TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Provision of Wastewater Treatment …

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M Provision of Wastewater Treatment to Service the Huntsville Area: Receiving Water Assessment

District Municipality of Muskoka

Project File

PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL DATE: August 26, 2014 PROJECT NUMBER: 483228

Summary The District Municipality of Muskoka has developed effluent quality standards for its wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) through a multi criteria analysis that considers a number of factors. The process followed in developing effluent quality standards for wastewater treatment within Huntsville is shown in Figure S.1. This standard will be used for upgrading the Golden Pheasant WWTP when the Mountview WWTP is decommissioned as per the recommendation of the Mountview WWTP and Huntsville Sewage Works Upgrades Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment.

Figure S.1 Process for Developing Future Discharge Requirements

PREPARED FOR:

COPY TO:

1 COPYRIGHT 2014 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PROVISION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT TO SERVICE THE HUNTSVILLE AREA: RECEIVING WATER ASSESSMENT

Through this process, the District has strived to develop performance objectives that align with the District’s Mission and Strategic Priorities relative to both effluent quality as well as the efficient use of energy and chemicals. To this end, Effluent Quality standards were established to accomplish the following:

• Meet or exceed regulatory requirements, including federal effluent quality regulations, which apply to all wastewater systems in Canada, and address un-ionized ammonia (UIA) and chlorine residuals.

• Protect all uses of the water body including recreation, drinking water supplies, and aquatic life.

• Protect human health and the natural environment.

• Provide long-term protection of Muskoka’s economy which is highly dependent on pristine lakes and rivers.

The entire process is documented in this Receiving Water Impact Assessment (RWIA) and is summarized as follows:

Consideration of Current and Future Regulations:

Regulatory considerations used as the basis for deriving effluent criteria include the MOE’s policies governing the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) and effluent non-toxicity requirements; the government of Canada’s Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER) requiring treatment standards to protect the receiver quality; Source Water Protection standards; and loading allocations established as part of the District’s Lake System Health Program.

Assimilative Capacity Assessment

The Assimilative Capacity Assessment includes the development of background water quality conditions and execution of an outfall analysis. A site-specific waste assimilative capacity assessment was conducted for the Muskoka River and Fairy Lake, the receiving waters for the existing Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs. The assessment proposes receiving-water based effluent requirements in accordance with Ministry of the Environment Procedure B-1-5.

It is noted that based on the preferred alternative, the analysis was conducted under the assumption that the existing Golden Pheasant WWTP outfall would be utilized for the expanded facility when the Mountview WWTP is decommissioned. Additionally, as the existing outfall discharges into the Muskoka River at the mouth of Fairly Lake (and within the zone of influence of Fairy Lake), analyses were conducted with for both a river discharge (using a mass balance techniques) and a lake discharge (using CORMIX). The more conservative of the two was used as a basis for developing effluent standards.

Standard methods of a desktop study were employed, including the determination of water quantity (7Q20 low flow statistic), upstream quality, and allowable effluent concentrations for non-toxic effluent with respect to UIA as well as the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO). A mixing zone analysis using CORMIX was also completed.

Consideration was also given to climate change effects on the 7Q20 including the effect of severe weather events that would result in hotter/drier years with lower river flows.

Based on the analysis of monthly river low flow and plant effluent flows, a minimum dilution ratio with river water was calculated at 11:1, and was and found to occur in July and August. Based on the mixing zone analysis using CORMIX, the initial dilution with assuming a lake based discharge in the near field region of the Golden Pheasant outfall diffuser is 48:1.

The dilution ratio calculation that assumed a river based discharge was determined to be the governing parameter. Accordingly a dilution ratio of 11:1 was used.


M E M O R A N D U M PAGE 3 AUGUST 27, 2014

Ambient water quality in the Vernon Lake-Fairy Lake system, which includes the Muskoka River at Huntsville, was established using data from the following sources: District Municipality of Muskoka’s Lake System Health Water Quality Monitoring Program; Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN); and, special sampling programs undertaken as part of this EA. From this review, the Vernon Lake-Fairy Lake system including the Muskoka River at Huntsville was determined to be Policy 1 with respect to phosphorus, dissolved oxygen (DO), ammonia and E. coli (see Section 3.9 for Policy definitions).

In-stream water quality impacts were determined for each parameter to support both the development of proposed Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) effluent objectives, and the limits for the proposed rated capacity of 8,100 m3/d, the current combined rated capacity of the Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs.

Under the proposed preferred solution, all flows within the serviced urban area would be treated at the Golden Pheasant WWTP, and all treated effluent would be discharged through the plant’s existing outfall. The analysis was designed to meet the PWQO concentrations after dilution at the 7Q20 low flow, and considered un-ionized ammonia (UIA) in relation to effluent toxicity.

Best Practices for Recreational Water Uses

In accordance with the goals of the existing regulations to protect the receiver and District’s goals to maintain pristine lakes and rivers suitable for recreational and potable water uses, additional parameters to be regulated were considered and are discussed as follows:

• Denitrification for the Protection of Human Health - Ontario regulations for drinking water assign a Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) for nitrate of 10 mg/L as N. It is also desirable to the District that the MAC be met within the mixing zone due to the significant recreational and bathing uses of the receiving water. Therefore, an effluent objective of 7 mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen was considered.

• Denitrification for the protection of Aquatic Life - Ongoing research shows that Biological nutrient removal removes nearly all acute toxicity, including UIA through nitrification. Therefore, there is a benefit to implementing a nitrifying and denitrifying treatment process with respect to minimizing effluent toxicity. During low flow periods impacts on fisheries are minimized. Denitrification has the added benefit of alkalinity recovery, thereby reducing chemical consumption and operating costs.

• Disinfection Levels for Protection of Human Health – Disinfection levels must be provided to control E.Coli and other pathogen levels to support end of pipe quality suitable for swimming and bathing adjacent to the WWTP outfall.

Contaminants of Emerging Concern

As technology advances, a growing list of compounds that can have physiological effects on human beings and aquatic organisms are being detected in surface water.

The MOE conducted a study to determine the world wide state of research on the removal of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) at municipal WWTPs (CH2M HILL, 2010). The study’s findings included the following:

• WWTPs that strive to remove ammonia (through nitrification) appear to eliminate most of the acute biological impacts of CECs

• WWTPs that strive to remove both ammonia and nitrate appear to eliminate most sub-lethal biological impacts of CECs

Proposed Effluent Quality Standards



Proposed effluent criteria shown in Table 1.1 for the Golden Pheasant WWTP were derived based on the discussion in the previous sections and were selected for the ECA enforcement limits. However the design objectives for the WWTP must achieve consistent daily performance to minimize receiver impacts rather than performance to achieve 30 day averages. Detailed calculations are provided in the raw water impact assessment (RWIA) found in Appendix D.

Table 1.1 Proposed ECA Effluent Objectives and Limits at 8,100 m3/d Rated Capacity for Golden Pheasant WWTP

Effluent Parameter

Objectives Average Concentration

(mg/L)

Limits Average Concentration

(mg/L)

cBOD5 5 10

Total Suspended Solids 5 10

Total Phosphorus 0.14 (monthly average)

892 kg/y) 0.3

Total Ammonia Nitrogen

June to September

4 7

Nitrate 7 10

E. coli (Geometric Mean) < 2 80

Notes: pH of the effluent maintained between 6.0 to 9.5, inclusive, at all times mg/L = milligram per litre cBOD5 = carbonaceous 5-day biochemical oxygen demand



1. Introduction The District Municipality of Muskoka (the District) strives to develop performance objectives that align with the regulatory objectives and the District’s Mission and Strategic Priorities for effluent quality. In developing effluent quality standards, the District works to accomplish the following:

• Meet or exceed regulatory requirement suitable for protection of the receiver, including federal effluent quality regulations, which apply to all wastewater systems in Canada, and address un-ionized ammonia and chlorine residuals.

• Consider all uses of the water body including recreation, drinking water supplies, and aquatic life.

• Protect human health and the natural environment.

• Provide long-term protection of Muskoka’s economy which is highly dependent on maintaining pristine lakes and rivers.

As noted in Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Procedure B-1-5 § 4.3, discharge proponents are responsible for assessing the site-specific waste assimilative capacity of the receiving water body, and deriving receiving-water based effluent requirements from the assessment.

Therefore, the District has adopted a multi-staged approach for developing effluent quality criteria, which includes the development of receiving-water based effluent standards in accordance with MOE procedure B-1-5 § 4.3, in addition to other considerations as summarized in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Process for Developing Future Discharge Requirements



Procedure B-1-5 § 4.3 notes that the derived receiving-water based effluent requirements must be confirmed by MOE staff during the Pre-Application Consultation. For this study, a Pre-Application Consultation meeting was held May 22, 2014, during which the MOE provided guidance for developing the receiving water assessment (RWA).

The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to: document the RWA conducted for the Muskoka River and Fairy Lake, as well as for the receiving waters of Mountview WWTP and Golden Pheasant WWTP; and, to propose receiving-water based effluent requirements for the suggested solution.

2. Background The District owns and operates two WWTPs that serve the Town of Huntsville. The plants, Mountview and Golden Pheasant, discharge into Fairy Lake by way of the Muskoka River and Fairy Lake, respectively. Raw sewage is fed to each of the plants through sanitary sewers and sanitary sewage force mains located throughout the Town. The District is undertaking a Schedule C Class EA to plan for wastewater treatment capacity to service the Huntsville Area until the year 2034.

Specifically, the study will:

• Verify information and the preferred solution (Phase 2) outlined in the 1989 EA; the EA’s recommended solution was to centralize all wastewater treatment at the Golden Pheasant WWTP and decommission the Mountview WWTP;

• Strive to plan for sufficient capacity to support growth in the Town of Huntsville for the next 20 years;

• Establish treatment requirements for the WWTP to protect the receiving waters.

2.1 Existing Treatment Processes Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 present schematic diagrams of the current operations of Mountview WWTP and Golden Pheasant WWTP. The Mountview WWTP receives wastewater from two pumping stations, one of which is located on Princess Street (influent from Susan St., Centre St. and King St.) and the other on Hodges Lane (influent from Ferguson Rd., Hunters Bay Dr.). There is also the ability to receive additional wastewater from the Church Street pumping station (influent from Lake Dr. and Cliff Ave.). The Golden Pheasant WWTP receives wastewater from five pumping stations, located respectively on Coveside Drive, Church Street (influent from Lake Dr, and Cliff Ave.), Crescent Bay, Grandview Main, and Highland Drive (influent from Highland Hills, Ski club, Hidden Valley, Turner Dr., Greens, Birchcliffe, Lakeview, and Bayshore). Both the Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs include primary and secondary treatment; Golden Pheasant also includes tertiary treatment. The secondary treatment at both plants was designed as a non-nitrifying, conventional activated sludge process.



