approximately

55,303 m3 and 80.1 days retention time in Cell 2. This would result in a total volume of

approximately 150,859 m3 providing 218.5 days retention time.

2.6.5 OPTAER Components

Details of the OPTAER components are provided in Appendix C Drawings NE01 to NE02 and

described in the following paragraphs, summarized from the NE Preliminary Proposal for

Design, Supply and Installation of OPTAER Wastewater Treatment System, Melita, Manitoba,

August 2013 report (4).

In order to implement the OPTAER process, the primary cell would be converted to a partial mix

cell. Shallow buried High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) header piping connects to a galvanized

metal header, and supplies air to aeration laterals. The laterals float on the water surface and

distributes aeration from the header to the OPTAER HT-25 fine bubble membrane diffusers that

are suspended near the bottom of the cell. The diffusers consist of a HDPE air distribution body

with individual tubular membranes extending outwards in a horizontal plane. Each diffuser is

attached to a small concrete weight, encased in HDPE pipe.


11

A polyurethane insulated prefabricated steel sandwich panel building will be installed to house

the Cell 1 and Cell 2 blowers, the SAGR blowers, control panel, alum dosing equipment and

storage tank. A rapid mix/slow mix tank is proposed between Cell 1 and Cell 2 for the addition

and mixing of alum. Alum will be dosed into the rapid mix chamber where intensive mixing

ensures good contact between the alum and the wastewater. Wastewater then passes to a slow

mix chamber where it remains for 15 minutes. In this chamber, gentle mixing allows the small

floc to aggregate into larger particles which will eventually settle to the bottom of Cell 2 where

the phosphorus will remain chemically bound.

An influent splitter chamber will be positioned ahead of the SAGR to split Cell 2 flow evenly

between the two SAGR cells. The SAGR will consist of two rectangular cells (25 m X 40 m)

operated in parallel. The cell walls are constructed with 50 mm X 100 mm treated wood frame

supporting the cell interior sheathing. A geomembrane lines the interior wall surface of the

sheathing and the bottom of the cell. The cells are filled with aggregate to the proposed 2.5 m

depth of water. A non-woven geotextile is placed on top of the aggregate in the cell and then

covered by mulch for insulation. The influent pipe is a lateral pipe positioned at an elevation to

allow the wastewater to flow down and into the aggregate. Diffuser lines are designed for direct

burial along the bottom of the SAGR bed and are manufactured from Low Density Polyethylene

(LDPE) with reinforced air releases along the tubing. An effluent chamber is positioned at the

bottom of the cell and located opposite to the influent chamber.

2.6.6 OPTAER Treatment Process

The OPTAER treatment process uses aeration in Cell 1 and Cell 2 to separate solids and begin

the process of reducing BOD. In cold weather climates such as Manitoba, the development of

reliable fine bubble diffuser membranes makes them the preferred choice for aeration in sewage

lagoons. Bubbles produced by the diffusers provide oxygen for bacteria in the cell to convert

waste into carbon dioxide, water, and inert ash. A finer bubble allows a greater gross surface

area of bubbles to come in contact with bacteria in the water, thus improving oxygen transfer,

creating higher bacteria efficiency and reducing detention time. As the aeration bubbles rise,

convection cells created between the diffusers will help to mix the water, distribute oxygen

throughout cell and allow solids settle to the bottom of the basin. Solids will be subject to


12

aerobic digestion at the sludge water interface. The aeration process in Cell 1 and Cell 2 will

result in minimal organic bottom sludge accumulation.

In Cell 2, phosphorus removal will be achieved. A rapid mix/slow mix tank will mix alum with

wastewater causing chemical precipitation of phosphorus to occur. Following addition of the

alum, the floc resulting from chemical precipitation will aggregate and settle to the bottom of

Cell 2. A retention time of 138 days in Cell 1 and 80 days in Cell 2 is maintained to further

reduce BOD.

A 2-cell SAGR will be used for nitrification (ammonia removal) as well as polishing (BOD/TSS)

and partial disinfection (E.Coli/Total Coliform) of effluent before it is discharged. The SAGR is a

clean aggregate bed covered with a layer of peat or mulch for insulation. Wastewater flow is

evenly distributed across the width of the cell and there is a horizontal collection chamber at the

end of the treatment zone. LINEAR aeration throughout the floor of the SAGR provides aerobic

conditions that are required for nitrification. The SAGR technology is a biofilm process similar to

above ground attached growth reactors such as the Kaldnes moving bed process, except that

the reactor is underground and the media is a fixed graded aggregate instead of shaped moving

plastic media. Oxygen and food (ammonia and nitrite) provide bacteria with the means to grow

and the stone media provides surface area for the bacteria to colonize and produce bio film. The

process of producing bio film changes toxic ammonia to nitrite and nitrite to non-toxic nitrate.

2.6.7 Discharge Route

The effluent discharged from the SAGR cells will tie into the existing effluent discharge pipe with

no proposed changes to the discharge route which currently discharges to the Souris River.

2.6.8 Operation and Maintenance

With the OPTAER aeration system, the cells do not have to be dewatered or taken out of

service for system installation or maintenance. Operation and maintenance of the upgraded

lagoon system will include:

Maintaining the fencing, gate and lock;


13

Ensuring the gate is locked at all times and only the local septic haulers and Town Public Works department have access to the site;

Refilling phosphorus reduction chemical at the pump station and adjusting dosage rates based on laboratory testing of the lagoon effluent;

Maintaining the air pumping system, intercell and discharge piping and valves; Monitoring and reporting of effluent quality; Maintaining grass cover on dikes; Maintain a program to prevent and remove burrowing animals; and Clearing of snow from the lagoon approach and truck turnaround. Maintenance of diffuser assemblies can be performed from a boat with a 2-person crew. Each

lateral is individually valved for ease of maintenance. All header, lateral, and feeder piping is

designed to accommodate increased airflow for high pressure and volume cleaning without

increasing header friction losses by more than 1 psi. This allows for management of additional

organic load, improved diffuser maintenance and additional odor control. The two SAGR cells

are operated in parallel however piping allows either cell to be isolated and bypassed for

maintenance. Full aeration grid ensures that wastewater channeling cannot occur in the gravel

layer (thus maximizing retention time and media contact). Sludge digestion in the aggregate

layer is enhanced due to aerobic conditions.

2.6.9 Funding

Current funding from MWSB was to conduct a lagoon study and prepare this EAP for the

proposed lagoon upgrades. Pending licence receipt, Melita will procure funding for final design

and construction.

2.7 STORAGE OF GASOLINE AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS

Gasoline and associated products may be temporarily used and stored at the site during

construction of the proposed lagoon upgrades. However, there is no requirement for these

products to be used or stored at the site during operation.


14

3.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1 LOCATION, PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING AND CLIMATE

The lagoon is located within an approximately 8.4 hectare parcel of land, approximately 370 m

south of the intersection of highways 3 and 83, to the southeast of Melita on the north bank of

the Souris River. Melita is located in the southwest corner of Manitoba, in the Souris River

Valley, near the Saskatchewan border, approximately 100 km southwest of Brandon.

The project area lies within the Souris Plain of the Western Upland Physiographic division. The

surface topography of the property is generally flat terrain, sloping down towards Graham Creek

and with steeper banks along the Souris River. The general elevation of the property is

approximately between 428 m and 429 m above sea level.

The project area is located within the Oak Lake Ecodistrict of the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion

that is the driest subdivision of the Grassland Transition Ecoclimate Region (5). The climate

statistics for Melita are based on data from 1994 to 2010 (6). The mean daily temperature ranges

from 19.3 °C in July to -15.4 °C in January with an annual mean of 3.2 °C and 257 day with the

daily maximum temperature above 0 °C. The average annual total precipitation is approximately

410 mm, with 320 mm falling as rain and the rest as snow. June has the highest average rainfall

(76.4 mm) and December has the highest average snowfall (22.7 cm).

3.2 GEOLOGY

3.2.1 Regional Geology

The project area lies within the Southwestern Uplands and has underlying bedrock that consists

primarily of precambrian aged felsic metavolcanic rocks, rhyolite and dacite (7). The bedrock is

overlain by a quaternary aged sequence of glacial sediments consisting of glaciofluvial

sediments and glaciolacustrine sediments, as well as some sub-glacial calcareous clay

diamicton (8).


15

The glaciofluvial sediments consist of fine sand, minor gravel, thin silt layers and clay interbeds

(subaqueous outwash fans) deposited in glacial Lake Agassiz. The glaciolacustrine sediments

consist of clay, silt and minor sand (deep water glacial Lake Agassiz sediments). The sub-

glacial clay diamicton deposits are less abundant, primarily located approximately 2 km north

and 2 km south of the town of Melita (8).

3.2.2 Local Geology

As part of the 2013 geotechnical field investigation (3), nine test holes were drilled on the top of

the lagoon dikes to provide a general soil profile including the dike materials and the dike

foundation materials. A diagnostic laboratory testing program for soil classification test was

performed on select samples to determine relevant engineering properties and to identify/verify

possible leakage conditions. A Standard Proctor test and hydraulic conductivity test was also

performed for the clayey borrow material proposed for use in the lagoon dike upgrade and liner

construction. Results of the investigation are summarized in the following paragraphs with

details provided in the Town of Melita Waste Treatment Lagoon Study (3).

The general stratigraphic conditions of the primary cell lagoon dike consist of silty and sandy

clay fill dikes overlying layers of interbedded silty and sandy clays to depths of 5.2 m to 6.1 m

from the top of the dike, followed by layers of silty and clayey sands to end of hole at 7.6 m

deep. The general stratigraphic conditions of the secondary and tertiary cell lagoon dikes

consist of silty and sandy clay fill dikes overlying layers of interbedded silty and sandy clays,

and then layers of silty and clayey sands to the end of the test hole at a depth of 7.6 m. Silty

sand layers, 0.6 m to 2.2 m thick, were encountered immediately beneath the dike/foundation

soils.

Based on the laboratory results, the borrow material proposed to be used for the lagoon dike

upgrade and liner construction is classified as ‘Sandy Lean Clay’, by the revised Unified Soil

Classification System, with a maximum dry density of 1869 kg/m3 at optimum moisture content

of 13.5%, and a measured hydraulic conductivity of 5.5x10-9 cm/sec on a Proctor sample. The

laboratory test results indicated that the source of the borrow material of sandy lean clay is

suitable for the construction of lagoon dike and the lagoon liner. Careful and close geotechnical


16

supervision will be required to ensure a homogenous and properly compacted liner is

constructed.

3.3 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY

The groundwater in the regional project area is generally between 1 and 5 m below surface and

flows towards the Souris River. Groundwater elevations at the lagoon site were determined to

be between 3.0 m and 3.1 m below surface during the geotechnical drilling investigation

conducted by KGS Group on September 18, 2013 (3).

A search of the provincial GWDrill database within the proposed project quarter sections reveals

a history of test well drilling, and establishment of at least eight (8) production groundwater

wells, installed between 1975 and 2001. Water supply wells noted in the data base within

NW31-3-26W include the Antler River/Melita Vet Clinic (2 production wells), and the Town of

Melita (2 production wells). Within NE36-3-27W, production well records were located for Antler

River School Division, Antler River Equipment (2 well records, production and recharge), and

one domestic well.

Records indicate that screened wells are installed within overburden sands and silty sands,

likely alluvial in origin. Shale bedrock is encountered generally by approximately 14 m to 23 m

below ground surface. Groundwater levels noted on the logs are typically approximately 2.4 m

to 4.6 m below existing grade. One well log indicated a flowing artesian condition within the

sands, with static water levels approximately 0.9 m above ground surface. Well capacities vary,

with typical ranges of approximately 3.5 Igpm/ft drawdown to 7.5 Igpm/ft drawdown. The lowest

capacity wells are in the 0.75 Igpm/ft drawdown to 2.0 Igpm/ft drawdown range. Water quality

appears to be generally good to moderate, with electrical conductivities in the order of

700 µS/cm to 1150 µS/cm, hardness in the range of 240 ppm to >1000 ppm, and iron in

concentrations of approximately 1.5 ppm to 5 ppm.

3.4 SURFACE WATER

The Oak Lake Ecodistrict is located within the Souris River watershed that is part of the Nelson

River drainage system (5). The lagoon property as previously noted is bounded by Graham


17

Creek on the west and the Souris River on the South and East. Run-off from the site is

controlled by ditches outside of the lagoon dikes which drain towards Graham Creek and the

Souris River. It is anticipated that the effluent will be continuously discharged from the proposed

upgraded lagoon system using the existing effluent discharge pipe into the Souris River (Photo

10).

Water Survey of Canada (WSC) measures flows at a number of locations along the Souris

River, including at the Melita (WSC Gauge 05NF001). However, the flow records at this station

are only monitored between March 1st to October 31st and the data has not been consistently

measured historically from year to year (9). As such, the data record from the Melita WSC gauge

is not sufficient to estimate low flows at this location. Rather the continuous flow record

measured by WSC on the Souris River at Wawanesa from 1954 to 2010 (WSC Gauge

05NG001) was adopted for the analysis. The recorded flows from the Wawanesa gauge were

prorated based on the ratio between the two stations’ drainage areas with a ratio of 0.81 (10).

