TEL: 204.942.6391 +BOVBSZ +BOVBSZ

Associated Engineering (Sask.) Ltd.203 – Five Donald StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3L 2T4

TEL: 204.942.6391FAX: 204.942.6399www.ae.ca

January 22, 2018File: 2016-4483.000.E.400

Ms. Tracey Braun, M. Sc.Director, Environmental ApprovalsSustainable Development123 Main Street, Suite 160Winnipeg Manitoba, R3C 1A5

Re: ENVIRONMENT ACT PROPOSAL - TOWN OF NEEPAWANEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

Dear Ms. Braun:

On behalf of the Town of Neepawa, please find enclosed four (4) hardcopies and one (1) electronic PDF ofour Environmental Act Submission for the above-mentioned project. The enclosed is also accompanied bya $7,500 cheque for the application fee.

The Town has recently obtained funding approval under the Canada Clean Water and Wastewater Fundfor a first phase up upgrades (referred to as Phase 1). This Phase 1 consists of new aerated lagoon cellsand a new wastewater treatment building to house the aeration equipment and UV disinfection equipment.Phase 2 works is pending additional funding, but would generally consist of the MBBR and disk filterequipment, as well as include decommissioning of the abandoned lagoon cells.

We trust that the enclosed application contains sufficient information for your staff to provide the necessaryapprovals. Should the reviewer require any additional information or require any clarifications, please do nothesitate to contact myself.

We thank you for your consideration of this application.

Yours truly,

Ken AndersonManager, Water

KA

ENVIRONMENT ACT PROPOSAL

Town of Neepawa Manitoba Water Services Board Town of Neepawa Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades

January 2018

AE#:2016-4833

CONFIDENTIALITY AND © COPYRIGHT

This document is for the sole use of the addressee and Associated Engineering (Sask.) Ltd. The document contains proprietary andconfidential information that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or discussed with any other parties without the express written permission of Associated Engineering (Sask.) Ltd. Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of Associated Engineering (Sask.) Ltd. in accordance with Canadian copyright law.

This report was prepared by Associated Engineering (Sask.) Ltd. for the account of Town of Neepawa The material in it reflects Associated Engineering (Sask.) Ltd.’s best judgement, in the light of the information available to it, at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Associated Engineering (Sask.) Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

1

Environment Act Proposal Form

Name of the development:

Type of development per Classes of Development Regulation (Manitoba Regulation 164/88):

Legal name of the applicant:

Mailing address of the applicant:

Contact Person:

City: Province: Postal Code:

Phone Number: Fax: mail:

Location of the development:

Contact Person:

Street Address:

Legal Description:

City/Town: Province: Postal Code:

Phone Number: Fax: email:

Name of proponent contact person for purposes of the environmental assessment:

Phone:

Fax:

Mailing address:

Email address:

Webpage address:

Date:

Signature of proponent, or corporate principal of corporate

Printed name:

Town of Neepawa Wastewater Development Facility

Class 2

Town of Neepawa

275 Hamilton Street

Denis Saquet, CET

Neepawa MB R0J 1H0

(204) 476-7655 [email protected]

Town of Neepawa

Denis Saquet, CET

Hurrell Road

NW 1/4 & NE 1/4 of Section 34 Twp. 14 Rge 15 WPM

Neepawa MB R0J 1H0

(204) 476-7655 [email protected]

Ken Anderson, P. Eng.

(204) 942-6391

(204) 942-6399

203 - 5 Donald StreetWinnipeg MB, R3L 2T4

[email protected]

2018-01-22

Ken Anderson

PRINT RESET

2

A complete Environment Act Proposal (EAP)consists of the following components:

Cover letterEnvironment Act Proposal FormReports/plans supporting the EAP (see“Information Bulletin - Environment ActProposal Report Guidelines” for requiredinformation and number of copies)Application fee (Cheque, payable to Ministerof Finance, for the appropriate fee)

Submit the complete EAP to:

DirectorEnvironmental Approvals BranchManitoba Conservation and Water StewardshipSuite 160, 123 Main StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1A5

For more information:Phone: (204) 945-8321Fax: (204) 945-5229http://www.gov.mb.ca/ /eal

Per Environment Act Fees Regulation(Manitoba Regulation 168/96):

Class 1 Developments ................................. $1,000Class 2 Developments .................................. $7,500Class 3 Developments:

Transportation and Transmission Lines .. $10,000Water Developments ............................... $60,000Energy and Mining ................................. $120,000

Town of Neepawa Environment Act Proposal Manitoba Water Services Board Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades

i

Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO.

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iv 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Information ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Existing Facilities and Issues................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Population And Lagoon Loading .......................................................................................... 3

1.4 Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Previous Studies ................................................................................................................... 4

2 Description of Proposed Development ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Project Location and Ownership .......................................................................................... 5

2.2 Existing and Adjacent Land Use .......................................................................................... 5

2.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Treatment Processes ......................................................................................................... 11

2.6 MBBR Technology .............................................................................................................. 14

2.7 Disk Filtration ...................................................................................................................... 17

2.8 Final Disinfection ................................................................................................................ 19

2.9 Other Design Parameters ................................................................................................... 20

2.10 Discharge Route ................................................................................................................. 21

2.11 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................. 22

2.12 Decommissioning ............................................................................................................... 23

2.13 Biosolids Disposal .............................................................................................................. 23

2.14 Project Funding .................................................................................................................. 25

2.15 Project Schedule ................................................................................................................ 25

2.16 Public Consultation ............................................................................................................. 26

2.17 Project Phasing & Interim Operations ................................................................................ 26

3 Existing Physical Environment .................................................................................................... 27 3.1 Physiographic Setting and Climate .................................................................................... 27