Figure 2.1 Schematic Representation of the Mountview WWTP

Figure 3.2 Schematic Representation of the Golden Pheasant WWTP



2.2 Preferred Alternative The EA assessed five Alternative Solutions for the Huntsville Area, including the option to:

1. Decommission Golden Pheasant WWTP, route existing flows to Mountview WWTP, and expand the Mountview WWTP on its existing site (Muskoka River receiver);

2. Decommission Mountview WWTP, route flows to the Golden Pheasant WWTP via a new Mountview sewage pumping station (SPS), and upgrade and expand the Golden Pheasant WWTP (Fairy Lake receiver);

3. Replace the Mountview WWTP on the existing site, and upgrade the existing Golden Pheasant WWTP (Muskoka River and Fairy Lake receiver);

4. Decommission Golden Pheasant WWTP, replace the Mountview WWTP on the existing site, and build a new plant on a new site (Receiver TBD); and,

5. Decommission Mountview WWTP, upgrade the Golden Pheasant WWTP, and build a new plant on a new site (Receiver TBD).

Design Concept 1 was discarded because of technical challenges and low public acceptability. Design Concept 4 and 5 were discarded due to increased risk of natural environmental impacts, low public acceptability, property acquisition costs, and high capital costs. Design Concept 2 and 3 were chosen to be carried forward due to their use of existing sites (lowered risk of natural environmental impact), as well as their technically feasibility. Design Concept 2 has also gained high public acceptance and is similar to the preferred Design concept selected in the 1989 EA. The shortlisted technologies along with the developed Design Concepts were presented to the public at the second Public Information Centre (PIC) which took place on April 15th, 2014. A detailed evaluation of Design Concepts 2 and 3 was undertaken based on Natural, Technical, Social/Cultural, and Financial Criteria. Based on this evaluation, Design Concept 2 was selected and will be used as the basis for the Receiving Water Assessment in this study. The development and selection of a preferred Design Concept is documented in the Environmental Study Report. 2.3 Receiving Water Currently, effluent from the Mountview WWTP discharges into the Muskoka River, whereas effluent from the Golden Pheasant WWTP outfall discharges at the intersection between the Muskoka River and Fairy Lake. As such, effluent from the Golden Pheasant WWTP mixes with river water from the Muskoka River as well as ambient lake water discharging from Fairy Lake. The Golden Pheasant WWTP effluent is also used seasonally for irrigation at a local golf course.

The preferred design concept as determined through the Class EA process entails centralized wastewater treatment at the Golden Pheasant WWTP and the use of the existing Golden Pheasant WWTP outfall for all discharges which is consistent with the 1989 EA scheme.

Current effluent compliance criteria for the Mountview WWTP (formerly Huntsville WWTP) are specified in the ECA No. 1-0088-67-763806 and summarized in Table 2.1. Current effluent criteria for the Golden Pheasant WWTP are specified in the ECA No. 3-2220-89-926 and summarized in Table 2.2.



Table 2.1 Existing ECA Effluent Criteria for Mountview WWTP at 3,640 m3/d Rated Capacity

Effluent Parameter Objectives Average Concentration

(mg/L)

Limits Average Concentration

(mg/L)

cBOD5 - 15

TSS - 15

Total Phosphorus - 0.50

Table 2.2 Existing ECA Effluent Criteria for Golden Pheasant WWTP at 4,456 m3/d Rated Capacity

Effluent Parameter Objectives Average Concentration (mg/L)

Limits Average Concentration (mg/L)

cBOD5 10 15

TSS 10 15

Total Phosphorus 0.3 0.5

E. coli 80/100 mL n/a

2.4 Proposed Treatment Strategies for Receiving Water Assessment The preferred Design Concept as determined by this study is: Design Concept 2: Decommission the Mountview WWTP, route flow to the Golden Pheasant WWTP via a new Mountview SPS, upgrade and expand Golden Pheasant WWTP, and discharge all flows through the existing Golden Pheasant Outfall at the mouth of the Muskoka River.

Through an evaluation of several treatment alternatives, Membrane Bioreactor technology with UV disinfection was selected as the preferred strategy for implementation at the Golden Pheasant WWTP. This treatment strategy will allow the facility to meet its performance requirements at a competitive lifecycle cost. It has also been successfully implemented at the District’s Port Carling and Lagoon Lane WWTPs which are protecting similar receivers and water uses. Membrane bioreactor technology also supports the continued reuse of wastewater effluent for golf course irrigation.



Figure 2.3 Preferred Treatment Strategy – MBR with UV Disinfection

2.5 MOE Pre-Application Consultation A pre-application consultation meeting took place with the MOE on May 22, 2014, during which feedback was provided by the MOE on the development of effluent criteria for the Golden Pheasant WWTP. The feedback relevant to this assessment is summarized below, and the meeting minutes are attached in Appendix A.

• It was noted that the existing ECA for Mountview WWTP and Golden Pheasant WWTP state that the maximum total phosphorus (TP) loading between Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs shall not exceed 892 kg/year.

• Any expansion of the Golden Pheasant WWTP should not allow for the direct bypassing of untreated wastewater to the Muskoka River, and this should be noted in the environmental study report (ESR).

3 Current and Future Regulations Regulatory considerations used as the basis for deriving site specific effluent criteria include: MOE’s policies governing provincial water quality objectives and effluent non-toxicity requirements; Government of Canada’s Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations; Source Water Protection standards; and, loading allocations established as part of the District’s Lake System Health Program

3.1 MOE Policy Status As noted in Water Management (1994), the MOE has two policies that relate to maintaining water quality in the Province:

Policy 1: In areas which have water quality better than the Provincial Water Quality Objectives, water quality shall be maintained at or above the Objective.

Policy 2: Water quality which presently does not meet the Provincial Water Quality objectives shall not be further degraded and all practical measures shall be undertaken to upgrade the water quality to the Objectives.

The assimilative capacity of the receivers that abide by Policy 1 can be utilized subject to compliance with Provincial Water Quality Objectives. In general, the effluent limits established in accordance with Policy 1 will be less-stringent than those for Policy 2. However, particular site specific constraints, such as intake protection zones for water purification plants, municipal strategies and priorities, offsets of non-point source increases and stakeholder requirements, can prompt more stringent effluent objectives that would otherwise not be required by straight application of the policy status. This is of significance to the District of



Muskoka as further degradation of the existing receiver is not acceptable due to the variety of water uses in the area.

Additionally, MOE Procedure B-1-5 § 4.3 provides procedures used to establish effluent based discharge criteria. This procedure was followed in developing effluent quality criteria.

3.2 Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulation (WSER) The Government of Canada published the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER) on July 18, 2012. These Regulations represent the country’s first national standards for wastewater treatment and are established under the Fisheries Act. WSER include mandatory minimum effluent quality standards that can be achieved through the application of a secondary level of wastewater treatment, but require actual effluent criteria to be based on the receiver and end uses.

The effluent standards specified in the WSER must be met by all municipal WWTPs that treat 100 m3/day or more of wastewater, and requires compliance by the end of 2020, 2030, or 2040, depending on the degree of risk associated with non-compliance. In addition, WWTPs in Ontario must comply with their ECAs or Certificate of Authorization (C of A) issued by the MOE. Currently, the MOE is in negotiations to assume jurisdiction of the federal standards, but this has not yet occurred.

Currently, minimum WSER requirements include:

• Effluent standards:

o Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD): 25 mg/L;

o Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 25 mg/L;

o Total Residual Chlorine (TRC): less than 0.02 mg/L;

o Un-ionized ammonia (UIA): 1.25 mg/L as N at 15 °C; and

o Whole effluent toxicity: not acutely lethal.

• Required measurement and reporting of BOD, TSS, TRC, and UIA levels was mandated as of January 1, 2013, but compliance will not be enforced until January 1, 2015.

• Acute lethality testing using rainbow trout needs to be performed quarterly beginning January 1, 2015; compliance comes into effect at the same time.

3.3 Toxicity Requirements The MOE has a policy of ensuring that wastewater effluents are non-toxic with respect to aquatic life. Currently, the only parameters in municipal wastewater effluent which are considered when determining effluent toxicity are UIA and TRC. However, ongoing research is determining other contaminants that contribute to effluent toxicity.

The speciation of ammonia between its non-toxic ionized form and its toxic un-ionized form depends on the water, pH and temperature. Typically, UIA (as nitrogen) is considered to be toxic to Daphnia Magna and rainbow trout at a concentration of 0.2 mg/L. In order to curve the effects of effluent toxicity caused by UIA to Daphnia Magna and rainbow trout, UIA concentrations of 0.2 mg/L or less should be achieved in the whole effluent.

Since UIA is a function of pH and temperature, a 0.2 mg/L UIA-N fraction can only be achieved if the total ammonia-N in the effluent is at or is below the following concentrations:

• Winter, effluent temperature 4 degrees Celsius and pH 7.5: 46.1 mg/L total ammonia nitrogen;

• Summer, effluent temperature 26 degrees Celsius and pH 7.5: 8.8 mg/L total ammonia nitrogen.



Table C-1 (Appendix C) lists the maximum effluent total ammonia nitrogen concentrations required to meet the end-of-pipe UIA toxicity requirement of 0.2 mg/L.

Chlorinated wastewater effluents are regulated as a “CEPA Toxic” substance. Federal regulations require effluent TRC concentration to be 0.02 mg/L or less.

4 Best Practices for Recreational Uses and Watershed Protection 4.1 Source Water Protection The outfall of the Golden Pheasant WWTP is located in an area where consideration must be given to the protection of municipal and private water supplies. In order to protect these supplies, pathogen concentrations must be as low as practically possible, and the outfall must be located at a minimum of 1 km from any potential water intakes. Figure 4.1 presents the location of the existing outfalls of the Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs, as well as the intake of the Fairyview Water Treatment. Additionally, this figure indicates locations of private water intakes all around Fairy Lake that require protection.

In addition to municipal and private water supply protection, consideration must be given to nitrates and nitrites; nitrates and nitrites have an effect on human health at concentrations greater than 10 mg/L, as these concentrations can cause methemoglobinemia. In order to ensure that private water supplies are not impacted by these harmful effects, the general requirement is to ensure that nitrates/nitrites in vulnerable areas meet drinking water objectives. The number of private water supply intakes in the Muskoka River/Fairy Lake area suggest the need to provide suitable nitrate levels throughout the receiver.