The minimum flow each year ranged from 0 to 2.1 m3/s with an average minimum flow of 0.3

m3/s. The extreme low flows typically occur during winter (December to mid-March) although

low flows also occur during fall (September to November). The 7Q10 for this location on the

Souris River was estimated for both the annual and open water (May 15th to October 31st)

seasons as 0.018 m3/s and 0.089 m3/s, respectively. The maximum flows each year ranged

from 2.6 to 601 m3/s with an average maximum flow of 87 m3/s. Whereas, the average flows

each year range from 0.4 to 66.2 m3/s with an overall average flow of 11.5 m3/s. During the

2011 flood peak, the measured flow rates on the Souris River at Melita (Gauge 05NF001)

ranged from 476 to 759 m3/s (9).

Water quality data for the Souris River as collected by CWS, Water Quality Management

Section from 2006 to 2012 east of Melita at Highway #3 (Station MB05NFS024) and near Souris

at Highway #22 (Station MB05NGS004) is provided in Appendix D (11). Comparing the Souris

River water quality data to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME)

Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent, Effluent Quality

Standards and the MWQSOG for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life and Tier 1 Water

Quality Standards for Municipal Wastewater Effluent key findings are as follows:


18

The NH3 concentrations have ranged from 0.006 to 3.52 mg/L with an average of 0.234 mg/L. With the exception of the samples collected during December 2006 (1.29 mg/L) and January 2009 (3.52 mg/L) all of the measured concentrations were below the Effluent Quality Standard (1.25 mg/L). For the MWQSOG total ammonia limits shall not exceed a site-specific limit derived by Tier II calculations using pH and temperature.

The BOD concentrations have ranged from 1.0 to 27 mg/L with and average of 3.5 mg/L. With the exception of the sample collecting during January 2009 (27 mg/L) all of the measured concentrations were below the Effluent Quality Standard for carbonaceous BOD (CBOD; 25mg/L) and the MWQSOG for BOD (25 mg/L).

The TSS concentrations have ranged from 1.0 to 93.3 mg/L with an average of 27.8 mg/L. Approximately 40% of the samples collected and the overall average concentration exceed the Effluent Quality Standard and the MWQSOG (25 mg/L).

The E.Coli concentrations have ranged from <10 to 140 CFU/100 mL with and average of 32.5 CFU/100 mL. None of the measured concentrations exceed the MWQSOG (200 CFU/100 mL).

The TP concentrations have ranged from 0.125 to 2.71 mg/L with and average of 0.435 mg/L. With the exception of the samples collecting during January 2009 (1.04 mg/L) and July 2009 (1.57 and 2.71 mg/L) all of the measured concentrations were below the MWQSOG (1 mg/L).

The pH values have ranged from 7.62 to 9.43 pH units with and average of 8.38 pH units. With the exception of the samples collected during July 2006 (9.43 pH units) and October 2012 (9.28 pH units) all of the measured values were within the MWQSOG (6.5 to 9 pH units).

3.5 FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Mr. Wade Biggin of Manitoba CWS, Fisheries Branch, conducted a review of the FIHCS species

information for the water bodies in the project area and provided a copy of species recorded

(Appendix D) (12). In Graham Creek, fathead minnow, northern pike and white sucker are

reportedly present, although categorized as unknown. An unknown presence means the

observation was either based on someone indicating verbally that they had observed the

species there or the species was noted in a report, although there are not enough reports for the

species to be listed as common. In the Souris River there are 48 fish species reportedly present.

Most of the species are categorized as unknown, with only five common species; black

bullhead, brook stickleback, carp, common shiner and fathead minnow. While the bigmouth

shiner (unknown presence) is considered provincially uncommon (S3; 21 to 100 occurrences),


19

none of the species reportedly present are provincially rare and very rare (13) or protected under

the federal Species at Risk Act (14).

3.6 WILDLIFE, HABITAT AND VEGETATION

The project area is located within the Oak Lake Ecodistrict of the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion

and Prairie Ecozone. Historically the area largely supported mixed and short grass prairie

vegetation and meadow grasses with trembling aspen and shrubs occurring in moist areas,

although most of the natural vegetation has been disturbed through cultivation and grazing (5).

The vegetation surrounding the project area is predominantly agriculture crops (cereal grains, oil

seeds and hay crops), with riparian vegetation alongside Graham Creek and the Souris River.

The riparian vegetation consisted of typical tree species such as American elm, Manitoba maple

and willows, while the understorey showed evidence of disturbance with agricultural grasses

and weed species including smooth brome, Canada thistle and burdock. The vegetation on-site

at the existing lagoon consists mostly of mown agricultural grass (typically smooth brome) with

numerous weedy species (sow thistle and dock) and aquatic/emergent species (rush, carex and

reed grass) along the edge of the lagoon cells (Photo 1).

Terrestrial and avian wildlife and reptile/amphibian species that may be present in the project

area are those that are typical of the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion. Terrestrial species may

include; white-tail deer, coyote, red fox, ground squirrel, cottontail rabbit, hare, striped skunk,

redback vole and deer mice. Avian species may include; ferruginous hawk, sparrow hawk, red-

tailed hawk, mourning dove, black-billed magpie, red-winged blackbird, killdeer, meadowlark

and various species of ducks. Reptile and amphibian species may include; red-sided and

western plains garter snakes and various frogs. However, as the site is already disturbed as an

operating lagoon and does not provide any significant wildlife cover, it is unlikely that any wildlife

sensitive to human disturbance would be present.

The Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (MCDC) has developed a list of 126 vegetation and 46

vertebrate animal species of conservation concern that have been documented within the

Aspen Parkland ecoregion (13). Most of the listed species are globally secure and abundant, but

in Manitoba some are rare and may be vulnerable to extirpation. However, Mr. Chris Friesen of


20

CWS, MCDC completed a search of the rare species database and found no occurrences at

this time for the project area (Appendix D) (15).

3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC

Melita currently has a population of approximately 1,100 people and contains a number of

amenities and developed infrastructure including schools, a hospital, a motel, a downtown

business district, a swimming pool and golf course, and other public service facilities. As noted

previously, a new hotel is under construction and an oilfield camp is proposed for the area.

The Town of Melita had a population of 1,069 in 2011, which was a 1.7% increase since

2006 (16). Approximately 64% of the total population (15 years and over) were in the labour force

based on the 2006 census data (17). The primary industry in Melita is agriculture and resource

based industries accounting for approximately 19% of the experienced labour force, followed

closely by health care and social services (14%) and educational services (11%), while retail

trade, business services, construction, wholesale trade, finance/real estate and manufacturing

each account for less than 10% (17).

3.8 HERITAGE RESOURCES

Ms. Heather McClean of Manitoba Culture, Heritage, and Tourism, Historic Resources Branch

examined Branch records and confirmed that there are no archaeological or heritage resources

known to exist in the project area (Appendix D) (18).


21

4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

An environmental effect includes any change that the project may cause to the environment

(biological, physical, social and economic). Environmental effects were identified from

interactions between proposed project activities and environmental components. Considering

the project consists of upgrades to an existing lagoon there will be no change to socio-economic

components such as land use, public safety or aesthetics and therefore these are not discussed

in the following sections. Likewise the proposed upgrades will have a positive effect on several

components as discussed. Mitigation measures and follow-up activities were identified for

environmental effects determined to be adverse.

4.1 AIR QUALITY

Construction of the proposed lagoon upgrades may result in temporary increased fugitive dust

levels in the local area. Dust may be generated during construction activities such as placing

and shaping fill to raise the lagoon dikes as well as from vehicle and construction equipment

use along the gravel access road. It is unlikely that Manitoba’s air quality guidelines would be

exceeded during construction and any effects would be very short term. Therefore the potential

adverse effects on air quality were assessed to be minor. The effects may be mitigated by using

an approved dust suppressant such as water, controlling construction vehicle speeds, limiting

construction activities during high wind events, and re-establishing vegetation on disturbed

areas.

Increased levels of greenhouse gases and vehicle emissions may result from transporting

materials to the site and from on-site construction equipment use and increased volatile organic

carbon (VOC) levels may result from fuels and other hazardous substances used during

construction activities. During construction it is anticipated that the contractor will transport fuel

to the site using a fueling truck in order to fuel equipment on-site. The potential adverse effects

on air quality in the local area were assessed to be minor and short term in duration. However,

proposed mitigation measures include requiring a high standard of maintenance for construction

equipment and vehicles, limiting unnecessary long-term idling, using low sulphur-containing

fuels, using appropriate dispensing equipment and limiting fuelling of vehicles and equipment.


22

The proposed addition of an aeration system to the existing lagoon will reduce the potential for

generation of odours during operation. A non-aerated lagoon will typically freeze during the

winter period and the ice cover largely prevents free oxygen from entering the water, which

leads to the production of hydrogen sulphide gas by bacteria that do not require free oxygen.

After the ice melts, the gas will quickly dissipate resulting in a short term release of odours.

Whereas, the proposed aeration upgrades will continually introduce oxygen into the system

preventing the production of hydrogen sulphide gas and reducing the build-up of sludge on the

bottom of the cells. As such the proposed upgrades will have a positive effect on odours and no

mitigation measures are required.

4.2 SOILS

Soils in the project area may become contaminated during construction from leaks and

accidental spills or releases of fuels or other hazardous substances and waste. Existing soil

quality in the project area has not been tested. The potential adverse effects on soil quality were

assessed to be minor to moderate. Proposed mitigation includes preventing leaks, spills and

releases by providing secondary containment for fuel storage, requiring drip trays for equipment,

providing fuel handling training for operators, providing spill clean-up equipment and materials,

complying with provincial fuel storage and dispensing regulations, storing hazardous materials

in approved containers, providing an emergency (spill) response plan and periodic inspection for

leaks, spills and releases. If a spill should occur the contractor would be responsible to notify

Manitoba CWS Emergency Response Program (204-944-4888) and the appropriate clean-up

would be determined according to the size of spill and quantity of contamination. Small spills

could be treated on site with regular working of the soil to aerate. Larger spills, however, would

be assessed and delineated following Phase III Environmental Site Assessment standards and

a remediation program would be developed to ensure that the site is cleaned to meet Manitoba

CWS soil remediation criteria.

Soils in the area may become contaminated during operation of the lagoon from leaks or

releases of sewage. One of the purposes of this project is to upgrade the lagoon to address the

seepage from the existing tertiary cell. As part of the lagoon study a geotechnical investigation

of the existing cells was completed to ensure that the upgrades were designed and constructed,

as previously described, to prevent any future leaks. As such the proposed upgrades will have a


23

positive effect by preventing soil contamination from leaks and no further mitigation measures

are required.

4.3 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater in the project area may become contaminated during site preparation and

construction from leaks, accidental spills, or releases of fuels or other hazardous substances.

Groundwater quality at the site has not been tested for hydrocarbons. The potential adverse

effects on groundwater quality were assessed to be minor to moderate. Proposed mitigation

includes preventing leaks, spills and releases by providing secondary containment for fuel

storage, requiring drip trays for equipment, providing fuel handling training for operators,

providing spill clean-up equipment and materials, complying with provincial fuel storage and

dispensing regulations, storing hazardous materials in approved containers, providing an

emergency (spill) response plan and periodic inspection for leaks, spills and releases.

No seepage from the lagoon to groundwater is expected to occur. The geotechnical

investigation of the cells was completed, as previously noted, to ensure that the upgrades are

designed and constructed to prevent any seepage. Following the proposed upgrades the

compacted clay liner of the cells will be a minimum of 1.0 m thick. Laboratory test results of the

proposed clay borrow material indicates the soil has a permeability of 5.5x10-9 cm/sec which

meets the design criteria for the clay liner construction. The liner will meet all testing

requirements set forth by Manitoba CWS and will provide significant protection to the underlying

sand and gravel aquifer. As such the proposed upgrades will have a positive effect by

preventing groundwater contamination from seepage and no further mitigation measures are

required.

4.4 SURFACE WATER

Surface water in the project area may become contaminated during construction from leaks and

accidental spills or releases of fuels or other hazardous substances. The potential adverse

effects on water quality were assessed to be minor to moderate. Proposed mitigation includes

preventing leaks, spills and releases by providing secondary containment for fuel storage,

requiring drip trays for equipment, providing fuel handling training for operators, providing spill


24

clean-up equipment and materials, complying with provincial fuel storage and dispensing

regulations, storing hazardous materials in approved containers, providing an emergency (spill)

response plan and periodic inspection for leaks, spills and releases.