3.2 Hydrogeology ..................................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Hydrology............................................................................................................................ 29

3.4 Fish and Fish Habitat .......................................................................................................... 31

Table of Contents

ii \\s-wpg-fs-01\projects\20164833\00_mwsb_neepawa_ww\engineering\04.00_preliminary_design\rpt_neepawa_wwtf_eap_final180123.docx

3.5 Vegetation and Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 32

3.6 Protected Species and Sensitive Habitats ......................................................................... 33

3.7 Socioeconomic ................................................................................................................... 33

4 Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................................................. 35 4.1 Environmental Effects During Construction........................................................................ 35

4.2 Environmental Effects From Operating New Facility .......................................................... 36

5 Environmental Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 38 5.1 Environmental Mitigation During Construction ................................................................... 38

5.2 Environmental Mitigation During Operation of New Facility ............................................... 39

6 Project Phasing Summary ............................................................................................................ 40 6.1 Phase 1 Work Program ...................................................................................................... 40

6.2 Phase 2 Work Program ...................................................................................................... 42

7 References ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A – Certificate of Titles ................................................................................................................. Appendix B – Current Licence (762VO) ....................................................................................................... Appendix C – Facility Classification Form ................................................................................................... Appendix D – Geotechnical Information ...................................................................................................... Appendix E – Drawings ..................................................................................................................................

List of Tables

iii

List of Tables

PAGE NO.

Table 1-1 – Existing Lagoon Capacity Assessment .................................................................................... 2 Table 1-2 – Neepawa Population Projections .............................................................................................. 3 Table 1-3 – Projected Wastewater Generation ............................................................................................ 3 Table 1-4 – Estimated Wastewater Loadings by Population ...................................................................... 4 Table 1-5 – Estimated Wastewater Loadings from Truck Haul .................................................................. 4 Table 2-1 – Estimated Wastewater Flows .................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-2 – Estimated Wastewater Loadings ............................................................................................... 8 Table 2-3 – Anticipated Wastewater Effluent Requirements ...................................................................... 9 Table 2-4 – Anticipated Wastewater Effluent Ammonia Design Requirements ..................................... 10 Table 2-5 – Aerated Cell Sizing Parameters ............................................................................................... 11 Table 2-6 – Aeration Equipment Details ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 2-7 – MBBR Sizing Parameters ......................................................................................................... 14 Table 2-8 – MBBR Effluent Parameters ...................................................................................................... 15 Table 2-9 – MBBR Sizing Summary ............................................................................................................ 16 Table 2-10 – Disk Filter Sizing Parameters ................................................................................................ 17 Table 2-11 – Dewatering Pond Parameters ................................................................................................ 18 Table 2-12 – UV Disinfection Design Criteria ............................................................................................. 19 Table 2-13 – 2016 Sludge Survey Results .................................................................................................. 23 Table 2-14 – Biosolids Disposal Timeline .................................................................................................. 24 Table 2-15 – Biosolids Land Application Rates ......................................................................................... 24 Table 2-16 – Phase 1 Works Timeline ......................................................................................................... 25 Table 3-1 – Climatic Averages for the Region (1981-2010) ...................................................................... 27 Table 3-2 – Historical River Water Quality Assessment ........................................................................... 30 Table 3-3 – Fish Species that Inhabit the Whitemud River (Earth Tech 2008) ....................................... 31

List of Figures

iv \\s-wpg-fs-01\projects\20164833\00_mwsb_neepawa_ww\engineering\04.00_preliminary_design\rpt_neepawa_wwtf_eap_final180123.docx

List of Figures

PAGE NO.

Figure 2-1 – Project Location Map ................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2-2 – Aeration Lagoon Schematic with MBBR Treatment Process ............................................... 6 Figure 2-3 – WWTF Site Layout ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-4 – WWTF Building Layout ............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-5 – New Aerated Cell Lagoon Section ......................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-6 – Preliminary Aeration Layout .................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2-7 – Clay Borrow Site ...................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-8 – Proposed MBBR Tank Layout ................................................................................................ 16 Figure 2-9 – Infini-D Disk Filter Layout ....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2-10 – Channel UV Design ............................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2-11 – Discharge Route .................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 6-1 – Phase 1 Treatment Process ................................................................................................... 41 Figure 6-2 – Interim Operation Post-Phase 1 ............................................................................................. 41 Figure 6-3 – Operation Post-Phase 2 Works .............................................................................................. 42


1 | P a g e

1 Introduction The Town of Neepawa (Town) and the Manitoba Water Services Board (MWSB) has retained Associated Engineering (Sask) Ltd. (AE) to prepare a detail design for the replacement of the Town’s wastewater lagoon. As part of our scope, AE completed a Feasibility Study for the upgrades in 2017, and has been developing the final design through 2017/2018. The upgrades are a result of significant growth ii the community, and the need to meet the requirements of the Province of Manitoba Water Quality Standard, Objectives and Guidelines Regulations. New Provincial and Federal Regulations place more stringent effluent standards for phosphorus and ammonia.

Given the age of the lagoon cells, and the lack of space for expansion, then new WWTF will be more mechanical treatment based, and be situated in the existing lagoon footprint. Some of the existing infrastructure will be re-utilized, and some will be decommissioned.

Given the scale and cost of the new facility, it will need to be implemented in at least two phases. The Town has obtained ~$4.4M funding from the MWSB for the first phase that will include new aerated lagoon cells, to replace the existing lagoon cells, and UV disinfection. The objective being to convert to a continuously discharging facility. The second phase of works will be the addition of an MBBR basin for ammonia reduction, and a disc filter for phosphorus reduction. The timing of the second phase will generally be dictated by the availability of funding to the Town. They have made applications for grants, and will continue to do so. The objective is that Phase 1 works will be complete by April 2019, and Phase 2 works can obtain funding for 2019/2020 construction.