In brief, countless private water intakes surround Fairy Lake. Additionally, the areas surrounding the Golden Pheasant and Mountview WWTP outfalls are in the vicinity of waterfront homes and cottages that are extensively used for boating and swimming. As such, an end of pipe discharge nitrate/nitrate concentration of 7 mg/L is proposed. Additionally, an end of pipe E. coli objective of <2 cfu/100 mL is proposed for pathogens.

Figure 4.1 Existing Intakes and Intake Protection Zones

12

COPYRIGHT 2014 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


4.2 Lake System Health Requirements The District has a detailed Lake System Health Program to help protect recreational water quality within all of the surface waters of Muskoka. This Lake System Health Program includes a detailed lake health (water quality) model, which assesses impacts of stormwater, wastewater treatment plants, septic systems, and other potential sources of impact on water quality within the various lakes. According to the Lake system Health Program, Fairy Lake is designated as a moderately sensitive, under the threshold lake with respect to phosphorus. The Lake System Health Program has assessed the loading capacity of Fairy Lake at 892 kg/year, a total from both Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs. Therefore, phosphorus discharges from the upgraded/expanded Golden Pheasant WWTP need to be maintained at or below 892 kg/yr. Current conditions in the Lake are a result of plant TP discharges of approximately 250 kg/yr.

4.3 Emerging Pollutants of Concern Historically, BOD5, suspended solids, total phosphorus, ammonia, E. coli and pH have been regulated in municipal wastewater effluent. However, research has identified compounds such as fragrances, estrogens, pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors (EDP) that are not completely removed by some wastewater treatment plants, depending on design and operation. Although these parameters are not currently regulated, they may have potential impacts on human health as well as on river biota living downstream of the WWTPs. Further, these parameters could be subject to regulation in the future. The current state of research indicates that WWTPs that nitrify and denitrify provide a higher degree of removal of emerging pollutants of concern than WWTPs that do not nitrify. The District has taken a proactive approach to addressing contaminants of emerging concern, by implementing nitrification and dentrification wherever possible as an overall strategy to preserving receiving water quality.

5 Background Water Quality and Quantity The Golden Pheasant WWTP outfall is located at the mouth of the Muskoka River, which feeds into Fairy Lake and is within the zone of influence of the discharge of Fairy Lake.

5.1 Development of Dilution Ratios As analyses typically conducted for assessing a river discharge differ from those conducted for a lake discharge, two analyses were carried out:

1. River based discharge analysis:

• Determine 7Q20 Flows,

• Determine dilution ratio of 7Q20 flow to WWTP effluent flow (at design flow rate)

• Check that ratio (7Q20:WWTP Flow) is greater than the MOE recommended minimum of 10:1

2. Lake based discharge analysis:

• Utilize CORMIX modeling to determine initial mixing ratio

• Check that dilution ratio is greater than the MOE recommended ratio of 20:1

The governing scenario was used to assess the assimilative capacity of the receiving water and to determine the associated effluent standards. Wastewater Treatment Plant Flows

The proposed hydraulic capacity of the Golden Pheasant WWTP (for the preferred alternative) for the planning period to 2036 is 8,100 m3/d. This represents the combined existing flows of the Golden Pheasant and the Mountview WWTP. Population and flow projections for the service area indicate that this capacity is sufficient to 2036. Further details are provided in the ESR.



5.1.1 Development of 7Q20 Flows The Canada Water Survey operates a gauging station 02EB013 on the East River, which is the primary tributary discharging into Lake Vernon which then discharges into the Muskoka River at Huntsville. Data from 1973 to 2012 (40 years of data) was analyzed to determine the monthly 7Q20 low flows for the East River. These flows were then prorated by the added watershed drainage area of Lake Vernon relative to the combined watershed drainage areas for the East River and Lake Vernon.

Table B-1 (Appendix B) lists the monthly 7-day average low flow. The data was then analyzed to determine the 7Q20 by method of moments and method of lowest observed, with the minimum of the two methods taken as the 7Q20 at the gauge location. The 7Q20 at the plant effluent discharge location was calculated as the gauge location 7Q20 pro-rated based on the ratio of the drainage areas (the gauge station has a drainage area of 610 km2, and there is a draining area of 119 km2 from Lake Vernon, giving a combined drainage area of 729 km2 for the Muskoka River at Huntsville). Table B-2 (Appendix B) summarizes the 7Q20 data.

5.1.2 Development of Dilution Ratios – River Discharge It may be assumed that treated effluent only mixes with river flow, and that the dilution ratio is thus a function of the natural flow in the river (at low flow conditions) relative to the amount of flow present from the WWTP. Figure 5.1 shows the 7Q20 low flow by month in comparison to the average flows in the river. Figure 5.2 presents the 7Q20 flows relative to the flows from the Golden Pheasant WWTP at the proposed expansion to 8,100 m3/d. Figure 5.3 presents the dilution ratios for the expansion of the Golden Pheasant WWTP based on the 7Q20 flows. The lowest dilution can be seen in July and August, at a 7Q20 of 1 m3/s, and a dilution ratio of 11:1.

Figure 5.1 Muskoka River 7Q20 and mean flows

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Flow

, m3/

s

Month

Mean Flow (1973-2012) 7Q20, m3/s



Figure 5.2 Muskoka River 7Q20 and relative to expanded Golden Pheasant WWTP monthly average flows of 8100 m3/day

-0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50


Flow

, m3/

s

Month

Golden Pheasant WPCP Muskoka River 7Q20, m3/s



Figure 5.3 Dilution ratios calculated for the proposed expansion to Golden Pheasant WWTP (8100 m3/day) based on 7Q20 flows in Muskoka River

5.1.3 Development of Dilution Ratios – Lake Discharge Scenario Effluent from the Golden Pheasant WWTP outfall discharges at the location where flow from the Muskoka River enters Fairy Lake and in the zone of influence of the Fairy Lake outlet. As such, effluent from the Golden Pheasant WWTP mixes with both river-water from the Muskoka River as well as ambient lake-water from Fairy Lake.

The CORMIX expert system was used to estimate the receiver’s mixing characteristics at the effluent discharge location, given the offshore distance of the diffuser and local depth. The existing Golden Pheasant WWTP outfall diffuser consists of ten diffuser ports, each with a 0.230 m port diameter and spaced 4.6 m apart. The last diffuser port is approximately 100 m from the shore, and the water depth at the midpoint of the diffusers is 11.6 m under low lake levels. A current speed of 1 cm/s was used as a representative low current velocity condition based on drogue studies made as part of the 1989 EA (RV Anderson, 1989). A current speed of 0.5 cm/s was also run in CORMIX to identify dilutions at the lowest measured current speeds.

The CORMIX results are listed in Table 5.1 for dilutions ratios with ambient lake-water from Fairy Lake. An initial dilution ratio of 48:1 is achieved at the end of the near-field region, which occurs at a distance of 58 m downstream of the diffuser in the direction of the current.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Dilu

tion

Ratio

Month



Table 5.1 Dilutions calculated at different current

Current Speed, cm/s

Dilution at edge of Near-Field Region

X, m Y, m

Distance downstream from the diffuser midpoint

Distance offshore from the diffuser midpoint

0.5 48 66 11.6a 1 66 23 5.8 a

a Values can be positive or negative and indicate distance from the midpoint of the diffuser in the onshore direction

Figure 5.4 Plot of effluent plume as predicted using CORMIX

Due to uncertainty associated with circulation patterns and correspondingly to the amount of lake water that mixes with river water at the location of the outfall, mixing calculations were based on the low flow of the Muskoka River only, and not on dilution with ambient water in Fairy Lake. Under this assumption, a minimum dilution of 11:1 is achieved during the critical July and August low flow periods, which meets the MOE’s preferred minimum 10:1 dilution for rivers.

While the dilution ratio of 11:1 will be used as a basis for developing minimum effluent quality standards to provide compliance with MOE regulations, the design will consider future climate change conditions that can result in extreme conditions such very low flow conditions or extreme wet weather events.



5.2 Development of Background Water Quality Conditions Background water quality conditions were determined to:

1. Assess the existing condition of the Muskoka River and Fairy Lake in terms of MOE standards (Policy status) and as well the Muskoka Watershed Council’s classification of acceptable conditions with respect to Total Phosphorus.

a) Policy status is determined by measuring background water quality conditions against PWQOs (see Table 5.2 below).

b) The Muskoka Watershed council classifies a watershed as “not stressed” with respect to Total Phosphorus where ambient quality data indicates TP concentrations less than “background + 50%”, where “background” indicates TP concentrations had there been no development (as determined by the Watershed Council’s modeling data). According to the Watershed Council’s modeling data, the background TP concentration is 7.52 ug/L.

2. Develop a basis for determining effluent standards.

Table 5.2 Summary of Provincial Water Quality Objectives

Parameter Provincial Water Quality Objective

Ammonia, Unionized 20 μg/L

Dissolved Oxygen (Cold Water Biota) 8 mg/L at 0 °C

7 mg/L at 5 °C

6 mg/L at 10 °C

6 mg/L at 15 °C

5 mg/L at 20 °C

5 mg/L at 25 °C

Total Phosphorus 20 μg/L

5.2.1 Data Sources The methodology used in evaluating background water quality was to compare data from different sources and at different sampling locations throughout the Vernon Lake-Fairy Lake system. It was found that all data sources indicated water quality parameters were within the PWQOs and on this basis the receiving water was established as a Policy 1 receiver. Data from Vernon Lake was then used in calculations for the development of effluent quality requirements as outlined in section 6. Vernon Lake was used as the basis for these calculations because it is upstream of the Muskoka River at Hunstville and is therefore representative of background water quality upstream from the WPCP effluent discharge.

Lake Partners

The Lake Partner Program is Ontario’s volunteer-based, water-quality monitoring program. Since 2002, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has coordinated this lake monitoring program from the Dorset Environmental Science Centre (DESC). Each year, more than 600 volunteers monitor total phosphorus and water clarity in almost 550 inland lakes at over 800 sampling locations. Measurements of TP are available at various locations in both Vernon Lake and Fairy Lake going back to 2002 through this program and indicate ambient conditions within the PWQOs.



District of Muskoka Lake System Health Water Quality Monitoring Program and Muskoka Watershed Council

The District Municipality of Muskoka monitors lake health through recreational water quality testing, shoreline surveys, and technical assistance to lake associations interested in undertaking volunteer-based monitoring programs. Data is available for a broad array of water quality parameters from this monitoring program at key points throughout the Vernon Lake-Fairy Lake system including Hunter’s Bay which lies directly between the two lakes and in the flow path of the Muskoka River at Huntsville. Data from this monitoring program indicate ambient conditions within the PWQOs with respect to TP, UIA and DO.