Surface water may become contaminated during operation of the lagoon from leaks (seepage)

or uncontrolled releases of sewage such as during a flood event. The purpose of this project, as

previously noted, is to upgrade the lagoon to address the seepage from the existing tertiary cell

and to raise the lagoon dikes to the revised FPL of Elev. 431.9 m (1 in 150 year flood event) as

set by the Province of Manitoba. Following the proposed upgrades the compacted clay liner of

the cells will be a minimum of 1.0 m thick, have a permeability not exceeding 1x10-7 cm/sec and

meet all testing requirements set forth by Manitoba CWS. Additionally, upgrading to the

proposed OPTAER wastewater treatment system provides a tertiary treatment system which is

better treatment of the wastewater prior to discharge of the effluent compared to the existing

system. The OPTAER system has been proven to work, as discussed in Section 2.6, ensuring

that the continuous effluent being discharged will meet the CCME Canada-wide Strategy for the

Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent, Effluent Quality Standards and the MWQSOG

Tier 1 Water Quality Standards for Municipal Wastewater Effluent. As such the proposed

upgrades will have a positive effect. Regardless, proposed mitigation includes requiring regular

maintenance of the system during operation including regular inspections for seepage.

Additionally a monitoring system will be in place to alert personnel as to irregular water levels.

4.5 FISH AND FISH HABITAT LOSS

Construction activities such as placing and shaping fill to raise the lagoon dikes can result in

wind-carried dust and exposed soils that are more easily carried away with surface water run-

off, which may increase sedimentation to nearby water bodies. Construction activities

associated with the proposed upgrades will be occurring within approximately 25 m of the

Souris River. As such, suspended sediment levels may become temporarily elevated if exposed

soil is carried into the river with surface water runoff, particularly after major precipitation events.

Elevated levels of suspended sediment can reduce water quality, which may interfere with fish

spawning, navigation, and the ability to locate food and escape predators. Settling suspended

particles can potentially smother and kill fish eggs or larvae. The potential adverse effects were

assessed to be minor. Proposed mitigation includes minimizing dust levels during construction


25

by using a dust suppressant such as water and minimizing disturbance to the riparian

vegetation along the Souris River that will act as a buffer to prevent sediment run-off.

Effluent discharged from the lagoon to the Souris River during operation could affect the water

chemistry; in particular ammonia concentrations in wastewater can be toxic to aquatic life. The

proposed lagoon upgrade will provide tertiary treatment, as previously noted, which is better

treatment of the wastewater prior to effluent discharge compared to the existing system. The

proposed upgrades will ensure that the continuous effluent being discharged will meet the

CCME Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent, Effluent

Quality Standards and the MWQSOG Tier 1 Water Quality Standards for Municipal Wastewater

Effluent. As such the proposed upgrades will have a positive effect and no further mitigation

measures are required.


Construction of the proposed lagoon upgrades will result in the loss and disturbance of primarily

mown agricultural grass and weedy species on-site, although a very small area of riparian

habitat along the Souris River may also be disturbed. The amount of vegetation disturbance is

very small relative to surrounding riparian habitat and the area already shows evidence of

disturbance. As the site is already disturbed and does not provide any significant wildlife cover,

as previously noted, it is unlikely that any wildlife sensitive to human disturbance would be

present. Additionally, the MCDC found no occurrences or rare or endangered plant and wildlife

species at the project area. As such effects on wildlife, habitat and vegetation as a result of the

project are expected to be negligible. Regardless, standard mitigation measures to implement

include minimizing loss and disturbance of vegetation and wildlife habitat by limiting area

cleared, limiting construction activities to designated and previously disturbed areas and re-

vegetating disturbed or reclaimed areas after construction.

4.7 EMPLOYMENT/ECONOMY

The proposed lagoon upgrades will create temporary construction employment opportunities

and increase the economy in the local and surrounding areas associated with purchase of

construction materials, fuel, supplies and lodgings. Additionally, the proposed upgrades have


26

more operational requirements which will require employment of a certified operator. The

potential effects of the project on employment and economy were assessed as positive. No

mitigation or follow-up has been proposed.

4.8 HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL BEING

Soil, surface water and groundwater in the project area may become contaminated during

construction activities, as previously noted, from leaks and accidental spills or releases of fuels

or other hazardous substances, which could adversely affect human health. The potential

adverse effects of the project on human health were assessed to be minor. Proposed mitigation

measures include preventing leaks, spills and releases by providing secondary containment for

fuel storage, requiring drip trays for equipment, providing spill clean-up equipment and

materials, providing fuel handling training for operators, complying with provincial fuel storage

and dispensing regulations, storing hazardous materials in approved containers, and providing

an emergency (spill) response plan.

4.9 PUBLIC AND WORKER SAFETY

The public does not have access to the existing lagoon and therefore the proposed upgrades

should not have any effect on public safety. However, the handling and storage of fuels and

hazardous materials, such as greases and lubricants, poses a threat to worker health and safety

during construction. Operational activities will typically not require the use of fuels or hazardous

materials. The potential hazard to worker safety will therefore only be for a short period and was

assessed as minor. Proposed mitigation includes providing fuel handling training for operators,

complying with provincial fuel storage and dispensing regulations, storing hazardous materials

in approved containers, complying with Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health regulations,

conducting safety briefings with workers and providing employee training.

4.10 HERITAGE RESOURCES

Ms. Heather McClean of Manitoba Culture, Heritage, and Tourism, Historic Resources Branch

examined Branch records and confirmed that there are no archaeological or heritage resources

known to exist in the project area. Therefore the potential for the project to impact


27

archaeological or heritage resources is considered negligible and no specific mitigation

measures or follow-up are proposed.


28

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Environmental management practices proposed to be employed to prevent or mitigate

environmental effects that were determined to be adverse, as described in Section 4, are

summarized in the following sections. Mitigation is defined under the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act as the elimination, reduction and control of the adverse effects of a project and

includes restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through

replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means. Mitigation measures must be

technically and economically feasible, and implemented.

5.1 AIR QUALITY

Applying an approved dust suppressant such as water, controlling construction vehicle speeds,

limiting construction activities during high wind events, and re-establishing vegetation on

disturbed areas can mitigate increased fugitive dust levels generated during construction of the

lagoon upgrades. By controlling fugitive dust levels it is unlikely that Manitoba’s air quality

guidelines would be exceeded during construction activities.

Requiring a high standard of maintenance for construction equipment and vehicles, limiting

unnecessary long-term idling, using low sulphur-containing fuels, using appropriate dispensing

equipment and limiting fuelling, can mitigate increased levels of greenhouse gases and vehicle

emissions from equipment and increased VOC levels from fuels and other substances during

construction activities.

5.2 SOILS

Preventing leaks, spills and releases by providing secondary containment for fuel storage,




response plan and periodic inspection for leaks, spills and releases can mitigate potential soil

contamination from leaks and accidental spills during construction.


29

5.3 GROUNDWATER





response plan and periodic inspection for leaks, spills and releases can mitigate potential

groundwater contamination from leaks and accidental spills during construction.

5.4 SURFACE WATER





response plan, and periodic inspection for leaks, spills and releases can mitigate potential

surface water contamination from leaks and accidental spills during construction.

Requiring regular maintenance of the proposed OPTAER wastewater treatment system

including regular inspections for seepage can mitigate potential surface water contamination

during operation. Additionally a monitoring system will be in place to alert personnel as to

irregular water levels.


Minimizing dust levels during construction by using a dust suppressant such as water and

minimizing disturbance to the riparian vegetation along the Souris River that will act as a buffer

to prevent sediment run-off can mitigate potential impacts to fish and fish habitat associated with

elevated levels of suspended sediment.


30


Limiting the area cleared during construction, limiting construction activities to designated and

previously disturbed areas and re-vegetating disturbed or reclaimed areas after construction can

minimize loss and disturbance of vegetation and wildlife habitat and mitigate effects on wildlife

and vegetation.





regulations, storing hazardous materials in approved containers, and providing an emergency

(spill) response plan can mitigate potential soil, groundwater and surface water contamination

during construction and operation that could otherwise effect human health.


Providing fuel handling training for operators, complying with provincial fuel storage and

dispensing regulations, storing hazardous materials in approved containers, complying with

Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health regulations, conducting safety briefings with workers

and providing employee training can mitigate the threat to worker health and safety during

construction.

5.9 RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The significance of residual environmental effects, the effects remaining after the

implementation of mitigation measures, was evaluated following procedures outlined in the

Canadian Standards Association Draft environmental assessment standard (19). Significance

was evaluated based on the criteria below:

Societal value of the affected environmental components – includes nature and degree of protection provided


31

Ecological value – includes rarity and uniqueness, fragility, importance within ecosystem, importance to scientific studies

Duration – length of time the project activity will last

Frequency – rate of reoccurrence of the project activity causing the effect

Geographic extent – area over which the effect will occur

Magnitude – predicted disturbance compared to existing conditions

Reversibility – time the environmental component will take to recover after the source of the effect ceases

Based on the available information on the project and the environment, the assessment of

environmental effects outlined in this environmental assessment report, and the application of

proposed mitigation measures and the conduct of required follow-up, the proposed upgrades to

the Melita Lagoon will not likely result in any significant residual adverse environmental effects.


32

6.0 FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES

Follow-up is defined under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as a program to verify

the accuracy of the environmental assessment of a project and determine the effectiveness of

measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the project. Follow-up activities

include monitoring, surveillance, inspection, and may include data collection, analysis,

evaluation, and reporting. For the proposed lagoon upgrades standard mitigation and best

practices will be applied and therefore, a formal follow-up program is not required. Monitoring of

implementation of the standard mitigation measures identified for environmental effects

determined in Section 4.0 to be adverse are described in the following sections.

6.1 AIR QUALITY

Proposed follow-up during construction involves periodic observations for fugitive dust levels,

inspections of the local area for accumulated dust, monitoring of complaints, adherence to

contract specifications, and periodic inspection for VOC sources.

6.2 SOILS

Follow-up proposed during construction includes periodic inspections of equipment and storage

containers for leaks, spills and releases, periodic observation for potential soil contamination,

monitoring of soil quality as required, and ensuring adherence to contract specifications. Follow-

up proposed during operation includes regular inspections for evidence of seepage through

lagoon dikes.

6.3 GROUNDWATER

Follow-up proposed includes periodic inspection during construction for leaks, spills and

releases, regular inspections for evidence of seepage through lagoon dikes during operation

and ensuring adherence to contract specifications.


33

6.4 SURFACE WATER

Follow-up proposed includes periodic inspection for leaks, spills and releases during

construction, regular inspections for evidence of seepage through lagoon dikes during operation

and ensuring adherence to contract specifications. To confirm effluent quality satisfies the

MWQSOG and the Effluent Quality Standards, monitoring and reporting of effluent will be

completed in accordance with the CCME Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of

Municipal Wastewater Effluent and in accordance with licence terms and conditions.


Proposed follow-up involves periodic observations during construction for fugitive dust levels,

inspections of the local area for accumulated dust and sediment run-off and adherence to

contract specifications.


Proposed follow-up during construction involves periodic observations of disturbance levels to

vegetation, periodic inspections of the local area for accumulated dust on vegetation and

adherence to contract specifications. Follow-up proposed during operation includes

maintenance of re-vegetated areas.


Follow-up proposed during construction includes periodic inspections of equipment and storage

containers for leaks, spills and releases, periodic observation for potential soil or surface water

contamination, monitoring of soil or surface water quality as required, and ensuring adherence

to contract specifications.


34


Follow-up proposed includes recording any occurrence of workplace accidents, confirming

compliance with provincial fuel storage and dispensing regulations and updating training and

safety guidelines as required.


35

7.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS

Third Party Use of Report

This report has been prepared for MWSB on behalf of the Town of Melita and any use a third

party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the

responsibility of such third parties. KGS Group accepts no responsibility for damages, if any,

suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions undertaken based on this

report.

Environmental Statement of Limitations

KGS Group prepared the environmental conclusions and recommendations for this report in a

professional manner using the degree of skill and care exercised for similar projects under

similar conditions by reputable and competent environmental consultants. The information

contained in this report is based on the information that was made available to KGS Group

during the investigation and upon the services described which were performed within the time

and budgetary requirements of the MWSB on behalf of the Town of Melita. As the report is

based on the available information, some of its conclusions could be different if the information

upon which it is based is determined to be false, inaccurate or contradicted by additional

information. KGS Group makes no representation concerning the legal significance of its

findings or the value of the property investigated.


36

8.0 REFERENCES

1. KGS Group. January 2012. Town of Melita System Capacity Analysis, Final Report.

2. KGS Group. April 2013. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment for Upgrading the Town of Melita Lagoon Dikes, Draft Report.

3. KGS Group. November 2013. Town of Melita Waste Treatment Lagoon Study, Draft Report.

4. Nelson Environmental Inc. August 2013. Preliminary Proposal For Design, Supply and Installation of OPTAER Wastewater Treatment System, Melita, Manitoba.

5. Smith, R.E., H. Veldhuis, G.F. Mills, R.G. Eilers, W.R. Fraser, and G.W. Lelyk. 1998. Terrestrial Ecozones, Ecoregions and Ecodistricts: An Ecological Stratification of Manitoba’s Natural Landscapes. Technical Bulletin 98-9E. Land Resource Unit, Brandon Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

6. Environment Canada. Canadian Climate Normals 1981-2010, Melita, Manitoba. Visited September 2013 at http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html.