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In 2013, Associated Engineering completed a “Town of Neepawa Sewer Impact Study” that included a preliminary assessment of the lagoon capacity for current and future population requirements. Based on the lagoon dimensions, it was determined that the facility is nearing its theoretical hydraulic and organic loading capacity.

The Town of Neepawa is a community located at the junction of Highway 16 and Highway 5, approximately 200 km west of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Town currently owns and operates a three-cell wastewater lagoon with one primary facultative treatment cell (circa 1950) and two secondary storage cells (Cell #2: ~1965, Cell #3: ~1980). The existing lagoon-based treatment system is categorized as an “Intermittently Discharging Wastewater System” with an Annual Average Daily Flow between 1200 m3 /day and 2,700 m3/day.

In 2017, a Feasibility Study was completed by Associated Engineering detailing the upgrade options for the new facility. Based on input from the Town, the report made recommendations for the new facility sizing and technologies. The report recommended MBBR technology for ammonia reduction, and piloting to confirm this.


2 | P a g e

In 2016/17 a pilot program was carried out with Veolia Water Technologies at the Town’s lagoon site to test their MBBR technology in a cold weather application specific to Neepawa. The pilot ran from December 2016 to May 2017. The final piloting report showed successful reduction in ammonia levels to non-lethal levels at less than 1.0oC. In 2017, Veolia was selected as the MBBR supplier for the detail design of the facility.

1.2 EXISTING FACILITIES AND ISSUES

Generally, the existing facility is nearing the end of its service life. Upgrades and expansion are required to address the growing population and the more stringent effluent quality parameters.

The Town’s treatment lagoon was originally constructed in the 1960’s and was last upgraded in the late early 1980’s. Given their growth over the last 10 years, the wastewater lagoon can now be hydraulically challenged in wet years in the spring. The Town has needed to conduct an “emergency discharges” when the available winter storage is exhausted in early spring (before June 15th). With the existing aging infrastructure, high water table and sandy soils; the Town can receive high volumes of infiltration into their weeping tile and sewer system during wet periods. In April and May, the lagoon can be operating within normal parameters, but when there is a large snow melt and/or excessive groundwater infiltration, the lagoon rapidly fills and can exceed available storage capacity.

A geotechnical investigation was completed in 2017 on the existing cells and concluded that all three cell liners are not constructed to current Provincial standards. They do not have a suitable hydraulic conductivity. This is not unexpected as the cells were constructed over 40 years ago.

The lagoon site also does not have any room for expansion, thus, the new upgrades will incorporate mechanical treatment aspects to reduce footprint size.

Table 1-1 – Existing Lagoon Capacity Assessment

Parameter Value

Area of Primary Cell 7.95 Ha

Calculated Design Organic Capacity of Lagoon (56 kg-BOD5/day/Ha) 445 kg-BOD5/day

Existing Primary Cell Volume 117,000 m3

Existing Secondary Cell #1 Volume 72,000 m3

Exiting Secondary Cell #2 Volume 150,000 m3

Hydraulic Capacity – ½ Primary Cell + Secondary Cell Volumes 280,000 m3


3 | P a g e

1.3 POPULATION AND LAGOON LOADING

The Town estimates its current population at 4,609 residents (Town of Neepawa, 2016). Over the last five years, Neepawa has seen significant growth primarily due to the recent expansion of the HyLife Food processing plant and their continued effort to hire for the plant workforce. The Town anticipates their population to grow to 6,000 residents by the year 2021 and to over 7,500 by 2037 (20 years).

The historical population, average annual growth rate, and projected growth are outlined in Table 1-2 below.

Table 1-2 – Neepawa Population Projections

Year Population Annual Growth Comment

1996 3,301 Stats Canada

2001 3,325 0.14% Stats Canada

2006 2,980 -2.17% Stats Canada

2011 3,174 1.27% Stats Canada

2016 4,609 7.75% Stats Canada

2021 6,000 5.42% Town’s Projection

2037 7,500 1.40% Town’s Projection

Table 1-3 projects the anticipated dry weather (October-April) and wet weather (May-September) flows to 2037. The future flow projections assume minimal infiltration allowance in new development areas with tighter collection systems; and that the Town will also be renewing infrastructure and addressing infiltration in the older areas.

Table 1-3 – Projected Wastewater Generation

Year Population Average Daily Population Contribution*

Average Daily DRY Weather

Flows&**

Average Daily WET Weather

Flows ***

2016 4,200 966 1,200 m3/day 2,700 m3/day

2021 6,000 1,380 1,700 m3/day 3,114 m3/day

2037 7,500 1,725 2,000 m3/day 3,450 m3/day

* Population Contribution: 230 L/cap/day ** Average DRY weather flows assume infiltration flows of 234 m3/day *** Average WET weather flows assume infiltration flows of 1,734 m3/day


4 | P a g e

For the purpose of design, the average wastewater loading rates will be based on a per capita generation rate. Table 1-4 summarizes the estimated wastewater loading for the Town at the project 2037 population of 7,500 residents.

Table 1-4 – Estimated Wastewater Loadings by Population

ParameterEstimated Loading

per Person kg/cap/day

Average Day Load (kg/day)

2016 4,609 residents


Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 0.060 277 450

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 0.077 355 578

Carbonaceous BOD 0.110 507 825

NH3-N 0.005 23 38

TKN 0.009 41 68

Total phosphorus 0.0027 12 20

Table 1-5 summarizes the additional loading from truck haul from the surrounding area.