Special Sampling Campaign

Supplementary water quality monitoring points were established at strategic locations both up- and downstream of the two WWTP discharges. The points were sampled on March 2, 2014, under ice cover, and on May 26, 2014, during spring conditions. The purpose of the supplementary sampling was to confirm water quality data sets, as well as provide more site-specific water quality information upstream and downstream for the Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTP outfalls. The sampling events confirmed the ambient TP and Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) numbers provided from the Lake Partners Program.

5.2.2 Results pH and Temperature

Water quality data from the District’s Lake System Health Water Quality Monitoring Program indicate that average pH levels in the Vernon Lake-Fairy Lake system range between 6.35 and 6.57. This is reflective of the low alkalinity conditions in the area. Temperatures in Hunter’s Bay were found to range from 0 to 24 degrees Celsius.

Total Phosphorus

• Data Results: Water quality data from the District’s Lake System Health Water Quality Monitoring Program has indicated that average TP concentrations of 9.48 and 8.52 ug/L are found in Vernon Lake and Fairy Lake, respectively. This is within the same range as values measured by the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network station (average of 9.7 ug/L). The Lake System Health Water Quality Monitoring Program numbers are also consistent with concentrations measured in a sampling program undertaken as part of this study (average of 9 ug/L).

• Existing Receiver Condition: These numbers are below the PWQO for TP (20 ug/L) and indicative of Policy 1 conditions. Figure 5.5 presents the long-term trend in phosphorus concentrations in the receiving body of water for both Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs. The figure displays a decrease in ambient TP concentration since 2000. Based on this information, the Muskoka River – Fairy Lake system is consistent with Policy 1 with respect to TP. Existing ambient conditions within Fairy lake are within the Watershed Council’s classification of “not stressed” (background + 50% which would amount to approximately 14 to 15 ug/L).

Statistics for TP measurements from the available data sources are summarized in Table 5.3.

Figure 5.5 presents the long-term trend in phosphorus concentrations in the receiving body of water for both Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs. The figure displays a decrease in ambient TP concentration since 2000.



Table 5.3 Summary of TP measurements in Vernon Lake

TP, ug/L DMM Lake Partners This

Study(1)

Average 9.8 9.7 9.0

75th percentile 11.0 10.6 N/A

Note: (1) Special Sampling Campaign undertaken as part of this study. Insufficient samples to obtain 75th percentile statistic.

Figure 5.5 Long term trends in phosphorus concentrations and Secchi depths as reported by the District’s Lake System Health Water Quality Monitoring Program

Total Ammonia and Un-Ionized Ammonia

• Data Results: Both Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and TAN measurements were taken in a special sampling program as part of this project, where low concentrations were found in the range of 0.3 and 0.04 mg/L, respectively. TAN is not measured as part of the Districts’s Lake System Health Water Quality Monitoring Program. However, TKN measurements made as part of the District’s program can be correlated with TKN measurements made as part of the sampling program undertaken in this study. Both programs reveal average TKN concentrations in the range of 0.3 mg/L, from which a TAN concentration of 0.04 mg/L may be reasonably assumed as being characteristic of the ambient concentration for this parameter. Table 5.4 summarizes the ambient TKN and ammonia levels measured in Vernon Lake, as well as displays the resulting UIA concentrations.



• Existing Receiver Condition: Based on this information, the Muskoka River – Fairy Lake system is consistent with Policy 1 with respect to UIA.

Table 5.4 Summary of TAN, TKN and UIA in Lake Vernon

Data Source Statistic TAN, mg/L TKN, mg/L TAN/TKN UIA, mg/L

This Study(1) Average 0.04 0.30 13% 0.0001(2)

75th percentile - - - -

DMM Average - 0.273 - -

75th percentile - 0.284 - -

Note: (1) Special Sampling Campaign undertaken as part of this study (2) A UIA/TAN ratio of 0.0019 was calculated based on the maximium pH and temperatures measured, respectively, 6.57 and 24 deg. C

Dissolved Oxygen

• Data Results: Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are measured at several locations throughout the Lake Vernon – Fairy Lake system. As presented in Table 5.5, the DO levels do not indicate any unhealthy periods (low dissolved oxygen levels) which might threaten the ability of the lake to support sensitive species such as Lake Trout. Testing is always completed in late summer when DO levels are most vulnerable.

Table 5.5 Summary of DO and Temperatures measured in Lake Vernon - Hunter’s Bay during critical late summer period

Parameter Average 25th percentile

Temperature 21.8 21.6

DO, mg/L 8.0 7.8

Note: PWQO for Cold Water Biota at a temperature of 20 to 25 deg. C is 5 mg/L

• Existing Receiver Condition: Based on this information, the Muskoka River – Fairy Lake system is consistent with Policy 1 with respect to DO.

5.2.3 Summary of Ambient Conditions As previously outlined, ambient water quality in the Muskoka River was assessed with respect to TP, pH, DO and UIA in comparison with PWQOs and the Watershed Council’s thresholds for TP. Overall, results from the assessment indicate that the Vernon Lake-Fairy Lake system is consistent with Policy 1 for all mentioned water quality parameters and “not stressed” with respect to TP.

Table 5.6 summarizes PWQO and policy statuses for UIA, DO, and TP. Overall, The Muskoka River – Fairy Lake system is consistent with Policy 1 with respect to the aforementioned water quality parameters.



Table 5.6 Provincial Water Quality Objectives for Phosphorus, Unionized Ammonia and Dissolved Oxygen

Parameter Provincial Water Quality Objective Policy Status of Muskoka River - Fairy Lake System

Ammonia, Unionized 20 μg/L Policy 1

Dissolved Oxygen (Cold Water Biota) 8 mg/L at 0 °C Policy 1

7 mg/L at 5 °C

6 mg/L at 10 °C

6 mg/L at 15 °C

5 mg/L at 20 °C

5 mg/L at 25 °C

Total Phosphorus 20 μg/L Policy 1

6 Development of Effluent Quality Standards Proposed ECA effluent criteria for the Golden Pheasant WWTP expansion were derived based on criteria discussed in Section 1, which included: current and future regulations, best practices for the water uses, outfall analyses, research on mitigation of CECs, etc.

As discussed above, a river based discharge was assumed as the governing condition. Accordingly, a dilution ratio of 11:1 was assumed for this analysis.

Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix C.

6.1 Effluent pH and Temperature Effluent pH and temperature values were assumed based on data from similar activated sludge plants in the area.

pH

An average pH of 7.0 to 7.2 is typically desired in the bioreactors to maintain reasonable nitrification rates (Metcalf & Eddy Inc. 2003). A 75th percentile pH of 7.4 was chosen to be protective of river water quality with respect to UIA. This value is based on effluent pH values measured at the Golden Pheasant WWTP in 2013.



Figure 6.1 75th Percentile Effluent pH for the Golden Pheasant WWTP

Temperature

Effluent temperatures for the Golden Pheasant WWTP and Mountview WWTP are not recorded. Temperatures taken from an activated sludge plant of similar capacity in the northern Durham Region were used as representative values (Uxbridge WWTP), and ranged from 4 to 26 degrees Celsius.

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6


Efflu

ent p

H



Figure 6.2 75th percentile effluent temperatures for Uxbridge WWTP

6.2 Un-ionized Ammonia Acute Toxicity

The effluent discharge to the Muskoka River must be non-acutely toxic at 100 percent effluent concentration (i.e. at end-of-pipe). TAN was determined using the UIA factor, which was calculated with the 75th percentile effluent temperature and effluent pH (constant at 7.5) for each month and for both treatment alternatives. The results are summarized in Table 6.1. These concentrations are higher than those required to meet the PWQO after dilution (see discussion below), and can be achieved by a nitrifying facility. Therefore, achieving the PWQO after effluent dilution in the Muskoka River, and not acute toxicity, is the controlling condition for determining the effluent TAN limits.

Table 6.1 Effluent TAN concentrations required to meet end-of-pipe non-toxicity requirements for UIA

Month Temp* pH* pKa UIA Factor NH3 for 0.2 UIA NH3-N for 0.2 UIA

Jan 4 7.5 9.95 0.0036 56.0 46.1

Feb 11 7.5 9.72 0.0060 33.4 27.5

Mar 9 7.5 9.76 0.0055 36.6 30.2

Apr 12 7.5 9.67 0.0067 29.9 24.7

May 13 7.5 9.62 0.0075 26.7 22.0

Jun 15 7.5 9.57 0.0085 23.6 19.5

Jul 26 7.5 9.22 0.0187 10.7 8.8

Aug 19 7.5 9.45 0.0111 18.0 14.8

Sep 18 7.5 9.48 0.0103 19.5 16.0

Oct 17 7.5 9.51 0.0096 20.8 17.2

Nov 16 7.5 9.55 0.0088 22.8 18.8

Dec 12 7.5 9.67 0.0068 29.5 24.3

*Typical numbers for activated sludge plants in Ontario used in gaining MOE approval

05

1015202530

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

rM

ay Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Tem

pera

ture

, deg

. C



PWQO after Dilution

The effluent discharge must also achieve the PWQO for UIA of 0.02 mg/L (0.0165 mg/L as N) after dilution. A dilution ratio of 11:1 was used in this evaluation. Refer to Appendix C for the detailed calculations.

Table 6.2 presents effluent TAN concentrations required to meet the PWQO for UIA after dilution, as calculated based on the Muskoka River at the 7Q20 low flow rate, as well as the proposed effluent criteria for TAN during the June to August period. The seasonal variation in TAN requirements for meeting PWQO is primarily due to seasonal changes in river flow as well as seasonal changes in river and effluent temperatures; the pH after mixing varies minimally.

Table 6.2 Effluent TAN Required to Meet PWQO after Dilution at 7Q20

Month NH3-N required to meet PWQO for UIA after dilution,

mg/L

Jan 104

Feb 113

Mar 77

Apr 59

May 27

Jun 11

Jul 7

Aug 9

Sep 35

Oct 24

Nov 55

Dec 98

6.3 Nitrate Source Water Protection

Ontario drinking water regulations stipulate a MAC for nitrate of 10 mg/L as N.

It is desirable to the District that the MAC be met within the mixing zone due to the significant recreational and bathing uses of the receiving water. For example, people routinely swim in this area. Therefore, an ECA objective of 10 mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen has been proposed.

In order to achieve this objective, denitrification is required. However, denitrification would be considered regardless of this effluent parameter, due to the many ancillary benefits it provides to operations, including alkalinity recovery, reduction of CECs and improvements to sludge settlement.