7. Geological Survey of Canada. 1994. Geological Highway Map of Manitoba. Scale 1:1,000,000.

8. Matile, G.L.D and Keller, G.R., 2004. Surficial geology of the Virden Map Sheet (NTS62F), Manitoba; Manitoba Economic Development and Mines, Manitoba Geological Survey, Surficial Geology Compilation Map Series, SG-62F, scale 1:250,000.

9. Environment Canada. Water Survey of Canada. Hydrometric Data; Souris River at Melita, Station ID 05NF001. Visited October 2013 at http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/index-eng.cfm.

10. Environment Canada. Water Survey of Canada. Hydrometric Data; Souris River at Wawanesa, Station ID 05NG001. Visited October 2013 at http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/index-eng.cfm.

11. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Water Quality Management Section. September 2013. Personal Communication with Elaine Page, A/Manager.

12. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Fisheries Branch. September 2013. Personal Communication with Wade Biggin, Commercial Database Specialist.

13. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. Visited September 2013 at http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc/db.html.

14. Government of Canada. April 2012. Species at Risk Public Registry. Visited September 2013 at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.


37

15. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. September 2013. Personal Communication with Chris Friesen, Biodiversity Information Manager.

16. Statistics Canada. 2012. Melita, Manitoba (Code 0525) and Manitoba (Code 46) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Visited September 2013 at http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E.

17. Statistics Canada. 2007. Melita, Manitoba (Code4605052) (table). 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Visited September 2013 at http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E.

18. Manitoba Culture, Heritage, and Tourism, Historic Resources Branch. September 2013. Personal Communication with Heather McClean, Heritage Resources Registrar.

19. Canadian Standards Association, 1999, Preliminary Draft Standard: Environmental Assessment, produced for: The Working Group of the EIA Technical Committee, Draft #14, July 26.


FIGURES

FEBRUARY 2014

TOWN OF MELITA LAGOON MANITOBA

MANITOBA WATER SERVICES BOARD

REVISIONS / ISSUEDESCRIPTIONYY/MM/DDNO. BY

ENVIRONMENT ACT PROPOSAL SITE LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 01 0

0 + 0

0 + 100

0 + 200

0 + 300

0 + 0

0 + 10

0

0 + 200

0 + 300

0 + 400

0 + 500

0 + 600

0 + 700

0 + 0

0 + 10

0

0 + 20

0

0 + 300

0 + 400 0 + 500

MACHINERY ROW

PRIMARY CELL

TERTIARY CELL

SECONDARY CELL

ACCESS ROAD

GENERAL LOCATIONOF ASSUMEDTERTIARY CELL LEAKAGE

GRAHAM CREEK

SOURIS RIVER

83

3

431

428428428

430 428

427

430

428

428

430 430

429

428

429

428

429

428

429

427

428

429

428

429

429

428

428429

428

429

429

429

428

430

429

430

430

430

429

354800

354800

355000

355000

355200

355200

355400

355400

355600

355600

355800

355800

356000

356000

5458

200

5458

200

5458

400

5458

400

5458

600

5458

600

5458

800

5458

800

5459

000

5459

000

2

3

21

83

RM OFArthur

RM OFAlbert

RM OFBrenda

RM OFEdward

RM OFCameron

RM OFSifton

RM OFPipestone

RM OFWinchester

Melita

Hartney

Deloraine

PRELIMINARYNOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION

50 0 50 100 150

Metres

SFM14/02/030 ISSUED WITH FINAL REPORT

FileN

ame: P

:\Projects\2

013\

13-0

429-

003\

Dwg\

GIS\

MXD\

Rev0\E

AP\1

3-0429

-003

_Fig01

_Rev0.mxd

11"x17

' P

LOT SC

ALE 1

:1

LEGEND:Centreline Crest of Lagoon Dike

Access Road Centreline

River/Stream

1m Index Contour

0.25m Contour

Property Limit (Approximate)

REV:

Portions of d

ata

presented

are ow

ned

by the P

rovin

ce o

f Ma

nitoba

and a

re p

rodu

ced

under

the

licence agreem

ent with the P

rovin

ce of M

anitoba 2014

Queen's P

rinter.

Notes:1. Centerline Profile survey of access road and lagoon dikes completed by KGS Group, December 2012.2. All units are metric and in metres unless otherwise specified. Transverse Mercator Projection, NAD 1983, Zone 14. Elevations are in metres above sea level (MSL)

SCALE: METRIC 11"x17"1:4,000

10Km

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 Photograph Location


APPENDICES


APPENDIX A

CERTIFICATES OF TITLE

Box

364

_M

elita

,M

anito

baR

OM

1L0

"'P:

(204

)52

2-34

13

LI’

N'

F:(20

4)52

2-353

7to

fmel

@m

ymts

.net

ww

w.n

1elit

amb.

ca

R.F.

(Bob

)wal

kerM

AYO

RJu

lieCh

ase

ADM

INIS

TRAT

OR

Car

olyn

Por

ter

Ray

Sm

ithso

nW

illia

m(B

ill)H

olde

n_

Joce

lyn

Skel

ton

COUN

CILLO

Rco

u:~:cr

u.oa

coun

cmon

CUUN

CILLD

R

RMof

Art

hur

Box

429.

Mel

ita,M

anito

baRO

M1L

0

Janu

ary

28,2

014

RE:A

GRE

EMEN

T

Atth

eirr

egul

arm

eetin

ghe

ldJa

nuar

y27

,201

4yo

urre

solu

tion

rega

rdin

gro

adac

cess

toth

ela

goon

was

pres

ente

dto

the

Tow

nof

Mel

ita.

Coun

cilha

sap

prov

edth

ere

solu

tion

assu

bmitt

edby

your

Cou

ncil.

Enclo

sed

isa

certifie

dtru

eco

pyof

reso

lutio

n#2

014-

019

whi

chco

nfirm

sco

unci

l'sde

cisi

on.

Iha

veal

soen

clos

edtw

oco

pies

ofth

eag

reem

ent.

One

fory

outo

sign

and

keep

and

one

tosi

gnan

dre

turn

toth

eTo

wn

offic

e.

Your

stru

ly,

Tow

nof

Mel

ita

Encl

./1

'35

RESO

LUTI

ON#2

014-

019

Mov

edby

:C

ounc

illorH

olde

n

Seco

nded

by:

Cou

ncillo

rSm

ithso

n

BEIT

RESO

LVED

THAT

the

Cou

ncil

ofth

eTo

wn

ofM

elita

does

appr

ove

the

agre

emen

tbet

wee

nth

eTo

wn

ofM

elita

and

the

RMof

Arth

urre

gard

ing

the

road

acce

ssto

the

Tow

nof

Mel

itapr

oper

ty(P

lan

628

and

Parc

elA,

B&

c,Pl

an42

5)w

ithin

the

RMof

Arth

ur;

FURT

HER

BEIT

RESO

LVED

THAT

the

coun

cilo

fthe

Tow

nof

Mel

itado

esap

prov

eth

ere

solu

tion

subm

itted

and

pass

edby

the

RMof

Arth

uron

Janu

ary

20,2

014.

CARR

IED

1,.Ju

lieA.

Chas

e,C

hief

Adm

inis

trativ

eO

ffice

rfor

the

Tow

nof

Mel

itado

here

byce

rtify

that

the

abov

eis

true

copy

ofth

eor

igin

alre

solu

tion.

Dated

atMe

lita,M

anito

bathi

s28

”‘da

yofJ

anua

ry20

14.

[WJu

lie.

ase

CMMA

C.A

.To

wn

ofM

elita

RU

RAL

MU

NIC

IPA

LITYO

FAR

THU

R

RESO

LUTIO

Npassed

bycouncilthis

20thday

ofJanuary,2014.

WHERE

ASthe

Town

ofMelita

hassubm

ittedan

agreementto

theR.M

.ofArthurcounciltoincrease

theheightofthe

municipalroad

locatedon

theE

of36-3-27WPM

,toprovide

accessto

theTow

nofM

elitalagoon.

WHERE

ASthe

municipalroad

allowancerequires

tohave

athree(3)to

one(1)slope

assetoutin

theSouthw

estPlanningA

ct.

WHERE

ASthe

municipalroad

allowanceis

99feetwide,in

ordertoachieve

theappropriate

height,landw

illneedto

bepurchased.

Thisexpense

willbe

theresponsibility

oftheTow

nof

Melita.

WH

ER

EAS

theTow

nofM

elitaw

illberesponsible

for200yards

ofgravelfor

1yearafter

construction.

WHERE

ASeach

propertyownerhas

approachforaccess.

THEREFORE

itberesolved

thattheabove

conditionsbe

addedto

theagreem

ent,theReeve

andC

hiefAdministrative

Officerhave

approvaltosign

andsealthe

agreement.

Mover ’%

gec raiuQ

CarriedI,.%

{,__.;__fi_(__p__.__,.

Voted4

/!

Voted

Againest--I-Iu

l-—

uJ

l:jIu-F

'Iu--


APPENDIX B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

TOWN OF MELITA LAGOON Manitoba Environment Act Proposal

Photo 1. South view of existing lagoon site showing gravel access road, site drainage and vegetated dike of primary cell (left to right).

Photo 2. Northwest view showing site drainage around the primary cell and agricultural (fallow) land within the property boundary with Machinery Row (commercial/industrial land use) north of the site.


Photo 3. South view along Graham Creek showing typical disturbed riparian vegetation present on-site.

Photo 4. West view showing riparian vegetation along Graham Creek which defines the west property boundary followed by agricultural land use (background) west of the site.


Photo 5. Southwest view of gravel access road to the site from Highway 3 and commercial/industrial land use to the north of the site.

Photo 6. North view from the tertiary cell showing agricultural land use on the north adjacent site. The wet area in the field is believed to be evidence of seepage from the existing tertiary cell.


Photo 7. East view showing the Souris River and the riparian vegetation east adjacent the site. While not visible a gravel road is located along the high bank on the eastern shore.

Photo 8. South view of abandoned farmstead on south adjacent property showing an old house, garage/shed and miscellaneous farm vehicles and equipment.


Photo 9. South view of the Souris River and the riparian vegetation adjacent the site south of the primary cell.

Photo 10. East view of the existing effluent discharge pipe where it discharges into the Souris River east of the secondary cell.


APPENDIX C

NELSON ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

5 BURKS WAY

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

CANADA R2J 3R8

NELSON ENVIRONMENTAL INC.

Ph: (204) 949-7500

Fax: (204) 237-0660

www.nelsonenvironmental.com

RE

DU

CE

D S

IZ

E P

LO

T - D

O N

OT

S

CA

LE

PL

OT

S

IZ

E: 610m

m x 914m

m (24" x 36")

copyright © Nelson Environmental Inc., 2012

5 BURKS WAY

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

CANADA R2J 3R8


Ph: (204) 949-7500

Fax: (204) 237-0660


RE

DU

CE

D S

IZ

E P

LO

T - D

O N

OT

S

CA

LE

PL

OT

S

IZ

E: 610m

m x 914m

m (24" x 36")


5 BURKS WAY

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

CANADA R2J 3R8


Ph: (204) 949-7500

Fax: (204) 237-0660


RE

DU

CE

D S

IZ

E P

LO

T - D

O N

OT

S

CA

LE

PL

OT

S

IZ

E: 610m

m x 914m

m (24" x 36")


³

5 BURKS WAY

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

CANADA R2J 3R8


Ph: (204) 949-7500

Fax: (204) 237-0660


RE

DU

CE

D S

IZ

E P

LO

T - D

O N

OT

S

CA

LE

PL

OT

S

IZ

E: 610m

m x 914m

m (24" x 36")


Wastewater Treatment

LAGOON BASED COLD CLIMATE AMMONIA REMOVAL

OPTAER SAGR Demonstration System, Steinbach Manitoba

October 21, 2009

copyright © Nelson Environmental Inc, 2009

2 of 10

1.0 Demonstration Project Background Nutrient enrichment or eutrophication of waterways is one of the most serious water quality issues in North America. Waste water treatment plants (WWTP) are one of the main point sources contributing to excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) in lakes and rivers. For large population centres the trend has been to construct costly mechanical treatment plants. While this is an acceptable practice for large flows, smaller municipalities (particularly those with existing lagoon infrastructure) struggle with the high capital costs and excessive long term operation and maintenance costs of high intensity mechanical plants. Historically the majority of WWTP, particularly ponds or lagoons, were not designed to remove nutrients. The current trend in North America is to place ammonia-N and phosphorus restrictions on WWTP effluent, requiring WWTP to have some form of nutrient removal. New processes and upgrades to existing WWTP are a high priority to decrease the impacts of nutrient enrichment. Phosphorus removal may be achieved through chemical precipitation and filtration, while ammonia-N removal (nitrification) relies on bacterial process. The ability (and rate) of nitrifying bacteria to convert ammonia to nitrates is highly temperature dependent. This dependency presents significant performance challenges in cold climates where pond based wastewater treatment plants typically operate at 0.5 to 4 °C water temperatures. Since 1997, Nelson Environmental Inc. (NEI) has designed, supplied and implemented more than 150 biological surface water and OPTAERTM wastewater treatment systems (pond based) in both warm and cold climates. NEI Has successfully completed projects from raw water reservoir aeration systems to full "turn-key" design and implementation of large industrial wastewater treatment systems. Nelson Environmental is working together with the patent holder to adapt the patented Submerged Attached Growth Reactor (SAGR) to provide nitrification following lagoons in cold climates. The patent holder has successfully incorporated more than 100 aerated SAGRs for treating municipal and industrial wastewater, with the majority being on-site wastewater treatment systems in the northern United States. In 2007 Nelson Environmental Inc. constructed a 10,000 gallon per day (US gpd) demonstration facility in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada to establish full design flow performance data sets for cold climate nitrification (municipal wastewater) with a SAGR following primary and secondary treatment in an aerated lagoon.