Table 1-5 – Estimated Wastewater Loadings from Truck Haul

ParameterAverage Day Load (kg-BOD5/day)

2017 2037

Truck Haul – (Hold Tanks) 9 13

Truck Haul – (Septic Tanks) 11 11

1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The current facility operates under an old CEC Order 762VO dated December 21, 1979. It is understood that the new upgrades are considered a Major Alteration and a full EAP is required for the works. A new Environment Act Licence will then be issued for the upgrades.

1.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES

Town of Neepawa & MWSB – Wastewater Treatment Facility Feasibility Study, July 2016, by Associated Engineering.

Pilot Study Report: LagoonGuardTM for Post Lagoon Ammonia removal at Low Temperatures, 2017, by Veolia Water Technologies Canada Inc. (for Town of Neepawa and MWSB – Confidential).


5 | P a g e

2 Description of Proposed Development 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP

The existing wastewater treatment lagoon is located in the north half of Section 34, Twp 14, Rge 15. See Figure 2-1.

The proposed upgrades will remain in the north half of this Section, within the existing facility footprint.

Figure 2-1 – Project Location Map

The land is owned by the Town of Neepawa under Plans 4872 and 37707 NLTO. Copies of the Status of Tile are included in the Appendices.

2.2 EXISTING AND ADJACENT LAND USE

The project will be within the Town boundary inside the footprint of the existing lagoon site. No further change to the adjacent lands is planned to occur as a result of this project. The existing lands surrounding the lagoon site are used for agriculture (hay and croplands to the north), a cemetery to the west, and a golf course to the south. The nearest residences are located approximately 400 m to the west.

All the land comprising wastewater treatment lagoon has been categorized as an Open Space Zone. The main purpose of this land use category is to accommodate open areas, controlling development to create undeveloped areas of land or water within a community.

Existing Lagoon Cells

Proposed Aeration Cells

Proposed WWTF (Blowers, Disc Filters, UV)

Proposed MBBR Tank

Primary Cell

Secondary Cell #2


6 | P a g e

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on the 2017 Feasibility Study and client preferences, the proposed new treatment process will be as shown in Figure 2-2 below.

Figure 2-2 – Aeration Lagoon Schematic with MBBR Treatment Process

The intent is to decommission the Secondary Cell #1 to construct the new aerated cells as shown in Figure2-1. The new cast in place concrete MBBR tank will be place adjacent to the aerated cells. The new WWTF will also be placed adjacent to the new aerated cells, just outside the toe of the new embankment. The new WWTF will house the aeration blowers for the lagoon cells and MBBR, the floc tank & disc filters, and the UV disinfection. The facility will also include an office/lab space and washroom.

With the fully completed project, all three of the existing lagoon cells will be decommissioned.

2.3.1 Project Phasing

Given the scale of the upgrades, it was not possible for the Town to obtain funding for the entire work program. They are currently entering an agreement with the Manitoba Water Services Board for ~$4.4M to execute the Phase 1 work program. The Town is applying to other Funding Agencies for next phase(s).

Phase 1 consists of the new aerated lagoon cells and the new WWTF to house the blowers and UV disinfection. Phase 2 will add the MBBR treatment package, the disc filters, and the dewatering ponds. Refer to Section 6 for more Project Phasing Details.

Alum with Bulk Storage

Aerated Fully Mixed Cell #1A

Aerated Partially Mixed Cell #1B

Air

Blowers

MBBR Tank

UV Disinfection

Air

Blowers

Floc Tank Disc Filters

Treated Effluent to Whitemud River

Decant back to Treatment

Solids Dewatering Ponds

Sol

ids

back

flush

Filtr

ate


7 | P a g e

Figure 2-3 – WWTF Site Layout

Figure 2-4 – WWTF Building Layout

WWTF Building

MBBR Tank

Aerated Lagoon Cells

Blowers Floc Tank Disc Filters Bulk Alum

UVChannel


8 | P a g e

2.4 DESIGN CRITERIA

2.4.1 Wastewater Characteristics and Loadings

Table 2-1 summarizes the anticipated wastewater flows to the proposed new facility. Truck haul records indicate a volume contribution of approximately 10 m3/day; since this is less than 1% of total flow, the volume flow will be considered negligible.

Table 2-2 summarizes the anticipated unit loadings to the proposed new facility. Truck haul records tend to indicate an equivalent daily contribution of 160 people per day. There seems to be a near 50/50 spilt in septic tank BOD5 contribution and holding tank BOD5 contribution. Although still fairly negligible, the loading rates were increased to account for some additional loading for this volume of septage and sewage.

Table 2-1 – Estimated Wastewater Flows

Table 2-2 – Estimated Wastewater Loadings

Parameter 2016 4,609 residents


2037 With Truck Haul

Average Daily DRY Weather Flows 1,200 m3/day 2,000 m3/day 2,000 m3/day

Average Daily WET Weather Flows 2,700 m3/day 3,450 m3/day 3,450 m3/day

Peak Daily WET Weather Flows 3,200 m3/day 5,000 m3/day 5,000 m3/day

Parameter

Average Day Load (kg/day)



2037 With Truck Haul

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 277 450 460

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 355 578 590

Carbonaceous BOD 507 825 843

NH3-N 23 38 38

Organic N 18 30 31

TKN 41 68 69

Total phosphorus 12 20 21


9 | P a g e

2.4.2 Proposed Effluent Quality Criteria

Manitoba Conservation regulates the discharge of treated effluent in Manitoba, as legislated in the Public Health Act (P210). Based on current Provincial and Federal regulations, Table 2-3 and Table 2-4summarize the anticipated effluent requirements to the Whitemud River.