Protection of Aquatic Life

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) published the final version of the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life for nitrate ion in 2012. It notes a concentration of 3 mg/L as N for chronic exposure. Based on a dilution ratio of 11:1, effluent nitrate would need to be below 33 mg/L as N to fall below this threshold. Raw sewage TKN is not sufficiently high for effluent nitrate to exceed 30 mg N/L, and so this requirement would be achieved without denitrification.

6.4 Whole Effluent Toxicity Ongoing MOE research shows that biological treatment with a solids retention time (SRT) of 10 to 15 days removes nearly all acute toxicity, including UIA through nitrification. Biological nutrient removal (BNR) has been shown to be a further benefit beyond that of removing nearly all acute and chronic toxicity. Therefore, there is a benefit to employing nitrification / denitrification with respect to minimizing effluent toxicity.

6.5 Phosphorus The allowable TP loading to Fairy Lake was determined to be 892 kg/year, as calculated by the District’s Lake System Health Program. For a rated capacity of 8,100 m3/d (associated with the expanded Golden Pheasant WWTP), a corresponding allowable effluent concentration was determined to be 0.3 mg/L. In addition to this loading allocation, effluent criteria must be assessed based on meeting PWQO after dilution in the receiving water, discussed in more detail below.

PWQO after Dilution

Effluent discharge must also achieve the PWQO for TP of 0.02 mg/L after dilution. A dilution ratio of 11:1 was used in this evaluation. Refer to Appendix C for the detailed calculations.

Table 6.3 presents the calculated effluent TP concentrations required to meet the PWQO for TP after dilution, as calculated based on the Muskoka River at 7Q20 low flows, as well as on the proposed effluent criteria for TP on a loading basis. The seasonal variation in TP requirements for meeting PWQO is due to the seasonal change in river flow.

In order to meet a TP concentration of 0.02 mg/L at the minimum dilution ratio of 11:1 and during the months of July and August, plant effluent will need to have a TP concentration of 0.14 mg/L or less. Effluent TP concentrations can be higher for other months of the year.

Table 6.3 Effluent TP Required to Meet PWQO after Dilution at 7Q20 with an ambient TP concentration of 9.8 ug/L

Month TP required to meet PWQO for TP after dilution, mg/L

Jan 0.32

Feb 0.36

Mar 0.28

Apr 0.37

May 0.35

Jun 0.19

Jul 0.14

Aug 0.14

Sep 0.39

Oct 0.18



Table 6.3 Effluent TP Required to Meet PWQO after Dilution at 7Q20 with an ambient TP concentration of 9.8 ug/L

Month TP required to meet PWQO for TP after dilution, mg/L

Nov 0.25

Dec 0.32

6.6 Oxygen Demand The significant contributors to the total oxygen demand (TOD) in the effluent are organic matter (measured as carbonaceous 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, cBOD5) and total ammonia-nitrogen (measured as nitrogenous oxygen demand, NOD). The NOD is determined as 4.57 times the TAN concentration.

Currently, the permitted BOD5 loading to the Muskoka River – Fairy Lake system for the Mountview WWTP and Golden Pheasant WWTP is 122 kg/d. If the expanded Golden Pheasant WWTP were to retain this loading rate at the proposed rated capacity of 8,100 m3/d, it would provide for an effluent limit of 15 mg/L for cBOD5. Currently, there is no loading limit for TAN for either the Mountview WWTP or the Golden Pheasant WWTP.

Table 6.4 presents the calculated effluent cBOD5 and TAN concentrations required to meet the PWQO for DO after dilution as calculated based on the Muskoka River at the 7Q20 low flow. In this calculation, a cBOD5 effluent limit of 5 mg/L was assumed and the TAN concentrations were calculated to meet the PWQO. The seasonal variation in TAN required to meet PWQO is due to the seasonal change in river flow and plant flows. It is proposed that effluent objectives of 5 and 13 mg N/L would satisfy the TOD loading limits for the summer and winter periods, respectively.

Table 6.4

Effluent TAN Required to Meet PWQO after Dilution at 7Q20

Month Proposed cBOD5

limit, mg/L TAN required to

meet PWQO, mg/L

Summer 5 5

Winter 5 13

Fall / Spring 5 29

6.7 E. coli The District’s standard effluent objective for E. coli is <2 organisms per 100 mL, with a limit of <80 per 100 mL, geometric mean. This is to protect significant recreational uses of the receiving water at the point of discharge. Additionally this supports the continued seasonal use of effluent water for golf course irrigation. In comparison, the PWQO for E. coli is 100 organisms per 100 mL.



7 Proposed Effluent Criteria In summary, based on the discussion in the previous sections, proposed effluent criteria were derived based on the following:

TABLE 7.1 Proposed ECA Effluent Objectives and Limits at 8,100 m3/d Rated Capacity for Golden Pheasant WWTP

Effluent Parameter Proposed

Objectives/Limits (mg/L) Basis for Selection

cBOD5 5/10 Meet the PWQO for DO

Total Suspended Solids 5/10

Total Phosphorus 0.14 /0.3 892 kg/year

Meet the PWQO for TP

Maintain Existing Annual TP Load Limit

Total Ammonia Nitrogen

May to September

2/5 (Limit) Meet the PWQO for DO **

(Objective) Provide year round nitrification as best practice for CEC removal

October to May 4/13 (Limit) Meet the PWQO for DO **

(Objective) Provide year round nitrification as a best practice for CEC removal

Nitrate 7/10

End of pipe Nitrate concentration for safe recreational and potable water intake uses

Provide year round denitrification for alkalinity recover and as a best practice for CECs removal

E. coli (Geometric Mean) < 2/80 Best practice for waters with high recreational uses and seasonal golf course irrigation

Notes: ** UIA is not a limiting parameter for TAN – TAN Concentration listed is required to meet DO standard. mg/L = milligram per litre cBOD5 = carbonaceous 5-day biochemical oxygen demand

Based on the assimilative capacity analysis, effluent objectives and limits for the Golden Pheasant WWTP expansion to 8,100 m3/d are proposed in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Proposed ECA Effluent Objectives and Limits at 8,100 m3/d Rated Capacity for Golden Pheasant WWTP

Effluent Parameter Objectives Limits

Average Concentration Average Concentration Loading

(mg/L) (mg/L) kg/year

cBOD5 5 10 -

TSS 5 10 -

Total Phosphorus 0.14 0.30 892

Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN)

-Non-Freezing Period (May 15 to September 30)

2 5 -

-Freezing Period (Oct 1 to May 14)

4 13



Nitrate Nitrogen 7 10

E. coli (Geometric Mean) <2 80 -

pH of the effluent maintained between 6.0 to 9.5, inclusive, at all times

The cBOD5 and TAN limits are proposed to meet the PWQO for TOD in the receiver, based on a dilution ratio determined by using the 7Q20 flow from the Muskoka River at Huntsville.

An effluent TP objective of 0.14 mg/L is proposed to meet the PWQO based on a dilution ratio determined by using the 7Q20 flow from the Muskoka River at Huntsville. An annual loading limit of 892 kg/year is proposed, in accordance with the acceptable load established for this receiver by the District’s Lake System Health Program. A monthly average concentration limit of 0.3 mg/L is proposed to provide operational flexibility in accommodating varying influent flows and loads, as well as allow for typical plant maintenance.

The TSS limit is proposed to be the same as for the current C of A for both the Mountview WWTP and the Golden Pheasant WWTP. Due to the stringent nature of the proposed TP effluent limit, the effluent TSS is not a meaningful parameter because the TSS must be suitably low to achieve the TP requirement.

A nitrate nitrogen limit of 10 mg/l at the end-of-pipe has been proposed to preserve recreational uses and protect private water supplies.

The provision of limits for ammonia and nitrate provides the added benefit of removing contaminants of emerging concern (through nitrification and denitrification) and improving alkalinity recovery (through denitrification).

A monthly effluent geometric mean of <2 E. coli per 100 mL is proposed in accordance with the District’s strategy of providing suitable waters for recreational use.

Compliance with the effluent objectives for cBOD5, TSS, TP and E. coli is enforced on an annual average basis, whereas similar compliance for TAN and TN is enforced on a seasonal basis. Compliance with the effluent limit concentrations for cBOD5 and TSS is enforced on an annual average basis, whereas similar compliance for TAN, TP and E. coli (geometric mean) is enforced on a monthly basis. Compliance with the effluent limit loading for TP is enforced on an annual average basis.

The proposed effluent quality standards are consistent with those imposed on the District’s other operating WWTPs that discharge into river receiving bodies.


References Ontario Ministry of the Environment Procedure B- 1-5 (1994) Deriving Receiving-Water Based, Point-Source Effluent Requirements for Ontario Waters. PIBS# 3302 MOE (1994) Water Management, July 1994. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. PIBS # 3303E MOE (2008) Design Guidelines for Sewage Works 2008, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. PIBS # 6879 Kawartha Conservation (2011) Muskoka River Watershed Management Plan (Draft – for discussion purposes). October, 2011.

Appendices A. MOE Pre-Consultation Meeting Minutes B. Muskoka River Water Quantity Calculations C. Treated Effluent Quality Requirements Calculations

MOUNTVIEW RWA DRAFT R7 - FINAL.DOCX/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 30 COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL


Appendix A – MOE Pre-Consultation Meeting Minutes


M E E T I N G N O T E S

District Municipality of Muskoka Mountville Wastewater Treatment Plant and Huntsville Sewage Works Upgrades

Geoff Bache - DMM Zuliana Mawani – CH2M Carolyn Lee – CH2M Matthew Elliott – CH2M Chris Hyde – MOE Craig Seabrooke – MOE Mark Bailey –MOE

Allison Kershaw – MOE Chunmei Lui – MOE Marinha Antunes – MOE Ted Belayneh – MOE Lyndsay Kean - MOE

PREPARED BY: Zuliana Mawani DATE: May 22, 2014

PROJECT NUMBER: 483228 MEETING DATE: May 22, 2014

MEETING TIME: 10:00 am – 12:00 pm

VENUE: MOE Barrie District Boardroom, 54 Cedar Pointe Drive, Unit 1201

These minutes are intended to be read concurrently with the PowerPoint presentation

# Item Action By

1 Introductions

• Zuliana Mawani of CH2M HILL and Geoff Bache of the District Municipality of Muskoka thanked participants for attending the meeting

• A round of introductions were made

2 Project Background

• Geoff provided background information on the project. o The 1989 Class EA proposed a 2-phase approach. Phase 1 was to

construct the Golden Pheasant plant and there was an overlap period of 5 years where Mountview (the only plant at the time) would be kept running. Phase 2 was to move all treatment to Golden Pheasant. However Mountview was kept running for 20 years.

o The goal of the current Class EA is to revisit Phase 2 of the 1989 Class EA, verify 1990 assumptions, and validate information, as well as discuss with regulatory agencies as the people involved in project approvals from the early 1990s are no longer around.

o Huntsville is a river-based community, similar to communities at Bracebridge and Port Carling which both have membrane-based plants

ATTENDEES:


(Lagoon Lane and Medora Street WWTPs). The District strives to maintain the Muskoka River in a pristine condition by cutting back on point source pollution to make allowances for non-point source pollution that is harder to control. The community values fishing, swimming, boating and the protection of private water supplies.