3 of 10

2.0 Demonstration Project Construction Description The horizontal flow SAGR (Submerged Attached Growth Reactor) was constructed following a single cell primary/secondary aerated lagoon system at the Steinbach WWTP. The single cell aerated lagoon has lower treatment efficiency than a similarly sized multiple-cell lagoon, and was selected for the test site because effluent cBOD5 levels typically spike above 30 mg/L during the coldest periods of winter. This spike in cBOD5, not seen following a typical OPTAERTM multi-cell lagoon, allows an examination of the inhibiting effect of higher cBOD5 levels on nitrification in the SAGR process due to heterotrophic encroachment, and demonstrates the recovery rate of the process when exposed to higher cBOD5 levels concurrently with extremely low process temperatures. The SAGR contains two parallel treatment trains. Each Train consists of two aerated gravel beds in series receiving the full design flow of 5000 gpd from the aerated lagoon, at water temperatures as low as 0.5oC, Both trains receive the same source water (Lagoon effluent). Wastewater flow is collected at the end of the first bed in each train, and re-distributed across the beginning of the second zones. The intermediate sampling ports are connected to this collection piping to ensure a constant flow of water for representative sampling. Train #1 operates as a control, and is designed with the influent feed into the front of cell 1A. Influent in train #2 is fed to the front of cell 2B for a period during late summer operation (August 20 – November 19). Influent is diverted to the front of cell 2A during winter operation. The dual feed system is designed to allow biomass growth in zone 2 during the summer, when low BOD5 levels enter the bed. In winter, when BOD5 in the lagoon effluent typically rises and heterotrophic encroachment occurs, the flow is diverted to the front of zone 1, and zone 1 becomes a BOD removal zone. Nitrification continues to occur in zone 2 without being hindered by incoming BOD. A layer of insulating mulch was placed over the granular bed to prevent freezing of the inter-cell piping and treatment volume loss due to potential ice formation. See Figure 1 and 2.


4 of 10

Figure 1: SAGR Demonstration Project Layout

Figure 2: SAGR Longitudinal Section

The performance objective of the system was to achieve effluent cBOD5 and TSS levels of less than 10 mg/L, and ammonia of less than 5 mg/L in winter and 1 mg/L in summer from treatment train #2. Treatment train #1 operates as a control. Both trains will receive water from an uncovered aerated lagoon with 28 days of retention time, ensuring high BOD and high NH4 influent during cold water conditions. The selection of the influent pumping location ensures that the SAGR demonstration facility operates at full design flow and loading throughout the


5 of 10

year. In fact, the large increases in BOD5 loading observed over the winter present a more severe loading condition than would be observed in a multi-cell aerated lagoon system.

3.0 Monitoring and Testing Nine temperature loggers were installed throughout the SAGR and the influent streams, taking hourly measurements. Water sampling ports were installed at the end of each of the four (4) treatment beds and one (1) sample was collected from the influent water flow to the SAGR for a total of five (5) sample locations. All water samples were collected from the SAGR bed under normal, steady state, operational conditions. No interruptions to the process were required for sampling. All samples were collected within one day of the regular sampling day (Wednesday each week). Actual sample dates were recorded if there was any variation from the normal sample dates. Influent water was collected using an automatic composite sampler over a 24 hour period, while samples from the other (4) sites within the SAGR are grab samples, collected from the sampling ports using a peristaltic pump. Water chemistry samples were collected and delivered to an independent laboratory the same day, within 4 hours of collection. Samples were analyzed for Total Alkalinity, BOD5, cBOD5, Ammonia-N (NH4), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Nitrates, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Phosphorous (TP), Turbidity, and pH. Samples were also tested for Total and Fecal Coliforms, and E.Coli. Influent to the SAGR bed is pumped from the primary / secondary aerated lagoon at the Steinbach WWTP. The influent flow rate is controlled by a throttling valve, which was calibrated using a timed bucket test. All influent water passes through a cumulative flow water meter. Flow meter readings were recorded every week when samples were taken. The influent flow rate was tested periodically to ensure that the flow rate remained unchanged. The frequency of sampling is described in tabular form below (Table 1). This sampling program continued through the winter, with minor changes.


6 of 10

Table 1. Demonstration Project Sampling Frequency

Water Analysis Locations Frequency # of Samples/Year

1 cBOD5 5 weekly 260

2 BOD5 5 weekly 260

3 Ammonia-N (NH4-N) 5 weekly 260

4 TKN 5 weekly 260

5 Total Nitrogen 5 weekly 260

6 Nitrates 5 weekly 260

7 Total Alkalinity 5 monthly 60

8 Total Suspended Solids 5 weekly 260

9 Total Phosphorous 3 monthly 36

10 pH 5 weekly 260

11 Turbidity 2 weekly 104

12 Total Coliform 3 bi-weekly 78

13 Fecal Coliform 3 bi-weekly 78

14 E.Coli. 3 bi-weekly 78

15 Temperature 9 hourly (using loggers) 78840

4.0 Performance Results The SAGR train #2 dual feed system was operated from September 3 to November 19, 2008 in order to establish a population of nitrifying bacteria in the second treatment zone. Train #1 received influent to zone 1A during this time. After November 19, both trains received influent to the first zones. Fig. 3 displays the concentrations of cBOD5, ammonia and temperatures measured in the SAGR influent and effluent streams of both treatment trains. The missing cBOD5 values on November 26, 2008 were the result of laboratory quality control failures. The missing influent cBOD5 on March 4, 2009 was the result of a contaminated sample.


7 of 10

Figure 3. SAGR influent and effluent cBOD and NH4-N concentrations (mg/L) and water temperature

Note 1: The detection limit of the cBOD5 analysis is <2 mg/L. Therefore all results reported as <2 are recorded as 1.9

mg/L in this data set.

Note 2: The detection limit of the ammonia (NH4-N) analysis is <0.05 mg/L. Therefore all results reported as <0.05

mg/L are recorded as 0.04 mg/L.


8 of 10

Figure 4. SAGR Following Aerated Lagoon – TKN and Nitrates (mg/L)

Figure 5. SAGR Following Aerated Lagoon – Total Nitrogen (mg/L)


9 of 10

Figure 6. SAGR Following Aerated Lagoon – Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Figure 7. SAGR Following Aerated Lagoon – Total and Fecal Coliform


10 of 10

5.0 Conclusion The performance of the SAGR is exceeding expectations. Several conclusions can be drawn following year two of testing.

1. The Steinbach SAGR demonstration facility has shown that a properly designed SAGR can provide full Ammonia removal after a lagoon in cold climate. Effluent Ammonia and cBOD5 from an uncovered lagoon followed by a SAGR were below detection through much of the winter.

2. A dual feed system is necessary to provide full nitrification when fluctuating cBOD5 levels follow an aerated lagoon with water temperatures below 0.5oC.

3. Insulated covers on the lagoon are not necessary to achieve full nitrification with a

SAGR in cold climates.

4. Controlling cBOD5 entering the SAGR is important for overall performance. Heterotrophic bacteria will out-compete the nitrifiers in the first portions of the SAGR bed, inhibiting nitrification in the SAGR. Bacterial populations within the bed will adjust to higher cBOD loading over time, but at very cold water temperatures, there is a time lag, evidenced by a short term increase in ammonia in the effluent.

5. The SAGR effectively polishes secondary wastewater effluent. Effluent cBOD5 levels were below 5 mg/l in the SAGR effluent regardless of the season.

6. Effluent TSS levels were below 10 mg/l and typically below detection.

7. While not designed to disinfect effluent, the SAGR has been observed to reduce coli-forms by approximately 99.9%

Traditionally when nutrient removal has been required, lagoon infrastructure has been abandoned in favor of mechanical treatment plants with not only massive capital cost implications but significant long term operation and maintenance costs. The successful demonstration of nutrient removal with a lagoon based wastewater treatment system can present significant long term cost savings for many small to medium sized communities.

6.0 On-going Research The Steinbach SAGR Demonstration site will remain in operation until the spring of 2010. A second SAGR demonstration site, which follows a 3-cell OPTAER™ aerated lagoon system, has been constructed in Lloydminster, SK. The system was put into full operation in the spring of 2009.

Disinfection White Paper - Submerged Attached Growth Reactor (SAGR)

Introduction The Submerged Attached Growth Reactor (SAGR) was developed to provide nitrification and BOD/TSS polishing in cold to moderate climates. Disinfection was not a design goal; however, data from numerous sites across North America have shown that the SAGR process provides a significant level of disinfection. This report summarizes disinfection data from four (4) different SAGR projects across Canada.

Case Studies

i. Steinbach, MB (Design flow: 37 m3/day)

Background In 2007, a pilot SAGR was commissioned in Steinbach, Manitoba with the objective of collecting performance data year round (winter and summer). Steinbach is located in central Canada and typically experiences some of the coldest winters of any urban settlement in North America. The SAGR was constructed following a single cell secondary treatment aerated lagoon. This cell has low treatment efficiency and was selected for the test site because effluent

cBOD5 levels typically spike above 40 mg/L during the coldest periods of winter. The cBOD5 spikes in the Steinbach lagoon allowed

an examination of the inhibiting effect of higher cBOD5 levels on nitrification in the SAGR process due to heterotrophic encroachment. It also demonstrated the recovery rate of the process when exposed to higher cBOD5 levels concurrently with extremely low process temperatures.

Figure 1 Steinbach, SAGR Pilot was in operation from 2007-2010

SAGR Disinfection Report copyright © Nelson Environmental Inc, 2013

Page 2 of 8

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

18-D

ec-0

8

11-J

an-0

9

4-Fe

b-0

9

28-F

eb-0

9

24-M

ar-0

9

17-A

pr-

09

11-M

ay-0

9

4-Ju

n-0

9

28-J

un

-09

22-J

ul-

09

15-A

ug-

09

8-Se

p-0

9

2-O

ct-0

9

26-O

ct-0

9

19-N

ov-

09

13-D

ec-0

9

6-Ja

n-1

0

30-J

an-1

0

23-F

eb-1

0

MP

N /

10

0 m

L

Steinbach SAGR: (E.Coli)

SAGR West Train E.Coli SAGR Influent E.Coli

Performance Data

Figure 2 Steinbach SAGR Effluent: E.Coli Data (2008-2012)

Figure 3 Steinbach SAGR Effluent: Total Coliform Data (2008-2012)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

18-D

ec-0

8

15-J

an-0

9

12-F

eb-0

9

12-M

ar-0

9

9-A

pr-

09

7-M

ay-0

9

4-Ju

n-0

9

2-Ju

l-0

9

30-J

ul-

09

27-A

ug-

09

24-S

ep-0

9

22-O

ct-0

9

19-N

ov-

09

17-D

ec-0

9

14-J

an-1

0

11-F

eb-1

0

MP

N /

10

0 m

L

Steinbach SAGR: (Total Coliform)

Total Coliform (MPN) - SAGR West Train Total Coliform (MPN) -SAGR Influent


Page 3 of 8

Figure 4 Steinbach SAGR Effluent: Fecal Coliform Data (2008-2010)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

18-D

ec-0

8

15-J

an-0

9

12-F

eb-0

9

12-M

ar-0

9

9-A

pr-

09

7-M

ay-0

9

4-Ju

n-0

9

2-Ju

l-0

9

30-J

ul-

09

27-A

ug-

09

24-S

ep-0

9

22-O

ct-0

9

19-N

ov-

09

17-D

ec-0

9

14-J

an-1

0

11-F

eb-1

0

MP

N /

10

0 m

L

Steinbach SAGR: (Fecal coliform)

Fecal Coliform (MPN) -SAGR West Train Fecal Coliform (MPN) - SAGR Influent


Page 4 of 8

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

1-Ju

n-0

8

15-A

ug-

08

29-O

ct-0

8

12-J

an-0

9

28-M

ar-0

9

11-J

un

-09

25-A

ug-

09

8-N

ov-

09

22-J

an-1

0

7-A

pr-

10

21-J

un

-10

4-Se

p-1

0

18-N

ov-

10

1-Fe

b-1

1

17-A

pr-

11

1-Ju

l-1

1

14-S

ep-1

1

28-N

ov-

11

11-F

eb-1

2

26-A

pr-

12

10-J

ul-

12

E. C

oli,

CFU

/10

0 m

L

Lloydminster SAGR: (E.Coli)

SAGR Effluent E. Coli SAGR Influent E.Coli

ii. Lloydminster, SK (Design flow: 110 m3/day)

Background In 2008, a second SAGR demonstration facility was built in the city of Lloydminster, Sk. The city wastewater treatment facility consists of three (3) partial mix aerated lagoons operating in series. The system received municipal wastewater with an industrial component. The Lloydminster SAGR consists of a single horizontal flow aerated gravel bed, divided into four (4) zones, operated in series. The zones provided the ability to have multiple water quality sample points throughout the SAGR

to determine the actual reaction rates in different areas of the SAGR.