Table 2-3 – Anticipated Wastewater Effluent Requirements

Parameter Effluent Limit Comments

cBOD5, (mg/L) 25 mg/L Monthly average of grab samples

TSS, (mg/L) 25 mg/L Monthly average of grab samples

Total Phosphorus, TP, (mg/L) < 1.0 mg/L Monthly average of grab samples

Total coliform, (MPN/100 mL) < 1500 Monthly geometric mean of grab samples

E. coli, (MPN/100 mL) < 200 Monthly geometric mean of grab samples

Unionized Ammonia (mg/L) < 1.25 mg/LEnv. Canada (WSER)

Expressed as N, sample at T=15ºC +/- 1ºC

Total Residual Chlorine (mg/L) <0.02 Env. Canada (WSER)

If chlorine is used in the process.

Acute Lethality< 50% rainbow trout mortality

after 96 hr.

Env. Canada (WSER) Fish submerged in 100 percent effluent.

In addition to the Federal limits on un-ionized ammonia and acute lethality, the ammonia limits will also be set to meet the requirements set out in the Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (MWQSOG), November 2011. Based on collaboration with MB Sustainable Development Approvals, the ammonia limits will be based on Tier II Water Quality Objectives, “Equation 3”; Cool Water, All Periods, 1 Hour Averaging Duration.


10 | P a g e

Table 2-4 provides the maximum total ammonia limit for the effluent based on the effluent pH. The anticipated pH range in the effluent could range from 7.5 in winter to 8.5 in summer.

Table 2-4 – Anticipated Wastewater Effluent Ammonia Design Requirements

Effluent pH Total

Ammonia (mg/L)

Effluent pH Total

Ammonia (mg/L)

6.50 48.83 7.80 12.14 6.60 46.84 7.90 10.13 6.70 44.57 8.00 8.41 6.80 42.00 8.10 6.95 6.90 39.16 8.20 5.73 7.00 36.09 8.30 4.71 7.10 32.86 8.40 3.88 7.20 29.54 8.50 3.20 7.30 26.21 8.60 2.65 7.40 22.97 8.70 2.20 7.50 19.89 8.80 1.84 7.60 17.03 8.90 1.56 7.70 14.44 9.00 1.32


11 | P a g e

2.5 TREATMENT PROCESSES

2.5.1 Aerated Lagoon Cells

The proposed new facility will incorporate new aerated lagoon cells for the primary treatment of BOD and TSS. Although the new cells will be placed inside the footprint of the existing secondary cell #1, the new cells will be constructed with a 1.0 m thick clay liner, and have an operating depth of 5.0 m.

As shown in Figure 2-5, the underside of the new cell liner construction will start at a similar elevation as the existing cell floor. This helps create the necessary hydraulic head to flow by gravity through the remaining treatment processes downstream (MBBR, disc filters, and UV).

Figure 2-5 – New Aerated Cell Lagoon Section

Sizing of the aerated cells was based on the BOD reduction objective and cold weather temperature kinetics. Table 2-5 summarizes the design parameters used to size aerated cells.

Table 2-5 – Aerated Cell Sizing Parameters

Parameter Value

Influent BOD (C0) 200 mg/L

Effluent BOD (Cn) 20 mg/L

kT 0.138

Number of cells (operated in series) 2 cells

Operating Depth 5.0 m

Freeboard 1.0 m

Interior side slopes 5:1

Outside side slopes 4:1

Required Retention ~30 days

ADWWF 3,450 m3/day

Design Total Cell volume(includes some allowance for ice cover)

120,000 m3


12 | P a g e

Table 2-6 summarizes the aeration system details developed with supplier (Nexom) for the facility. Blowers for the lagoon aeration system will be located inside the new WWTF building.

Table 2-6 – Aeration Equipment Details

Parameter Value

Minimum dissolved oxygen 2.0 mg/L

Total air flow for both cells 1056 SCFM

Number of Blowers 2 (duty/standby)

Blower horsepower 75 hp

Figure 2-6 is the proposed aeration layout for the new cells.

Figure 2-6 – Preliminary Aeration Layout


13 | P a g e

2.5.2 Cell Construction

The new aerated cells and solids dewatering cells will be constructed with a 1.0 m thick clay liner with hydraulic conductivity less than 1x10-7 cm/s.

The geotechnical investigation completed in March 2017 found that the upper 1.5 m to 2.0 m of soils (including cell liner material) is intermittent silty clay, with layers of silt and sand. It is not feasible as in-situ liner material. There is a good clay till layer at this ~1.5 m depth that could be suitable liner material, but with the measured groundwater at 1.1 m -2.5 m below surface, it would be challenging to access this material. Also, the area for borrow is relatively limited for the volume required for the liner construction.

Therefore, in September of 2017 a nearby borrow location was drilled and tested on land owned by the Town. This site demonstrated a good volume of stiff clay. The hydraulic conductivity of this clay material is determined to be 1x10-8 cm/s. Figure 2-7 shows the clay borrow site in relation to the development site

Figure 2-7 – Clay Borrow Site

Clay borrow site

Development site


14 | P a g e

2.6 MBBR TECHNOLOGY

To achieve the required amount of nitrification throughout the year, the Veolia LagoonGuardTM Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) was selected through a proposal process. The MBBR was selected over the more common Submerged Attached Growth Reactor (SAGR), due to it’s much smaller footprint size and lifecycle costs.

Effluent for the aerated lagoons will flow by gravity to a single MBBR tank. The anticipated effluent from the lagoon cells into the MBBR will be low in BOD5 (<25 mg/L) and TSS (<25 mg/l), but high in total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) (15 – 40 mg N /L). Therefore, the biofilm will be adapted for nitrification for effective ammonia reduction.