• Zuliana elaborated that the Phase 1 (construction of the Golden Pheasant WWTP) of the 1989 Preferred Solution is complete and that Phase 2 (decommission of Mountview WWTP and centralized treatment and Golden Pheasant WWTP) was deferred.

• Zuliana pointed out the locations of the Mountview WWTP (downtown core of Huntsville) and the Golden Pheasant (GP) WWTP (north of HWY 60) on the presentation slide.

• Chris Hyde of the MOE asked if GP is still seasonally discharging to the nearby golf course. Geoff responded that that during the spring and summer seasons, golf course irrigation is a priority use for WWTP effluent, and the remaining effluent would be discharged at the outfall (located at the mouth of Fairy Lake, in the North Muskoka River). The Golden Pheasant outfall was situated at a location away from the Golden Pheasant plant to avoid the Fairyview municipal water plant intake along the north shore of the Fairy Lake. Geoff indicated that he would like to implement golf course irrigation with wastewater effluent in Port Carling as well.

3 Problem Statement

• Zuliana Mawani of CH2M HILL presented the Problem/Opportunity statement which is to “Identify an updated Preferred Solution for replacing the Mountview WWTP and improving sewage works in the Town of Huntsville for the future.”

4 Mountview WWTP Description, Golden Pheasant WWTP Description

• Zuliana Mawani provided a description of the Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs. • The Mountview WWTP has a rated capacity of 3640m3/d and is currently

operating at around 3300m3/day. This Class EA refers to “replacing the Mountview WWTP” as the replacement the outdated infrastructure at Mountview WWTP.

• The Mountview WWTP consists of two plants constructed in 1956 and 1977. The existing ECA states that the total combined TP load between Mountview and Golden Pheasant WWTPs shall not exceed 892 kg/year. Geoff added that this limit was a result of discussions with MOE in the early 1990s. He also mentioned that nitrification at Golden Pheasant was not fulfilled.

• Mountview WWTP’s limitations include: o Settling tanks o Outdated codes


o Location next to a nice area of town and does not meet typical setback standards

o Located on floodplain o Outfall is along river bank

• Golden Pheasant WWTP plant components are designed for expandability. There is a provision for future expansion to 8778m3/day in GP’s ECA.

• Geoff described the water flow of the river/lake system in Huntsville which influences effluent flow. The upper part of North Muskoka River watershed originates in Algonquin Park and water flows through Lake Vernon and flows southward to Mary Lake.

5 Class EA Status

• The current Class EA is at the end of Phase 3. The intent is to file ESR by the end of the summer. Two PICs have been held to date. The last PIC is scheduled for May 31st.

• System improvements to both the Mountview and GP WWTPs are being deferred until after the completion of the EA. Geoff indicated that an implementation plan and the diversion of funds for infrastructure improvement will be part of the Preferred Solution for Mountview and GP WWTPs. Design will occur in 2015 and construction in 2016.

• Various consultation media were used including mailed notices, letters and website postings. Geoff mentioned that agency consultation and public consultation are concurrent. He indicated that consultation with the MOE is occurring now after community input has been received and that there is community support for replacing Mountview WWTP.

• Zuliana presented the Alternative Solutions considered as part of this Class EA. Alternative Solutions had to meet community requirements over the next 20 years in order to be carried forward. Alternative Design Concepts were based on one plant or two plant options. Preliminary design concept screening was completed and the two shortlisted concepts were the one plant Golden Pheasant WWTP option (Design Concept 2) and the two plant Mountview WWTP and Golden Pheasant WWTP (Design Concept 3) option.

• For the one plant Golden Pheasant WWTP Only option, Geoff commented that the community has grown around Mountview WWTP and that the expectations of decommissioning plant are greater now than in 1956 and 1970. However even if the plant were to be decommissioned there would still be some type of wastewater infrastructure at the Mountview site such as a pumping station (PS). There would also be limited capability to expand the PS.

• Chris Hyde of the MOE stated that if the District were to change land use to a park use designation, Brownfield redevelopment regulations would apply. Geoff commented that the property would be retained by the District with some sort of WWTP infrastructure. Chris clarified if the industrial footprint of the site changes Brownfield environmental site assessments (ESA) would be required. However, if the fence line was left as is, they would not be required.


He also added that it is not an onerous process to conduct a Phase 2 ESA which provides a Record of Site Condition. Geoff indicated that all the available space on the Mountview site would be a temporary greenspace concession due to limited areas for infrastructure construction.

• Zuliana explained that for the two plant option, Mountview WWTP would either be upgraded, or a new plant with a compact process would be built on the site. Golden Pheasant WWTP would need some upgrades.

6 Approach to Effluent Quality

• Dwight Houweling of CH2M HILL discussed the approach for developing effluent quality and stated that the approach is the same for two plants versus a single plant. Activities included: • Analysis of background water quality data and data from new sampling

programs • Examining outfall condition and dilution performance, and mixing zone

analysis • Look at current and potential future regulations, emerging research as

well as best practices for treatment of emerging contaminants of concern. • Geoff emphasized that the District is looking for an energy efficient solution

that protects the recreational uses of the watershed and drinking water sources, as well as preserves and improves fisheries. Geoff added that the Mountview WWTP has outdated components that do not reflect best practices such as gas chlorination. The decommissioning of that system is scheduled for 2015.

• Dwight mentioned that the Receiving Water Impact Assessment is driven by river flows, in particular 7Q20 (lowest flow in 7 consecutive days in a 20 year period). The lowest river flows are noted in July from a statistical analysis of historical data. The Nearest MOE flow station is northwest of Huntsville at the river reach that feeds Vernon Lake.

• Provincial Water Quality Monitoring stations and District Lake Health monitoring data were used to determine ambient ammonia and phosphorus concentrations. Phosphorus is the most sensitive governing parameter for effluent quality.

• Dwight commented that outfall is a river or lake discharge. In the 1989 Class EA it was considered lake discharge with an initial dilution 30:1.

• The Policy status of Vernon Lake – Muskoka River – Fairy Lake is Policy 1 with respect to Total Ammonia Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus.

• Geoff remarked that the dilution ratio to meet PWQO and TP objective are lenient but serves as a reference. He stated that the District has to select stricter effluent limits that are right for the receiver and preservation of what is valued by the community. The interest is well beyond the total phosphorus limit, and includes other pollutants that change the balance in aquatic systems that everyone enjoys in Muskoka.


• Dwight presented the results from evaluating one plant and two plant scenarios based on the PWQO and MOE procedures. For 7Q20 in a river discharge scenario, the dilution ratio is 12:1. (For every 1 m3 of effluent 12 m3

of river water is diluting). If a lake discharge scenario is assumed, where Mountview discharges to the river and mixes with Golden Pheasant effluent, the dilution ratio would be 30:1 as indicated in the original 1989 ESR and validated in the current CORMIX model.

• Geoff indicated that the District preference is non-toxic effluent at the point of discharge, since iron man and swimming races occur in the Muskoka River adjacent to the Mountview WWTP and there are private water sources downstream.

• Zuliana commented that supplementary water quality sampling is being conducted as part of the project. The first sampling event was ice on, and the second sampling event will occur next week (May 26th). In addition to the testing of the usual water quality parameters, the full suite of drinking water parameters are being tested with the objective of protecting private water supplies and determining the presence of any CECs. The existing TP and ammonia data sets were confirmed and the additional parameters were non-detect from the first round of sampling. The second sampling event will sample immediately upstream and downstream of WWTP outfalls.

• Geoff requested that the MOE consider the reuse of the existing outfall in advance and to identify potential issues that the District can add to their work plan. ACTION: MOE to provide input on potential issues for the continued use of the existing Golden Pheasant outfall to its preapproved ultimate capacity.

• Zuliana presented a list of technologies being considered as part of the Class EA. The project team is looking at the long list of technologies in terms of cost compatibility and ability to meet objectives. The plant would be designed using existing best practices with a high solids retention time (SRT) to remove contaminants of emerging concern, anoxic zones (for denitrification, toxicity removal and CEC breakdown), tertiary treatment for additional TSS and phosphorus removal, as well as UV disinfection for high recreational water quality. Matthew clarified that the high SRT process to remove CECs is a variation of the activated sludge process.

• Zuliana stated that the two plants combined have a total 892 kg/year TP limit and the intent is to operate below the existing limit.

• Matthew indicated that technology solutions will be similar for the one or two plant concept and is not the deciding factor for selecting a preferred Design Concept. Ted Belayneh of the MOE asked about the key deciding factors. Geoff responded that that at each public meeting, the problem was defined as the replacement of the Mountview WWTP which the public supports. Initial Design Concept screening results that showed that the replacement of

MOE


Mountview with a pump station (PS) and expanding Golden Pheasant was a frontrunner, which was confirmed at PIC#2.

• Ted requested to review the RWIA as soon as possible before the ESR is filed to give feedback on effluent limits. The MOE would not have a problem with existing outfall if there is sufficient hydraulic capacity; however, the assumption cannot be made that the use of existing infrastructure is acceptable without the considering of the receiver and surroundings. Geoff commented that the District strives to minimize point sources of TP to offset non-point sources. Ted clarified that TP loading limits are not an allocation but an approval. ACTION: CH2M HILL to send Ted Belayneh of the MOE the RWIA for review prior to filing the ESR.

• Geoff indicated that the District monitors lake health very carefully and has a phosphorus budget for each lake and assesses a threshold for the maintenance of current ecosystems.

CH2M

7 Discussion of Alternatives and Design Concepts

• Chunmei Liu and Marinha Antunes of the MOE asked for confirmation of the preferred Design Concept. Geoff stated that the one plant concept is preferred and Matthew added that the project team is further evaluating this concept and confirming costs.