Performance Data

Figure 6 Lloydminster SAGR Effluent: E.Coli Data (2008-2012)

Figure 5 Lloydminster Demonstration SAGR was in operation from 2008-2012


Page 5 of 8

Figure 7 Lloydminster SAGR Effluent: Total Coliform Data (2008-2012)

Figure 8 Lloydminster SAGR Effluent: UV Transmittance Data (2009-2012)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

6-Ju

l-0

9

25-A

ug-

09

14-O

ct-0

9

3-D

ec-0

9

22-J

an-1

0

13-M

ar-1

0

2-M

ay-1

0

21-J

un

-10

10-A

ug-

10

29-S

ep-1

0

18-N

ov-

10

7-Ja

n-1

1

26-F

eb-1

1

17-A

pr-

11

6-Ju

n-1

1

26-J

ul-

11

14-S

ep-1

1

3-N

ov-

11

23-D

ec-1

1

11-F

eb-1

2

1-A

pr-

12

21-M

ay-1

2

10-J

ul-

12

%U

V T

ran

smit

tan

ce

Lloydminster SAGR: (UV Transmittance)

SAGR Effluent UVT

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

1-Ju

n-0

8

15-A

ug-

08

29-O

ct-0

8

12-J

an-0

9

28-M

ar-0

9

11-J

un

-09

25-A

ug-

09

8-N

ov-

09

22-J

an-1

0

7-A

pr-

10

21-J

un

-10

4-Se

p-1

0

18-N

ov-

10

1-Fe

b-1

1

17-A

pr-

11

1-Ju

l-1

1

14-S

ep-1

1

28-N

ov-

11

11-F

eb-1

2

26-A

pr-

12

10-J

ul-

12

Tota

l Co

lifo

rm, C

FU/1

00

mL

Lloydminster SAGR: (Total Coliform)

SAGR Influent Total Coliform SAGR Effluent Total Coliform


Page 6 of 8

iii. Glencoe, Ontario (Design flow: 1742 m3/day)

Background In 2011, the Glencoe WWTP was upgraded from the existing two-cell facultative lagoon system to an aerated continuous discharge lagoon system. This required the effluent quality to meet permit requirements on a year round basis. The cell was divided into three cells using geomembrane floating baffle curtains. Fine bubble diffused aeration was implemented in the portioned cells to achieve improved year

round BOD & TSS removal. The SAGR

process was installed to provide post lagoon nitrification (ammonia removal), followed by disk filters with chemical addition for phosphorus removal.

Performance Data

Figure 10 Glencoe SAGR Effluent: E.Coli Data (2012)

1

10

100

1000

26-M

ar

23-A

pr

21-M

ay

18-J

un

16-J

ul

13-A

ug

10-S

ep

8-O

ct

5-N

ov

3-D

ec

31-D

ec

CFU

/ 1

00

mL

Glencoe SAGR: (E.Coli)

SAGR Effluent

Initial Startup Period

Figure 9 Glencoe SAGR


Page 7 of 8

iv. Perth, Ontario (Design flow: 100 m3/day)

Background In late fall of 2012, a SAGR demonstration site was constructed to address water quality and hydraulic capacity issues at the Perth sewage lagoons. The existing system consists of three (3) facultative lagoon cells discharging continuously to the Tay River. The SAGR was constructed within the existing 4th cell (dry cell). Two differently sized SAGR trains were constructed to optimize the process for specific site conditions. Wastewater is pumped into the SAGR from the Cell 2/3 transfer manhole, and the SAGR effluent discharged back into the 3rd cell near the existing outfall.

Performance Data

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

CFU

/ 1

00

mL

Perth SAGR: E.Coli

SAGR - Influent SAGR - Effluent

Figure 12 Perth SAGR Effluent: E.Coli Data (2012-2013)

Figure 11 SAGR beds in Perth, ON


Page 8 of 8

Figure 13 Perth SAGR Effluent: Total Coliform (2012-2013)

Conclusion The SAGR is designed to provide nitrification and BOD/TSS polishing in cold to moderate climates. Disinfection was never a design goal; however, the data presented from numerous sites across North America shows that the SAGR process generally provides a marked reduction in both total coliform and E. coli.

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

100000000

CFU

/ 1

00

mL

Perth SAGR: Total Coliform

SAGR - Influent SAGR - Effluent

Case Study: Post Lagoon Nitrification

Location: Shellbrook, Saskatchewan (Canada) Project Type: Municipal Wastewater Treatment Completion Date: March 2012 Treatment Objectives:

Design Flow: 822 m3/day (0.217 MGD)

Effluent quality: <15mg/L cBOD5 / TSS, <1.0mg/L TP, <1/5mg/L TAN (summer/winter)

Project Background/Challenges The Town of Shellbrook is a rural community in Northern Saskatchewan with nearly 1,300 residents. Like many other small communities faced with the challenge of an aging lagoon-based wastewater treatment facility and increasingly stringent regulations, the Town of Shellbrook was evaluating options to upgrade its wastewater treatment facility. The Town’s objective was to treat its wastewater to the standards set by the CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), which Saskatchewan Environment was in the process of adopting. The desired solution would bring cBOD5/TSS levels under 15 mg/L as well as provide effective ammonia and phosphorus removal on a year round basis.

Nelson Environmental Inc. Solution Nelson Environmental Inc. designed a continuous discharge, 3-cell aerated lagoon system followed by a SAGR® (Submerged Attached Growth Reactor) module and two parallel sand filters. Designed for cold water treatment, the horizontal flow SAGR® removes ammonia through nitrification (conversion of ammonia to nitrates) and provides BOD5 & TSS polishing. The subsequent filtration and effluent treatment with alum addition ensures effective phosphorous removal. Started up in the spring of 2012, the SAGR® system was able to reduce effluent TAN from 24 mg/L to 0.01 mg/L within two weeks of commissioning. Implementation of NEI’s OPTAER/SAGR® system in Shellbrook demonstrates the cost-effective approach of a lagoon based treatment facility combined with the reliable effluent quality produced by the SAGR® process.

Shellbrook, SK Case Study copyright © Nelson Environmental Inc, 2012

Page 2 of 2

Figure 1 OPTAER

® aerated lagoons provide oxygen and mixing for BOD, TSS removal, and organic sludge

digestion.

Figure 2 SAGR following aerated lagoons for ammonia removal, BOD & TSS polishing

Case Study: Post Lagoon Nitrification for First Nation Community

Location: Long Plain, Manitoba (Canada) Project Type: Municipal Wastewater Treatment Completion Date: June 2012 Treatment Objectives:

Design Flow: 998 m3/day (0.264 MGD)

Effluent quality: <10 mg/L cBOD5/TSS, <1.0/5.0mg/L TAN (summer/winter),

<1.0mg/L TP

Project Background/Challenges Long Plain was similar to many other first nation communities that are faced with aging wastewater treatment facilities. Many of these treatment facilities are overloaded, expensive to operate, and no longer meet federal regulations. Small communities also struggle to retain the trained personnel required to operate complex treatment systems. With high population growth and aging infrastructure, Long Plain required an upgrade to meet current water quality regulations.

Nelson Environmental Inc. Solution A two - cell, partial mix aerated lagoon based system was constructed on a green-field site. The SAGR® (Submerged Attached Growth Reactor) process was installed to provide nitrification (ammonia removal); two vertical flow, continuous backwash sand filters with alum addition were implemented for final polishing and phosphorous removal. The water quality produced by the system allows for continuous discharge to the Assiniboine River. Long Plain First Nation now has an operator-friendly, technologically advanced wastewater treatment system capable of handling the increasing population. The system will meet federal wastewater regulations, is environmentally responsible, and puts the Long Plain First Nation at the forefront of small community wastewater treatment in Canada.

Long Plain First Nation, MB Case Study copyright © Nelson Environmental Inc, 2012

Page 2 of 2

Figure 1 Vertical flow continuous backwash sand filter for TP removal

Figure 2 Submerged Attached Growth Reactor for post lagoon nitrification

Case Study: Post- Lagoon Nitrification

Location: Glencoe, Ontario Project Type: Municipal Wastewater Treatment Completion Date: March 2011 Treatment Objectives:

Design flow: 1742 m3/day

Effluent Quality: <1.0/<3.0 mg/L Summer/Winter TAN

<10 mg/L BOD5, <10mg/L TSS & 0.3 mg/L TP

Project Background/ Challenges The WWTP serving the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex consisted of two facultative wastewater treatment lagoons that were constructed in 1975. The lagoons were designed for seasonal discharge (early spring & late fall). As of 2005, the facility was operating at maximum hydraulic loading. In order to increase capacity without constructing additional lagoons, the process was converted from seasonal to continuous discharge. This required the effluent quality to meet permit requirements on a year round basis.

Nelson Environmental Inc. Solution Nelson Environmental Inc.’s (NEI) OPTAER® wastewater treatment with a SAGR® for nitrification was implemented as an upgrade to the facility. With a design flow capacity of 1742 m3/day the upgraded system has nearly twice the maximum hydraulic capacity of the previous design. The capacity increase will meet future demands based on a 30 year design life. The added capacity also creates room for surrounding communities to tie into the system, including the hamlets of Appin and Melbourne.

Figure 1 Aeration System Showing Floating Laterals

Glencoe, Ontario Case Study copyright © Nelson Environmental Inc, 2012

Page 2 of 2

Of the two previous facultative treatment lagoons, only one is in operation. The eastern facultative cell was taken offline, leaving it for use as a storage facility when needed (e.g. maintenance or bypass of the western treatment cell). The western cell was divided into three cells using geomembrane floating baffle curtains to divert flow and effectively maximize the hydraulic retention time by preventing short circuiting. OPTAER® fine bubble diffused aeration was implemented in the portioned cells to achieve improved year-round BOD5 and TSS removal through bacterial degradation and solids settling. Lagoon based treatment systems provide some ammonia removal (nitrification) during the summer months, but are generally incapable of meeting low ammonia limits during prolonged periods of low water temperatures. The SAGR® (Submerged Attach Growth Reactor) tertiary treatment system with FBA® LINEAR Aeration was developed to address this issue. The Glencoe treatment facility consists of two SAGR® beds. The SAGR® process is followed by disc filters with a chemical addition for phosphorus removal.

Upgraded System Performance Glencoe’s OPTAER® based wastewater treatment (with a SAGR®) is able to consistently meet ammonia effluent limits of <1.0 mg/L in summer, and <3.0 mg/L in winter with water temperatures as low as 0.5°C. As an added benefit, the SAGR® process provides BOD5 and TSS polishing to <10/10 mg/L on a consistent basis. In addition to increased capacity and improved effluent quality, the overall footprint of the facility was decreased by approximately half which allows for future expansion without a footprint increase. The components and design approach for the Glencoe Wastewater Treatment demonstrates the ability to increase hydraulic capacity and provide nutrient removal in a lagoon based process. The current design also maximizes the use of existing lagoon infrastructure and maintains low operation and maintenance costs.

Figure 2 The SAGR provides post lagoon nitrification without abandoning the existing infrastructure.


APPENDIX D

GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE

1

Shaun Moffatt

From: Page, Elaine (CWS) [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:21 PMTo: [email protected]: Souris River - Water Quality Data RequestAttachments: Souris River Water Quality Data.xlsx; SMoffatt.September 12 2013.doc

Hi Shaun. Please see attached for the water quality data request for the Souris River. As I mentioned on our call, there are three active water quality monitoring stations on the Souris River ‐ these stations are located at Melita, Souris, and Wawanesa. The Melita station would be the most relevant for your intended application, but I have included the other two water quality stations for comparison. The water quality stations located at Melita and Souris are monitored on a quarterly basis and the water quality station located at Wawanesa is monitored on a monthly basis. We initiated water quality monitoring at the Melita and Souris stations in 2006, so I have included all relevant data since 2006 at all three stations. Note that we increased our sampling frequency in 2011 at the Melita and Wawanesa stations in response to the flood. Also note that the water quality station at Wawanesa was formerly located at Treesbank (1973 to June 2011). However, the bridge at Treesbank was washed out during the flood of 2011 and the station was relocated to Wawanesa. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions with respect to these data or if you require any further information. Thanks, Elaine Elaine Page A/Manager Water Quality Management Section Water Science and Management Branch Manitoba Conseravtion and Water Stewardship Suite 160, 123 Main Street Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1A5 Phone: (204) 945-5344 Fax: (204) 948-2357

September 12, 2013 Shaun Moffatt KGS Group 3rd Floor – 865 Waverley St. Winnipeg, MB R3T 5P4

WATER QUALITY DATA: Souris River Data Request

In accordance with your request, please find attached water quality data for the above mentioned water bodies. Should these data be used in a report, technical manuscript, or other document, would you please reference as follows:

Water Quality Management Section 2013 Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship 123 Main Street, Suite 160 Winnipeg MB R3C 1A5

Although we have taken all reasonable measures to ensure that the enclosed data are correct and free of errors, it is recommended that you review these data carefully in the context of your intended application. Please direct any requests for these data from a third party to the undersigned.