2.6.1 Pilot Testing

A pilot study was conducted on site at the Neepawa lagoon to demonstrate MBBR performance on this specific wastewater quality and in the cold weather environment. The pilot project ran from December 2016 through to May 2017 under harsh cold weather conditions.

During the pilot, the average influent ammonia concentration was measured to be 36 mg NH4-N/L. The hydraulic retention time was optimized at 5.9 hours and corresponded to an effluent ammonia concentration of 0.5 mg NH4-N/L. On the coldest days, the water temperature ranged from 0.50C to 0.70C while effluent ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.5 to 0.7 mg NH4-N/L. Two influent samples were taken to analyze for acute lethality, and both samples showed 100% lethality, whereas the two effluent samples demonstrated 0% lethality and 0% stressing.

Table 2-7 summarizes the design parameters used to size the MBBR basin.

Table 2-7 – MBBR Sizing Parameters

Parameter Value

Influent BOD5 <20 mg/L

Influent TSS <20 mg/L

Influent total ammonia nitrogen 40 mg N /L

Influent pH 7 – 8

Influent Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 300 mg/L

Max Wastewater Temperature 250 C

Min. Wastewater Temperature 0.50 C


15 | P a g e

Parameter Value

Winter daily flow (for highest TAN concentration) 2,000 m3/day

Average day flow 2,760 m3/day

Hydraulic capacity 5,000 m3/day

Number of Basins 1

Table 2-8 summarizes the MBBR effluent quality objectives.

Table 2-8 – MBBR Effluent Parameters

ParameterInfluent

to MBBR Effluent

from MBBR

Influent BOD5 <20 mg/L <20 mg/L

Influent TSS <20 mg/L <25 mg/L

Influent total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) 40 mg N /L < 3.0 in summer

<5.0 in winter

Unionized ammonia - <1.25

AND not acutely lethal per Section 15 of WSER

pH ~7.5 ~7.5

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 300 mg/L --

Max Wastewater Temperature 250 C 250 C

Min. Wastewater Temperature 0.50 C 0.50 C

Any potential sloughing of biological matter that could increase TSS (~1-5 mg/L) in the effluent should be addressed by the disk filter down stream.


16 | P a g e

Table 2-9 summarizes the MBBR tank sizing parameters and aeration equipment. The Blowers for the MBBR aeration system will be located inside the new WWTF building.

Table 2-9 – MBBR Sizing Summary

Parameter Value

MBBR Volume 550 m3

Operating water depth 5.0 m

Tank Length 15.7 m

Tank width 7.0 m

Number of Blowers 2 (duty/standby)

Target DO concentration 7.0 mg/L

Figure 2-8 – Proposed MBBR Tank Layout


17 | P a g e

2.7 DISK FILTRATION

Following the MBBR treatment process, wastewater will flow by gravity to a floc tank then to a bank of disc filters. The purpose of the disk filters is primarily to remove phosphorus (P) to less than 1.0 mg/L, but is also expected to remove some TSS and BOD with the solids.

The disk filter package will include coagulant dosing and potentially polymer dosing as well, as required. Currently, the disk filter package is based on the Nexom Infini-D equipment. However, at the time of tendering, other suppliers such as Veolia Hydrotech Discfilter will also be an acceptable alternative.

Table 2-10 summarizes the sizing parameters for the disk filters and Figure 2-9 shows the tank layout for the Infini-D equipment package.

Table 2-10 – Disk Filter Sizing Parameters

Parameter Value

Max Daily Flow 3,500 m3/day

Peak Hydraulic Flow 5,000 m3/day

Influent P ~6.0 mg/L

Effluent P <1.0 mg/L

Figure 2-9 – Infini-D Disk Filter Layout


18 | P a g e

The floc tank and disk filter tank will be located inside the WWTF in cast in place concrete tankage. The influent flow from the MBBR will be metered to pace coagulant dosage with flow. Coagulant will be added just prior to the floc tank. The coagulant will be stored in double wall bulk containment tanks in the WWTF. Back flushing of the cloth filters will be accomplished with a self priming sewage pump such as a Gorman Rupp. The solids will then be pumped to a pair of dewatering ponds adjacent to the aerated lagoon cells.

2.7.1 Solids Dewatering Ponds

Solids dewatering ponds will be provided for the disk filter backwash solids. The cells will collect and store the backwash and will decant excess liquid back to the aerated cells. After 2-4 years, the cells would likely be full and the solids will need to be removed and disposed of. Depending on the quality of sludge, and concentration of metals from the coagulants, disposal will be either land application or landfill cap.

Once the cells are actually nearing capacity, an NOA/EAP would be conducted to describe the feasible disposal method.

Table 2-11 – Dewatering Pond Parameters

Parameter Value

Number of cells 2

Operating Depth 3.0 m

Freeboard 1.0 m

Interior Side Slopes 5:1

Volume 5,000 m3 each cell


19 | P a g e

2.8 FINAL DISINFECTION

The use of an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection will be the final treatment step before discharging to the environment. Final disinfection is typically required with continuous discharging facilities. With the strict federal regulations on chlorine residuals (<0.02 mg/L), UV can become more feasible than chlorination followed de-chlorination.

Filtered effluent from the disk filters will then flow by gravity through UV lamps located in a cast in place concrete channel. The UV channel will be located inside the WWTF adjacent to the disk filter tankage. Final effluent from the UV will then be directed to a discharge pipe, then drainage ditch to the Whitemud River, in same area as the current discharge location.

The UV basis for design is the Trojan 3000 Plus. Table 2-12 summarizes the design criteria for the proposed UV system.