• Ted noted that there is neighborhood opposition to the Mountview WWTP at the current site. Geoff commented that the 1970s technology being used is not compatible with the odour, noise and traffic requirements of the neighborhood. However, the construction of a new “2015 plant” would employ technologies that mitigate the lack of a buffer, and achieve acceptable levels of odour and noise for the surroundings. The employment of these technologies would come at a higher cost. It would also be challenging to keep the existing Mountview WWTP in operation during the construction of the new plant. Geoff stated that the Mountview WWTP is at the end of its 50 year life cycle, and that retrofitting the plant would be extremely difficult. He also added that the Mountview site is not a good site to build from a disaster recovery and flood management perspective. Through this Class EA, the District is evaluating where long term investments should be made to benefit the community.

• Ted mentioned that MOE does not have any preference in regards to keeping Mountview WWTP and generally supports consolidating operations. He recognized that the Mountview plant would need to be replaced regardless, even without an increase in capacity. He inquired about the constructability of the forcemain alignment and if this component will be part of another Class EA. Geoff responded that Phase 2 of the 1989 Class EA was originally intended to be implemented shortly after Phase 1 was completed; therefore, sections of the forcemain were preinstalled. Forcemain planning completed in the 1990s is still applicable as the corridor has not changed much in 20 years. Zuliana


added that the project team has recently met with the MTO to discuss the preapproved HWY 60 route.

• Chunmei Liu stated that as long as the forcemain is included in this Class EA, the MOE would not have a problem as long as the documentation and consultation requirements are met. Geoff mentioned that it will be made clear to the public that a new forcemain, pumping station and upgrades to the Golden Pheasant WWTP are part of the Preferred Solution. Zuliana added that each component of the Preferred Solution is being looked at to provide a holistic cost for District financial planning for the long term.

8 General Discussion

• Ted stated that peak flows and I&I that are potential issues that have been presented in the PIC panels in detail and has to be addressed concurrently with capacity considerations. Geoff mentioned that there is an ongoing I&I program with sewer and PS rehabs as well as the determination of where cross connections may have occurred. Many storm sewers are on private property or in the jurisdiction of area municipalities, which provides a challenge for determining problems. The I&I issue at Mountview WWTP is currently being addressed under the Church St. PS works (which went through a Schedule B Class EA). I&I issues are being addressed as a separate program.

• Matthew commented that 20 year flow projections show a modest need for capacity increase based on forecasted growth rates, and that infrastructure improvements can be expected. Geoff mentioned that it is District practice to invest in infrastructure based on conservative growth rates and wastewater flows, which factor in a realistic I&I allowance. The District acknowledges that this I&I component will need to be reduced to allow for future growth.

• Chunmei advised that the public would like to know this sort of I&I information. Geoff mentioned that I&I information has been included in flow projections which have been presented to the public. Zuliana added that information about the District’s I&I Control and Water Conservation programs have been shown at PICs.

• Ted mentioned that in addition to I&I control and water conservation measures, engineering solutions such as handling peak flow capacities at the new plant and preventing plant bypass should also be considered. Geoff asserted that there are no combined sewers in Muskoka, and that plant bypass and spills are not tolerated anywhere in Muskoka. Zuliana indicated that the peak flow requirements calculated based on historical flows do not factor in I&I reductions, and that designs will factor in sufficient peak flow capacity as to not allow bypasses and spills.

9 Next Steps

• Zuliana stated that the next steps are to prepare and file the ESR. Design for the decommissioning of Mountview WWTP, new forcemain, and Golden Pheasant upgrades will start the following year (2015).


• Geoff asked for any additional MOE input. • Chris asked if the project team has looked at upgrades completed at the Barrie

WWTP that employs dual point addition and sand filtration to achieve 0.03 mg/L TP without membranes. Matthew mentioned that the reliability of sand filters is 0.1 mg/L as the residual/refractory phosphorus is mixed in with soluble organic compounds. He remarked that the project team is aware of other plants that reliably and consistently achieve low phosphorus levels. He also noted that plants that are operating below their rated capacity tend to perform better, and as capacity increases, plant performance decreases non-linearly.

• Chunmei spoke about air quality issues and assessment. She indicated that the MOE has standard air quality assessment requirements for WWTP Class EAs, based on the scale, capacity, size and location of the proposed plant. She recommended an air quality study to determine impacts to the surrounding community. Geoff responded that air quality studies as part of WWTP Class EAs are regular practice for Muskoka and there is no receiver more sensitive than cottagers.

• Chunmei mentioned that the MOE prefers to review the ESR in advance and commented on the fact that she has not yet directly received a formal notice for this project. Zuliana indicated that project notices were sent to the Barrie District Notice. Chunmei responded that the District office does not manage projects and review EAs. Notices should be sent to the Central Region office as well. Geoff apologized for the misunderstanding. Chunmei noted that the MOE will review the ESR when the Notice of Completion is issued. She also mentioned that she has sent a letter outline general Class EA requirements including First Nations consultation.

• Marinha Antunes discussed air quality requirements. She noted that Regulation 346 has been superseded by O. Reg 419, and more sophisticated models need to be used. The SCREEN3 model can still be used, but AERMOD is required for sewage treatment and does a better job for estimating total reduced sulphur. For total reduced sulphur, as part of the 20/20 Clean Air Partnernship, the District will have to comply with odour guidelines of 13 mg/L, especially for digester waste gas burners. It will be more difficult for upgrades at Mountview to meet these requirements and the needs of the surrounding community sensitive to odours. Geoff indicated that most plants in the District have digester waste gas burners and covered tanks, and that most people are unaware of WWTP locations which, reflects the effectiveness of current odour control programs.

• Marinha mentioned that there have been issues with water from sludge sanitation having high ammonia concentrations. Geoff indicated that digester sludges are centrifuged and transported to a composting or land fill facility. The remainder is incinerated and energy is recovered at a boiler.

CH2M


• Marinha recommended that the ESR describes potential sources of air quality pollutants and focus on the key parameters: reduced sulphur, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, and mercaptans. Future emissions rates have to be prorated for comparison with current scenario of emissions and documented to prove that O. Reg 419 is being met. Marinha mentioned it may be useful to assess outside of the property line for a Brownfield assessments. She also noted that Peter Burrowes of CH2M HILL is familiar with the regulations from having worked with him on the Duffin Creek WPCP.

• Chunmei requested that project team correspondence with MOE technical staff be copied to herself and the District Office. ACTION: CH2M HILL to copy Chunmei Liu on future correspondence with MOE technical staff.

• Marinha also suggests retaining a senior noise engineer. Chris agreed that it may be useful to consider a noise assessment for the Golden Pheasant WWTP. Geoff responded that the Golden Pheasant site was purposely selected in a rural greenfield between the Town’s urban centre and Hidden Valley to avoid noise impacts to the community.

• Marinha mentioned that the meteorological data set used in the AERMOD has to be approved by the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch. The District can request the MOE for an approved data set so that air quality modelling can be approved earlier. She also offered to review air quality assessment work plans. ACTION: CH2M HILL to prepare an air quality study workplan.

• Ted asked if there is a potential for Part II Order requests. Geoff responded that the District does not anticipate any Part II Order requests. The potential of a Part II Order request would have been higher if there were an economic advantage for keeping two plants and retaining Mountview WWTP on the site. The current Preferred Design Concept is consistent with what the community preferred in 1989 and is still considered the best solution in 2014 by the public.

• Geoff mentioned that the District already has an approval for a 8700m3/day rated outfall that will be used to treat all flows at Golden Pheasant WWTP. The District will be conducting studies to validate the outfall and be certain of its performance.

• Geoff shared examples of two other District plants, Lagoon Lane in Bracebridge and Medora Street in Port Carling that have gone through a similar effluent criteria setting process. He remarked that the TP, ammonia and nitrate criteria for this project would be similar. He stated that the District wishes to set and implement levels of treatment based on the health of the receiver that are higher than the current standards and criteria.

• Chris commented that municipalities are now looking at alternative effluent disposal methods to divert portions of their annual TP loading to other land-based receivers/uses. He noted that some municipalities cannot afford membrane treatment. Geoff explained that membrane treatment is expensive

CH2M

CH2M


if used to only to meet lower TSS targets; however, optimization of chemical and energy consumption can be attained with good operations staff. Geoff remarked that District operations staff were unfamiliar with membranes initially at Lagoon Lane but became adept at operating them even without a soda ash alkalinity system. After optimization activities, chemical dosage at Lagoon Lane is one quarter of what it was before and energy requirements are similar. The benefits of advanced treatment with membranes at Lagoon Lane include CEC removal and added barriers to pathogens.

Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.


Appendix B – Muskoka River Water Quantity Calculations

Table B-1 Monthly 7 day average low flows in East River at Station 02EB013 for 1973 to 2012 Year

/ Mont

h

Jan (m3/s)

Feb (m3/s)

Mar (m3/s)

Apr (m3/s)

May (m3/s)

Jun (m3/s)

Jul (m3/s

)

Aug (m3/

s)

Sep (m3/

s)

Oct (m3/

s)

Nov (m3/

s)

Dec (m3/

s)

1973 4.72 5.19 5.70 15.06 12.20 13.30 3.51 2.94 4.17 4.20 5.29 6.38

1974 4.82 3.62 4.85 5.04 5.73 4.00 2.73 3.41 2.25 8.44 12.2

9 5.07 1975 4.22 4.14 6.98 19.14 8.71 3.05 1.28 3.47 3.67 3.71 3.80 7.50 1976 1.83 1.76 3.03 16.69 2.74 2.90 2.90 2.24 2.52 1.69 1.78 2.50 1977 4.84 2.99 2.87 4.96 9.57 1.58 1.47 1.52 4.14 6.54 8.82 6.13 1978 4.51 3.17 6.63 27.19 10.02 3.83 1.99 1.91 6.39 6.33 5.52 5.07

1979 7.32 3.41 2.55 22.23 6.53 3.58 2.53 3.22 5.28 6.51 10.0

0 12.5

3

1980 3.99 3.88 7.36 13.24 8.34 5.35 4.62 4.35 6.64 12.1

0 8.67 4.70

1981 4.70 3.30 3.11 17.11 6.28 5.23 2.95 3.75 18.4

3 14.5

3 6.25 5.27

1982 9.01 4.73 5.39 11.41 18.03 4.12 2.69 2.42 5.80 6.39 10.1

0 13.4

9 1983 3.44 3.85 7.26 23.04 13.30 4.12 1.84 1.62 5.42 4.67 6.21 5.04

1984 5.79 3.70 13.03 26.71 9.41 6.06 3.99 2.05 5.11 4.20 10.5

3 9.21

1985 5.43 3.36 2.99 20.86 6.65 3.13 4.56 3.34 5.47 11.6

4 8.88 6.44 1986 3.23 2.42 2.53 9.45 3.08 8.94 3.74 3.07 6.57 7.45 5.29 4.75 1987 4.36 4.86 3.81 25.01 9.44 3.53 1.43 1.05 3.06 2.67 4.96 7.94