Should you have any questions with regard to this information or identify data that may be anomalous, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address, by calling (204) 945-5344, Toll Free at 1-800-282-8069 (5344), or e-mail at [email protected]. Sincerely, Elaine Page Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship

Conservation and Water Stewardship Water Science and Management Branch Suite 160, 123 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 1A5 T 204-945-5344 F 204-948-2357 www.manitoba.ca/waterstewardship

AMMONIA (NH3)

CARBON TOTAL

INORGANIC

CARBON TOTAL

ORGANIC (CALCD_)

CARBON TOTAL

COLOUR TRUE

CONDUCTIVITY (AT 25C)

E_ COLI

HARDNESS TOTAL

(CALCD_) CACO3

NITROGEN DISSOLVED NO3 & NO2

NITROGEN TOTAL

KJELDAHL (TKN)

OXYGEN BIOCHEMICAL DEMAND

OXYGEN DISSOLVED

PHOSPHOROUS‐TOTAL‐ACID

REACTIVE

PHOSPHOROUS‐TOTAL‐ORTHO

PHOSPHORUS

DISSOLVED ORTHO

PHOSPHORUS PARTICULATE (CALCD_)

PHOSPHORUS

TOTAL (P)

PHOSPHORUS TOTAL DISSOLVED

PHOSPHORUS TOTAL INORGANIC

PHTOTAL

DISSOLVED SOLIDS

TOTAL SUSPENDED

SOLIDSTURBIDITY

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CU US/CMCFU/100

mLMG/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L MG/L pH units

MG/L @180C

mg/L Ntu

2006 7 26 <0.01 46 34 80 52 1300 307 0.12 4.1 7.5 0.444 0.532 0.088 9.43 960 39 282006 8 30 0.06 69 41 110 82 1580 325 <0.01 4.3 5.7 0.271 0.598 0.327 8.98 1150 43 18.62006 12 14 1.29 125 21 146 44 1810 519 0.2 4.7 7.6 0.162 0.445 0.283 7.86 1180 7 5.42007 5 9 0.04 56 17 72 20 968 303 0.01 2 5 11.2 0.043 0.174 0.304 0.13 8.55 592 21 112007 10 15 0.04 73 22 95 49 1470 383 <0.01 2.6 3 9.2 0.024 0.089 0.145 0.056 8.54 1060 16 13.22008 1 22 1.18 135 26 161 38 2640 <10 748 <0.01 3.8 4 1.6 0.138 0.26 0.415 0.155 7.69 1420 6 9.72008 4 29 0.06 39 11 50 17 721 262 <0.01 2.26 5 13 0.029 0.06 0.141 0.081 8.92 471 22 9.62008 7 22 0.05 68 26 94 33 1780 471 <0.01 2.7 4 7 0.21 0.105 0.33 0.225 8.97 1270 13 8.42008 10 7 0.07 100 42 143 54 1940 424 <0.01 3.3 7 8.1 0.036 0.162 0.305 0.143 8.77 1280 32 11.52009 1 20 3.52 173 39 212 54 2880 <10 763 0.28 9.6 27 0.3 0.434 0.752 1.04 0.288 7.7 1900 28 15.82009 4 16 0.146 30.9 18 48.9 60 450 <10 156 0.139 1.87 5.8 7.9 0.181 0.079 0.345 0.221 0.3 8.26 296 83 402009 7 14 0.055 70.5 21.1 91.5 60 998 <10 323 0.018 1.45 1.2 7.1 0.203 1 2.71 1.71 2.71 8.78 726 8 62009 10 6 0.16 102 22.8 124 60 1480 61 401 0.108 2.14 2 8.2 0.205 0.004 0.264 0.224 0.228 8.53 1040 21 242010 1 19 0.16 180 31.8 211 60 2370 <10 729 0.127 2.51 1.8 2.7 0.142 0.019 0.191 0.172 0.191 7.99 1690 8 9.62010 4 15 0.0188 43.8 17.7 61.5 60 681 <10 251 <0.006 2.33 7.5 9 0.0199 0.15 0.349 0.0515 0.201 8.55 478 54 33.92010 7 5 0.0589 69.3 21.4 90.7 75 990 346 0.021 1.79 1.9 4.7 0.386 <0.003 0.494 0.422 0.479 8.26 690 31 13.92010 10 7 0.0376 82.3 17.7 100 30 1250 70 378 <0.006 1.75 1.6 1.6 0.132 0.063 0.207 0.144 0.171 8.62 884 27 14.42011 1 11 0.422 125 23.3 148 28.1 1620 <10 637 0.294 1.95 1.5 1.8 0.183 0.06 0.224 0.164 0.215 8.04 1310 12 4.782011 4 11 0.142 38.2 15.2 53.4 71 583 40 196 0.45 1.88 5.6 9.4 0.253 0.17 0.403 0.233 0.358 8.08 366 77 34.12011 6 28 0.107 48.2 20.4 68.6 776 20 0.108 1.74 2.1 0.385 0.057 0.532 0.475 0.48 8.05 102011 6 30 0.147 56 18.7 74.8 792 0.063 1.77 1.7 0.383 0.026 0.536 0.51 0.517 8.04 692011 7 7 0.078 56 17.8 73.8 798 <10 <0.05 1.72 1.4 0.331 0.436 0.44 0.407 8.13 182011 7 12 0.153 20.6 10.1 30.8 735 10 <0.05 1.68 2.4 0.414 0.076 0.601 0.525 0.5 8.06 82011 7 19 0.146 53.7 18.2 71.9 701 10 0.194 1.29 2.1 0.485 0.015 0.569 0.554 0.581 8.04 72011 7 21 0.186 52.9 18.2 71.1 700 <10 0.196 2 1.6 0.572 0.038 0.623 0.585 0.58 8.13 82011 7 26 0.094 56.2 18.3 74.5 710 <10 0.234 1.97 2.8 0.568 0.066 0.618 0.552 0.58 8.45 162011 7 28 0.083 56.2 17.8 74.1 698 10 0.057 1.98 1.4 0.437 0.032 0.516 0.484 0.473 8.22 202011 8 4 0.101 60 18.9 78.9 713 <10 0.087 1.89 2.6 0.484 0.091 0.771 0.68 0.741 8.48 202011 8 11 0.078 63 18.5 81.5 730 <10 0.09 1.6 2.7 0.641 0.063 0.702 0.639 0.687 8.19 102011 8 18 0.073 64.2 19.2 83.4 760 <10 <0.05 2.1 1.8 0.543 0.084 0.618 0.534 0.61 8.28 712011 8 25 0.027 68.5 19.5 88 763 <10 <0.05 1.88 2.1 0.501 0.035 0.57 0.535 0.535 8.3 232011 9 1 0.066 73.7 18.8 92.5 876 10 <0.05 2.11 2.3 0.475 0.081 0.584 0.503 0.57 8.27 272011 10 13 0.04 79.9 17.3 97.2 40.5 1000 10 330 <0.05 2.27 3.7 8.4 0.145 0.156 0.284 0.128 0.226 8.55 736 93.3 51.32012 1 24 0.028 106 18.4 125 27.5 1310 <10 591 0.178 2.18 3.2 11.6 0.054 0.076 0.141 0.065 0.115 8.4 1010 13 10.52012 4 16 0.018 48.9 16.4 65.4 24.1 929 <10 <0.05 1.74 4.9 9.3 0.078 0.064 0.13 0.066 0.141 8.3 672 36 22.82012 7 3 0.091 81.4 19.6 101 40 1390 <10 1.91 1.9 5.7 0.274 0.059 0.375 0.316 0.38 8.65 1090 53 26.92012 10 4 0.126 54.3 25.5 79.8 43.1 1660 <10 0.226 2.8 2.8 8.9 0.331 0.076 0.384 0.308 0.343 9.28 1180 35 30.5

WATER QUALITY IN THE SOURIS RIVER EAST OF MELITA ON HWY#3 (STATION NO. MB05NFS024)

YEAR MONTH DAY

AMMONIA (NH3)

CARBON TOTAL

INORGANIC

CARBON TOTAL

ORGANIC (CALCD_)

CARBON TOTAL

COLOUR TRUE

CONDUCTIVITY (AT 25C)

E_ COLI

HARDNESS TOTAL

(CALCD_) CACO3

NITROGEN DISSOLVED NO3 & NO2

NITROGEN TOTAL

KJELDAHL (TKN)

OXYGEN BIOCHEMICAL DEMAND

OXYGEN DISSOLVED

PHOSPHOROUS‐TOTAL‐ACID

REACTIVE

PHOSPHOROUS‐TOTAL‐ORTHO

PHOSPHORUS

DISSOLVED ORTHO

PHOSPHORUS PARTICULATE (CALCD_)

PHOSPHORUS

TOTAL (P)

PHOSPHORUS TOTAL DISSOLVED

PHOSPHORUS TOTAL INORGANIC

PHTOTAL

DISSOLVED SOLIDS

TOTAL SUSPENDED

SOLIDSTURBIDITY

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CU US/CMCFU/100

mLMG/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L MG/L pH units

MG/L @180C

mg/L Ntu

2006 7 26 <0.01 73 24 97 44 1240 389 <0.01 3.9 11.2 0.326 0.412 0.086 8.92 907 30 25.82006 8 30 0.25 73 28 101 65 1380 345 0.03 3.3 5.7 0.079 0.807 0.728 8.43 967 21 19.42006 12 14 0.18 111 25 136 37 1720 465 0.05 2.7 7.5 0.05 0.13 0.08 8.21 1190 6 62007 5 9 0.04 51 16 67 29 1030 325 0.02 1.3 2 8.1 0.069 0.061 0.165 0.104 8.32 668 10 7.82007 10 15 0.04 72 14 86 38 1170 386 <0.01 1.7 3 11 0.063 0.081 0.134 0.053 8.44 839 6 5.92008 1 22 0.86 135 23 158 39 1980 <10 734 0.49 3 2 3.7 0.145 0.06 0.195 0.135 7.66 1870 1 4.72008 4 29 0.06 62 13 74 17 1350 433 <0.01 1.6 3 10.7 0.014 0.061 0.127 0.066 8.53 931 11 6.12008 7 22 0.28 67 28 95 33 1600 521 0.01 3.2 8 8 0.174 0.065 0.279 0.214 8.8 1170 4 3.42008 10 7 0.06 80 32 112 23 1780 444 <0.01 2.1 1 7.8 0.055 0.029 0.125 0.096 8.74 1200 8 1.82009 1 20 0.93 132 28 160 32 1880 <10 588 0.16 2.6 2 1.9 0.239 0.071 0.32 0.249 7.62 1290 3 3.52009 4 16 0.118 24.4 17.5 41.9 60 311 10 119 0.148 1.65 4.3 8.6 0.182 0.118 0.333 0.22 0.338 8.21 210 65 352009 7 14 0.056 72.5 19.3 91.9 60 993 <10 336 0.0406 1.32 <1 6.8 0.277 <0.001 1.57 1.62 1.57 8.62 744 6 6.92009 10 6 0.0058 102 22.5 124 60 1460 10 412 0.17 1.9 2 8 0.227 0.02 0.304 0.265 0.285 8.57 936 7 8.52010 1 19 0.437 132 20.5 153 40 1700 <10 555 0.338 2.01 1.1 3.4 0.127 0.028 0.162 0.134 0.162 7.95 1200 <5 7.72010 4 15 0.0228 41.1 15.6 56.8 60 621 <10 227 <0.006 1.71 5.8 10.4 0.0483 0.089 0.268 0.074 0.163 8.52 432 42 19.52010 7 5 0.0823 60.4 26.6 87 50 939 326 0.0532 1.84 1.9 4.2 0.464 <0.003 0.601 0.516 0.569 8.27 648 54 19.82010 10 7 0.0479 84.4 17.5 102 40 1240 20 375 0.0545 1.49 1.9 8.2 0.164 0.034 0.21 0.176 0.188 8.62 864 21 11.92011 1 11 0.423 119 22 141 31.9 1550 140 570 0.173 1.88 1.2 1.8 0.204 0.049 0.258 0.209 0.235 8.05 1180 7 4.312011 4 11 0.307 52.4 15.4 67.8 53.4 847 50 344 0.384 1.92 3.1 10 0.317 0.113 0.416 0.303 0.378 8.16 598 35 17.82011 10 13 0.171 83.5 17.2 101 43.1 1010 30 352 0.174 2.13 2.3 6.1 0.19 0.104 0.28 0.176 0.248 8.47 738 91.3 53.92012 1 24 0.094 91.5 16.3 108 23.8 1150 <10 501 0.257 1.72 2.9 10.6 0.063 0.066 0.142 0.076 0.117 8.42 856 15 11.12012 4 16 0.027 53.2 14.7 67.9 21.6 922 <10 0.083 1.83 4.9 8.3 0.036 0.093 0.14 0.047 0.142 8.3 672 30 20.22012 7 3 0.036 79.2 19.3 98.5 35.9 1390 <10 2.8 4.2 6.2 0.207 0.203 0.455 0.252 0.424 8.52 1090 64 32.92012 10 4 0.102 79.2 23 102 34.2 1450 20 0.094 2.77 4.1 0.4 0.121 0.162 0.255 0.093 0.192 8.53 1070 46 28.8

WATER QUALITY IN THE SOURIS RIVER AT PTH#22 AT SOURIS (STATION NO. MB05NGS004)

YEAR MONTH DAY

1

Shaun Moffatt

From: Biggin, Wade (CWS) [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:36 AMTo: 'Shaun Moffatt'Subject: SOURIS RIVER AND GRAHAM CREEKAttachments: shaun_moffatt_fihcs_20130930.pdf

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e‐mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e‐mail if you have received this e‐mail by mistake and delete this e‐mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

FIHCS - Fisheries Inventory &

Habitat Classification System

Manitoba Water Stewardship - Fisheries Branch

District

Virden

Map Sheet

62F07

Region

Western

Latitude: 49 15 36

Longitude: 100 59 15

Watershed

5NFC

Provincial Waterbody Id #

2184.00

Waterbody: Graham Creek

Habitat Suitability

Seasonal Habitat Suitability*

None Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan All

*The month(s) the waterbody is useable for fish Habitat (without human intervention)

Resource Access

Distance (km)Resource

Habitat Classifications

ClassHabitat Class

*

General Uses

Harvest WeightGeneral Use

Needed Improvements

Year CommentsImprovements

Occupies narrow, shallow, meandering valley extensively grazed to banks

(Neilson 1977). Occasional white sucker dipnetting (Neilson 1977)2001

The creek has little flow and appears to have been dry

recently (June 1, 2004). There is lots of woody debris in the

creek.