Table 2-12 – UV Disinfection Design Criteria

Parameter Value

Peak Disinfection flow 3,450 m3/day

Peak Hydraulic flow 5,000 m3/day

Minimum UVT 55%

TSS <25 mg/L

Dosage40.7 mJ/cm2

never to exceed

Disinfection Limit200 fecal coliform/100 ml

Never to exceed

Number of channels/banks 1

Width of channel 600 mm

Number of Lamps 30

Lamp Arrangement 6 lamps per module, 5 modules


20 | P a g e

Figure 2-10 shows the proposed channel layout for the UV equipment. It is based on the Trojan 3000Plus series.

Figure 2-10 – Channel UV Design

2.9 OTHER DESIGN PARAMETERS

2.9.1 Forcemain to New Cells

The two existing forcemains that extend into the existing primary cell will be extended into the new aerated cell #1.


21 | P a g e

2.9.2 Truck Haul Facilities

The new aerated cell #1 will incorporate sewage hauling dump facilities. This will consist of a controlled access gate and a concrete dump pad from the berm, down to the floor of the cell.

2.10 DISCHARGE ROUTE

The new WWTF will discharge to along ~240 m of new pipeline to a drainage ditch, that will then discharge into the Whitemud River close to the Hurrell Road Right of Way. This is approximately 400 m north of the current discharge location. See Figure 2-11.

Figure 2-11 – Discharge Route

Current discharge location

Proposed new discharge location New discharge pipe New discharge ditch

New WWTF


22 | P a g e

2.11 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The Town of Neepawa will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the WTP. The Town will utilize their water treatment plant operations staff to also operate the new wastewater facilities. The operators will obtain the required training to increase their certification for the new facility. The facility will also be operated in accordance with the new Environment Act Licence requirements, sampling will also be in accordance with the Licence.

2.11.1 Facility Operations

The proposed new facility will be a continuously discharging process, wastewater will always be flowing through the process.

For the aerated lagoons, there will always be one blower in operation to maintain dissolved oxygen (DO) levels and mixing. \

For the MBBR, a DO probe in the basin will control the aeration blower speed to maintain a desired DO range (~7.0 mg/L). There are no further operational controls for the MBBR.

For the disk filter package, the influent flow will pass through a flow meter into the tankage to pace coagulant and polymer dosage into flow. The wastewater will then pass through a flocculation tank to allow suitable contact time for floc formation. Flow will then decant over a weir into the disk filter tank. Driving head will force the wastewater through the cloth filters for filtration. As the filter cloths plugs, the water level rises in the tank that will then trigger a backwash. A backwash will remove the solids clogging the cloth disks and send the waste to the dewatering ponds.

The filtered wastewater will pass through another flow meter that will control UV dosage on flow. The UV lamps are located in the effluent channel and will continuously be operational and monitored for performance.

The MBBR will have a PLC to monitor the DO and ammonia probes and trend the data. However, final effluent sampling is expected to be accomplished through grab samples sent to a certified Lab for analysis. There will be no in-house lab water quality analysis, other than pH and temperature.

2.11.2 Facility Maintenance

During construction and commissioning, Operating and Maintenance Manuals will be developed for the plant and the specific equipment. These will form the basis for general plant operations and maintenance procedures.


23 | P a g e

2.12 DECOMMISSIONING

Following the completion of the project, the intent is to decommission the existing primary cell and third secondary cell (#2 secondary cell is re-utilized for new aerated cells). Decommissioning will generally consist of dewatering the cells and removing the accumulated biosolids.

It is unknow at this time what will be the land use of the decommissioned cell. But current discussions have included maintaining some of the old primary cell to retain irrigation water for the nearby cemetery. Potential uses for the third cell could entail a future Town/Municipal composting area.

2.13 BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL

As part of decommissioning the existing cells, the accumulated biosolids in these cells will need to be disposed of. As part of the Feasibility Study, AE retained the services of Assiniboine Injections to conduct a sludge quality survey in the three existing cells in late 2016.

The following table summarises the anticipated sludge volume in each cell.

Table 2-13 – 2016 Sludge Survey Results

Parameter Volume Estimate

Cell #1 (Primary) 51,300 m3

Cell #2 (Secondary #1) 17,384 m3

Cell #3 (Secondary #2) 5,854 m3

TOTAL: 74,538 m3

The removal of sludge (or biosolids removal) is not unfamiliar to the Town, who in 2005, obtained a Licence (2706) to remove sludge from their primary cell and inject it into agricultural soils. During this process, the Licence stipulated cumulative limits of each heavy metal in the soil, by adding the amount of each heavy metal in the biosolids applied to the background level of the same metal.

When Phase 1 is commissioned and operational, this can allow access to the primary cell and last secondary cell for biosolids removal and disposal. Disposal means is expected to be land application onto agricultural soils. The expected timeline for biosolids removal and land application is 2019. Refer to Table 2-14 for tasks and timeline for biosolids disposal.

As previously noted, for Phase 1 works, the biosolids in the secondary cell #1 will need to be removed for construction. Since this volume of biosolids represents only ~20% of the total volume, it is proposed to temporarily relocate this volume to the primary cell. Therefore, all the biosolids would be land applied under a single program and contract.


24 | P a g e

Table 2-14 – Biosolids Disposal Timeline

Task Timeline

Temporarily Transfer Biosolids from Cell #2 to Cell#1 July 2018

Laboratory Analysis of Biosolids July 2018

Identify Land Aug-Nov, 2018

Laboratory Analysis of Soils November 2018

Submit Biosolids Disposal Strategy to SD Env. Approvals December 2018

Land Application of all Biosolids Oct-Nov, 2019

Completion of Biosolids Disposal November 30, 2019

Funding for Phase 1 works is limited, therefore, the biosolids disposal will be part of the Phase 2 work program.