1988 4.97 3.36 2.79 25.44 13.41 1.68 0.91 1.40 4.62 9.70 11.0

3 5.67 1989 3.54 5.73 4.76 21.20 10.81 8.22 1.54 1.14 3.44 1.85 2.26 3.66 1990 4.09 3.33 10.36 23.54 5.64 4.12 2.32 1.47 3.49 4.86 6.60 8.99 1991 4.94 3.46 3.40 8.47 7.08 1.88 1.41 1.99 3.42 6.79 7.94 8.09

1992 7.39 3.45 2.58 18.66 7.51 2.24 2.24 2.42 10.2

2 12.0

4 17.9

9 6.76

1993 2.75 2.32 2.47 5.74 12.79 10.32 3.57 2.94 5.51 10.5

7 11.8

1 5.64

1994 5.04 4.19 4.17 10.78 13.94 7.06 7.23 4.08 5.08 3.81 11.9

9 5.74

1995 5.27 6.84 6.32 11.10 12.75 3.41 3.91 5.35 5.60 4.54 12.8

0 5.97 1996 12.49 6.85 6.71 29.41 10.39 6.66 9.20 5.92 4.26 5.13 8.97 9.54 1997 3.79 2.87 4.17 10.01 1.64 3.53 1.23 1.02 2.94 1.52 2.86 2.02 1998 3.05 6.15 2.89 6.56 2.76 0.63 0.56 0.57 2.24 0.85 0.86 3.65


1999 5.43 3.69 11.53 13.96 9.23 1.90 2.27 1.83 3.39 12.7

1 9.31 11.5

6 2000 2.89 2.98 5.41 9.90 5.70 4.28 3.74 6.94 4.83 2.02 1.94 3.57

2001 4.77 4.74 7.69 8.96 7.35 4.03 1.23 0.87 4.28 7.79 10.6

6 10.0

7 2002 4.05 3.78 3.55 9.39 7.52 6.44 2.87 2.68 3.81 3.33 3.18 3.44 2003 5.37 4.20 4.60 12.06 7.73 4.88 3.37 3.16 3.56 6.41 7.43 6.93 2004 6.63 4.67 3.85 11.31 5.25 3.87 3.45 2.97 2.73 3.18 4.89 6.31 2005 5.28 5.82 5.33 12.67 5.11 3.60 2.75 2.58 2.52 2.74 3.38 5.76 2006 6.42 4.14 4.01 9.73 5.32 3.39 3.32 3.70 2.96 5.13 8.06 9.02 2007 7.48 7.24 5.90 12.97 7.86 3.33 3.14 2.71 2.87 3.17 5.91 5.21 2008 5.78 5.23 6.97 13.56 7.79 7.23 5.45 4.84 4.08 4.33 6.02 6.45 2009 5.05 5.12 5.23 5.02 3.65 4.19 4.41 4.81 3.15 5.11 6.26 7.48 2010 5.99 4.92 5.47 7.35 7.83 3.29 3.53 3.03 3.27 4.07 6.28 6.76 2011 5.99 5.13 5.25 5.63 4.09 4.95 3.00 2.98 2.79 3.24 5.18 7.85 2012 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.47 2.54 2.54 2.45 3.14 6.94 6.34

Table B-2

Calculation of 7Q20 for North Branch of Muskoka River at Huntsville Year/Month Jan

(m3/s)

Feb (m3/s)

Mar (m3/s)

Apr (m3/s)

May (m3/s)

Jun (m3/s)

Jul (m3/s)

Aug (m3/s)

Sep (m3/s)

Oct (m3/s)

Nov (m3/s)

Dec (m3/s)

Method of Moments

3.17 2.32 2.38 3.44 2.66 1.83 1.19 0.93 2.78 1.28 1.93 3.10

Method of Lowest Observed

2.29 2.15 2.58 3.79 2.50 1.08 0.80 0.83 2.27 1.27 1.74 2.69

Minimum of 2 Methods

2.29 2.15 2.38 3.44 2.50 1.08 0.80 0.83 2.27 1.27 1.74 2.69

Pro-rated 7Q20 at Plant*

2.73 2.57 2.85 4.11 2.99 1.29 0.96 1.00 2.71 1.52 2.08 3.22

*The pro-rated value is based on the ratio of the drainage areas.

Drainage area of the East River at 02EB013 (45°23'33" N, 79°9'35" W) 610 km2 Drainage area of Lake Vernon 119.07 km2 Drainage area of the North Branch of the Muskoka River at Hunstville. 729.07 km2


Appendix C – Treated Effluent Quality Requirement Calculations


Table C-1

End-of-pipe Non-acutely toxic effluent

75th percentiles*

Month Temp pH pKa UIA Factor NH3 for 0.2 UIA NH3-N for 0.2

UIA Jan 4 7.4 9.95 0.0028 70.4 58.0 Feb 11 7.4 9.72 0.0048 41.9 34.5 Mar 9 7.4 9.76 0.0043 46.1 37.9 Apr 12 7.4 9.67 0.0053 37.6 31.0 May 13 7.4 9.62 0.0060 33.5 27.6 Jun 15 7.4 9.57 0.0067 29.7 24.5 Jul 26 7.4 9.22 0.0149 13.4 11.1

Aug 19 7.4 9.45 0.0089 22.6 18.6 Sep 18 7.4 9.48 0.0082 24.5 20.2 Oct 17 7.4 9.51 0.0076 26.2 21.6 Nov 16 7.4 9.55 0.0070 28.6 23.6 Dec 12 7.4 9.67 0.0054 37.1 30.5

*Typical numbers for activated sludge plants in Ontario used in gaining MOE approval


Table C-2 Ammonia-N to Achieve PWQO after Dilution – Golden Pheasant WWTP

RIVER at 75th percentile EFFLUENT Mixed (RIVER + EFFLUENT)

Month 7Q20, m3/s Temp pH NH3 + NH4+ UIA Rated Capacity,

m3/d Tem

p pH NH3 + NH4+

NH3-N

Temp pH

NH3 + NH4+

UIA Factor UIA

Jan 2.7 0.7 6.57 0.04 0.013 0.093 4 7.50 126 104 0.8 6.60 4.20 0.0003

0.00

Feb 2.6 1 6.57 0.04 0.0 0.078 10.5 7.50 137 113 1.3 6.60 4.09 0.0004

0.00

Mar 2.8 3 6.57 0.04 0.0 0.113 9.3 7.50 93 77 3.2 6.61 3.61 0.0004

0.00

Apr 4.1 9.3 6.57 0.04 0.0 0.124 11.9 7.50 71 59 9.4 6.60 2.13 0.0007

0.00

May 3.0 18.7 6.57 0.04 0.1 0.093 13.4 7.50 33 27 18.5 6.60 1.04 0.0014

0.00

Jun 1.3 23.9 6.57 0.04 0.1 0.076 15 7.50 13 11 23.4 6.62 0.77 0.0021

0.00

Jul 1.0 25.1 6.57 0.04 0.1 0.086 26 7.50 8 7 25.2 6.65 0.72 0.0025

0.00

Aug 1.0 21.4 6.57 0.04 0.1 0.088 18.7 7.50 11 9 21.2 6.65 0.93 0.0019

0.00

Sep 2.7 17.5 6.57 0.04 0.0 0.077 17.6 7.50 43 35 17.5 6.60 1.21 0.0013

0.00

Oct 1.5 12.3 6.57 0.04 0.0 0.096 16.7 7.50 29 24 12.6 6.63 1.78 0.0009

0.00

Nov 2.1 5.6 6.57 0.04 0.0 0.093 15.5 7.50 67 55 6.0 6.61 2.90 0.0005

0.00

Dec 3.2 1.2 6.57 0.04 0.0 0.110 12.1 7.50 119 98 1.6 6.60 3.98 0.0004

0.00

Table C-3

TP to Achieve PWQO after Dilution - Golden Pheasant WWTP with dilution calculated based on Muskoka River 7Q20 RIVER at 75th percentile EFFLUENT Mixed (RIVER + EFFLUENT)

Month 7Q20, m3/s TP Rated Capacity, m3/s TP Rated Capacity TP Jan 2.7 0.0098 0.093 0.32 2.825 0.020 Feb 2.6 0.0098 0.078 0.36 2.652 0.020 Mar 2.8 0.0098 0.113 0.28 2.963 0.020 Apr 4.1 0.0098 0.124 0.37 4.236 0.020 May 3.0 0.0098 0.093 0.35 3.081 0.020 Jun 1.3 0.0098 0.076 0.19 1.368 0.020 Jul 1.0 0.0098 0.086 0.14 1.046 0.020

Aug 1.0 0.0098 0.088 0.14 1.083 0.020 Sep 2.7 0.0098 0.077 0.39 2.790 0.020 Oct 1.5 0.0098 0.096 0.18 1.613 0.020 Nov 2.1 0.0098 0.093 0.25 2.173 0.020 Dec 3.2 0.0098 0.110 0.32 3.325 0.020


Table C-4 TP to Achieve PWQO after Dilution - Golden Pheasant WWTP with dilution calculated based on Muskoka River 7Q20

RIVER at 75th percentile Ambient Conditions EFFLUENT Mixed (RIVER + EFFLUENT)

Month 7Q20, m3/s DO Temp, deg C PWQO for DO Rated Capacity, m3/s BOD Rated Capacity DO Summer 2.7 9.0 25.0 5.0 0.093 112 2.825 5.0

Spring / Fall 2.6 10.0 10.0 6.0 0.078 125 2.652 6.0 Winter 2.8 10.0 1.0 8.0 0.113 42 2.963 8.0

Table C-5 BOD and TAN to Achieve PWQO after Dilution - Golden Pheasant WWTP with dilution calculated based on Muskoka River 7Q20

RIVER at 75th percentile Ambient Conditions EFFLUENT Mixed (RIVER + EFFLUENT) Month 7Q20, m3/s DO Temp, deg C PWQO for DO Rated Capacity, m3/s BOD NH3N Rated Capacity DO

Summer 1.0 8.24 25.0 5.0 0.093 5 5 1.053 5.0 Spring / Fall 1.5 11.28 10.0 6.0 0.113 5 13 1.631 6.0

Winter 2.6 14.20 1.0 8.0 0.110 5 29 2.683 8.0


Documents

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Provision of Wastewater Treatment …