2005

1999

Milani's "2002-2004 Agricultural Drain Inventory" in addition

to Barbour et al. which may also be found online at

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/techmon.html

1999

Note: Milani conducted a visual-based habitat assessment

on this waterbody. The parameters of this assessment are

outlined in (continued)

"Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable

Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition"

by Barbour, Gerritsen, Snyder and Stribling. For the condition category of

each habitat parameter consult (continued)

BIOLOGY Presence

FATHEAD MINNOW UnknownPimephales promelas

NORTHERN PIKE UnknownEsox lucius

WHITE SUCKER UnknownCatostomus commersoni

Creel

Species Catch/Unit Effort*Year

*Catch/Unit Effort = Catch/Hour

Page 2 of 213-09-30

District

Brandon

Map Sheet

62G12

Region

Western

Latitude: 49 39 51

Longitude: 99 34 17

Watershed

5NGA


2527.00

Waterbody: Souris River

Habitat Suitability

Seasonal Habitat Suitability*

None Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan All

Y

*The month(s) the waterbody is useable for fish Habitat (without human intervention)

Resource Access

Distance (km)Resource

Aircraft on Floats 0

Aircraft on Wheels 5

All Season Road 0

Electrical Power 0

Seasonal Road 0

Habitat Classifications

ClassHabitat Class

Classification based on habitat rating Class 4

Condition of the waterbody 5 years ago Class 4

Intuitive classification of the waterbody Class 4

Predicted classification in 5 years Class 4

Predicted classification in 5 years if controlled Class 3

Rating of the best waterbody in the same or

adjacent watershed

Class 2

*Interbasin management is critical, need more winter water. U.S. has to

supply 20cfs from June to October but has no obligation to provide any

flow during the remaining months.

General Uses

Harvest WeightGeneral Use

Recreational Angling 6587

Needed Improvements

Year CommentsImprovements

The invading stonecats and native longnose dace share

similar habitat preferences. Both prefer medium to large

streams/rivers with relatively fast water and a rocky substrate

(riffle habitat).

McCulloch examines the dispersal and interactions of the stonecat.1994

Test netted - Sept. 1/92.2001

1999

Note: Milani conducted a visual-based habitat assessment

on this waterbody. The parameters of this assessment are

outlined in (continued)

"Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable

Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition"

by Barbour, Gerritsen, Snyder and Stribling. For the condition category of

each habitat parameter consult (continued)

1999

Milani's "2002-2004 Agricultural Drain Inventory" in addition

to Barbour et al. which may also be found online at

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/techmon.html .

Page 1 of 113-09-30

District

Brandon

Map Sheet

62G12

Region

Western

Latitude: 49 39 51

Longitude: 99 34 17

Watershed

5NGA


2527.00


BIOLOGY Presence

BIGMOUTH SHINER UnknownNotropis dorsalis

BLACK BULLHEAD CommonIctalurus melas

BLACKCHIN SHINER UnknownNotropis heterodon

BLACKNOSE DACE UnknownRhinichthys atratulus

BLACKNOSE SHINER UnknownNotropis heterolepis

BLACKSIDED DARTER UnknownPercina maculata

BRASSY MINNOW UnknownHybognathus hankinsoni

BROOK STICKLEBACK CommonCulaea inconstans

BROOK TROUT ExtirpatedSalvelinus fontinalis

BROWN BULLHEAD UnknownIctalurus nebulosus

BURBOT UnknownLota lota

CARP CommonCyprinus carpio

CENTRAL MUDMINNOW UnknownUmbra limi

CHESTNUT LAMPREY UnknownIchthyomyzon castaneus

COMMON SHINER CommonNotropis cornutus

CREEK CHUB UnknownSemotilus atromaculatus

EMERALD SHINER UnknownNotropis atherinoides

FATHEAD MINNOW CommonPimephales promelas

FLATHEAD CHUB UnknownPlatygobio gracilis

FRESHWATER DRUM UnknownAplodinotus grunniens

GOLDEYE UnknownHiodon alosoides

IOWA DARTER UnknownIOWA DARTER exile

JOHNNY DARTER UnknownEtheostoma nigrum

LAKE CHUB UnknownCouesius plumbeus

LAKE WHITEFISH UnknownCoregonus clupeaformis

LONGNOSE DACE UnknownRhinichthys cataractae

LONGNOSE SUCKER UnknownCatostomus catostomus

Creel

Species Catch/Unit Effort*Year

Northern Pike1976 0.44

Walleye 0.04

Yellow Perch 0.01

*Catch/Unit Effort = Catch/Hour

Page 1 of 113-09-30

District

Brandon

Map Sheet

62G12

Region

Western

Latitude: 49 39 51

Longitude: 99 34 17

Watershed

5NGA


2527.00


MOONEYE UnknownHiodon tergisus

NINESPINE STICKLEBACK UnknownPungitius pungitius

NORTHERN PIKE UnknownEsox lucius

NORTHERN REDBELLY DACE UnknownChrosomus eos

PEARL DACE UnknownSemotilus margarita

RAINBOW TROUT ExtirpatedSalmo gairneri

RIVER SHINER UnknownNotropis blennius

ROCK BASS UnknownAmblopites rupestris

SAND SHINER UnknownNotropis stramineus

SAUGER UnknownStizostedion canadense

SHORTHEAD REDHORSE UnknownMoxostoma

macrolepidotum

SILVER REDHORSE UnknownMoxostoma anisurum

SLIMY SCULPIN UnknownCottus cognatus

SMALLMOUTH BASS UnknownMicropterus dolomieui

SPOTTAIL SHINER UnknownNotropis hudsonius

STONECAT UnknownNoturus flavus

TADPOLE MADTOM UnknownNoturus gyrinus

TROUT PERCH UnknownPercopsis omiscomaycus

WALLEYE UnknownStizostedion vitreum

WHITE SUCKER UnknownCatostomus commersoni

YELLOW PERCH UnknownPerca flavescens

Page 1 of 113-09-30

1

Shaun Moffatt

From: Friesen, Chris (CWS) [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:26 PMTo: 'Shaun Moffatt'Cc: 'Roy Houston'Subject: RE: Town of Melita Lagoon

Shaun Thank you for your information request. I completed a search of the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre's rare species database and found no occurrences at this time for your area of interest. The information provided in this letter is based on existing data known to the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre at the time of the request. These data are dependent on the research and observations of CDC staff and others who have shared their data, and reflect our current state of knowledge. An absence of data in any particular geographic area does not necessarily mean that species or ecological communities of concern are not present; in many areas, comprehensive surveys have never been completed. Therefore, this information should be regarded neither as a final statement on the occurrence of any species of concern, nor as a substitute for on-site surveys for species as part of environmental assessments. Because the Manitoba CDC’s Biotics database is continually updated and because information requests are evaluated by type of action, any given response is only appropriate for its respective request. Please contact the Manitoba CDC for an update on this natural heritage information if more than six months pass before it is utilized. Third party requests for products wholly or partially derived from Biotics must be approved by the Manitoba CDC before information is released. Once approved, the primary user will identify the Manitoba CDC as data contributors on any map or publication using Biotics data, as follows as: Data developed by the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre; Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch, Manitoba Conservation. This letter is for information purposes only - it does not constitute consent or approval of the proposed project or activity, nor does it negate the need for any permits or approvals required by the Province of Manitoba. We would be interested in receiving a copy of the results of any field surveys that you may undertake, to update our database with the most current knowledge of the area. If you have any questions or require further information please contact me directly at (204) 945- 7747. Chris Friesen Biodiversity Information Manager Manitoba Conservation Data Centre 204-945-7747 [email protected] http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc/ From: Shaun Moffatt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: September-10-13 3:46 PM To: Friesen, Chris (CWS) Cc: 'Roy Houston' Subject: Town of Melita Lagoon Chris I checked with Nicole and as I wanted to include the attached site plan with the request for information she indicated I could email you directly rather than submitting the request on‐line.

2

KGS Group is preparing a Manitoba Environment Act Proposal (EAP) for the proposed alterations to the existing Town of Melita Wastewater Treatment Lagoon. As the proposed alterations will be primarily within the footprint of the existing lagoon cells and access road (see attached figure) it is unlikely that the project will adversely impact any Species at Risk (or their habitat). Regardless, as part of the environmental assessment, KGS Group would like to identify if there are known locations of Species at Risk (plant, wildlife, aquatic, etc.) occurrences at the project site and adjacent land as shown in the attached site plan. The proposed alterations will consist of raising the lagoon cell dykes and access road to provide flood protection with the possible addition of an aeration system (tertiary treatment) within the cells. The lagoon is located just south of the intersection of Highways 3 and 83, southeast of Melita, Manitoba on the NW ¼‐31‐03‐26 W1 and NE ¼‐36‐03‐27 W1, as shown on the attached site plan. If there are any species occurrences our preference would be to receive the data by email to myself in MS Excel format (and ArcView if available). Thank you again for your assistance and if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to call. Shaun Moffatt, M.Sc. Senior Environmental Scientist KGS Group 3rd Floor - 865 Waverley St. Wpg. MB. R3T 5P4 Phone: 204-896-1209 ext 467 Fax: 204-896-0754

1

Shaun Moffatt

From: McClean, Heather [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:11 PMTo: 'Shaun Moffatt'Cc: 'Roy Houston'; Smith, Brian (CHT); Butterfield, David (CHT)Subject: RE: Heritage and Archaeological Resources - Town of Melita Lagoon

Hi Shaun – the database has been checked and there are no known archaeological or heritage resources located within NW 31-3-26 W or NE 36-03-27 W. Thank you.

Heather McClean Heritage Resources Registrar Historical Assessment Services Historic Resources Branch MB Culture, Heritage and Tourism Main Floor, 213 Notre Dame Avenue Winnipeg MB R3B 1N3 [email protected] Phone: (204) 945-7146 Fax: (204) 948-2384

From: Shaun Moffatt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: September-10-13 3:19 PM To: McClean, Heather Cc: 'Roy Houston' Subject: Heritage and Archaeological Resources - Town of Melita Lagoon Heather KGS Group is preparing a Manitoba Environment Act Proposal (EAP) for the proposed alterations to the existing Town of Melita Wastewater Treatment Lagoon. As the proposed alterations will be primarily within the footprint of the existing lagoon cells and access road (see attached figure) it is unlikely that the project will adversely impact heritage and archaeological resources. Regardless, as part of the environmental assessment, KGS Group would like to identify if there are any potential heritage or archaeological resource that may be impacted by the project. The proposed alterations will consist of raising the lagoon cell dykes and access road to provide flood protection with the possible addition of an aeration system within the cells. The lagoon is located just south of the intersection of Highways 3 and 83, southeast of Melita, Manitoba on the NW ¼‐31‐03‐26 W1 and NE ¼‐36‐03‐27 W1. We are requesting confirmation if there are any resources located on or adjacent these lands and if present we are requesting a location and description of each location. Additionally, if any resources are present we are requesting the data delivered in Excel and ArcView format (or PDF mapsheet). Thank you again for your assistance and if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to call. Shaun Moffatt, M.Sc. Senior Environmental Scientist KGS Group 3rd Floor - 865 Waverley St. Wpg. MB. R3T 5P4