It is expected that land application will have similar requirements as that stipulated in the previous Licence 2076. The sludge land application not exceeding the levels of cumulative weight per hectare of each heavy metal in the soil, as calculated by adding the amount of each heavy metal in the biosolids applied to the background level of the same metal.

Table 2-15 – Biosolids Land Application Rates

Metal Kilogram per Hectare

Arsenic 21.6

Cadmium 2.5

Chromium (total) 115.2

Copper 113.4

Lead 126

Mercury 11.9

Nickel 90

Zinc 360


25 | P a g e

2.14 PROJECT FUNDING

The Phase 1 work program is to be funded by the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund, this funding provides 75% coverage from government and 25% from the Town.

A key concern with this funding program is that the works need to be 100% complete and paid for by April 1, 2019. This can be a fairly tight deadline for these works. An early start in May/June 2018 is required to meet an October 2018 deadline for testing of the new lagoon cell clay liners. This cannot be deferred to 2019 given the strict funding deadline.

The Town, with some assistance from the MWSB, is making applications for funding for the Phase 2 work program. It is the hope that the next round of funding will allow Phase 2 works to start in 2019.

2.15 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The Phase 1 work program is currently funded. The two critical tasks that will delay start of these works will be the environmental approvals process (i.e. Draft EAL) and the discharge of Cell #2 on June 15th. Also, as previously noted, the funding is contingent on 100% completion by April 2019.

Table 2-16 summarises the timelines for Phase 1 Works.

Table 2-16 – Phase 1 Works Timeline

2018 2019 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A

Funding Approval Notification EAP Submission (January 29) EAP Approvals Tendering Phase 1 Draft EAL Award Phase 1 Contract Empty Cell #2 Construction of New Aerated Cells Construction of New WWTF Commissioning Substantial Completion

The Phase 2 work program timeline is subject to funding approval time. The works are expected to be tendered shortly after approval is obtained. Phase 2 works is expected to take up to 12 months to complete, depending on the start date. Since the works consist of some new earthworks and cast in place concrete, it will need a spring/summer construction season to complete. At this time, the Town is hoping for Phase 2 to be completed by late 2019, again depending upon funding timelines.


26 | P a g e

2.16 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Although Public Consultation is not expected to be required. The Town is expecting to hold an information session in the early spring to summarize the coming works program and impacts to their rates.

2.17 PROJECT PHASING & INTERIM OPERATIONS

Since the work program is expected to be phased over two or more years, and that the new works will occur in the same footprint of the existing cells, there will need to be some interim operation strategies to maintain optimal treatment performance.

2.17.1 Phase 1 Interim Operations to Allow Construction

To allow the new aerated cells to be constructed, the existing secondary cell #1 will need to be taken out of service as soon as it is emptied in early July of 2018. New intercell piping will be installed to allow the primary cell to discharge directly to secondary cell #2. For the remainder of 2018, the existing facility will operate with the two remaining cells.

It is anticipated that the new aerated cells will be operational by the end of October 2018. At this time, the wastewater will be diverted to the new aeration cells for treatment. However, it may be another month or two until the new UV system will be operational for final disinfection. Therefore, the aerated cells will discharge to cell #3 for storage and disinfection. Once the UV system is operational with the new WWTF, the aerated cells will be diverted to the new WWTF for UV disinfection.

2.17.2 Interim Operations until Phase 2 is Complete

With the completion of Phase 1 works, the new facility is going to be similar to many other existing aerated lagoon systems without ammonia or phosphorus treatment. It will be relatively effective at ammonia reduction throughout most of the year, but may be challenged in the coldest month(s). And it will also have limited phosphorus removal with continuous discharging.

Therefore, until Phase 2 works are complete, it is proposed that the facility will continue to utilize the existing secondary cell #2 as a polishing pond after UV disinfection for phosphorus removal and additional nitrification. The bulk chemical systems could be in place as part of Phase 1 works, and the coagulant can be dosed on the post UV effluent for settling in the polishing pond.

With the completion of Phase 2, the facility will then have the MBBR for very effective ammonia reduction, and disc filters for very effective phosphorus removal, and the polishing pond can be partially re-purposed to settling ponds and the remainder of it decommissioned.


27 | P a g e

3 Existing Physical Environment 3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING AND CLIMATE

Neepawa is located in south-western Manitoba within the Prairie Ecozone in the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion (Smith et al., 1998). The area is comprised of an undulating to hummocky and kettled glacial till plain. These broad plains are underlain by Cretaceous shale with significant areas of level lacustrine and hummocky to ridged fluvioglacial deposits. Significant areas of level to gently undulating glaciolacustrine sands occur in the eastern (Assiniboine Delta) and southwestern portions of the Ecoregion.

The Neepawa area generally ranges from nearly level to gently rolling (Smith et al., 1998). Slopes are generally less than 5 percent, of medium length and usually between 50 to 150 m long while the mean elevation is approximately 366 metres above sea level (masl). Surface drainage is part of the Lake Manitoba southwest division of the Dauphin River watershed, which is also part of the larger Nelson River drainage system.

The surficial geology within the Neepawa area consists largely of fine to coarse sand deposited by glacial meltwaters and some till, clay and silt with minor fine-grained sand (Rutulis 1979). Bedrock surface elevation in the Neepawa area is approximately 330 masl (Province of Manitoba 1988).

The climate in this region lies between the drier areas to the southwest and more humid areas to the east and northeast and is characterized by short warm summers and long cold winters (Smith et al., 1998).Table 3-1 provides climatic data that was taking from an Environment Canada Weather Station (2014) (i.e. Neepawa Water) located in Neepawa, MB from 1981 to 2010.

Table 3-1 – Climatic Averages for the Region (1981-2010)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Year

TEMPERATURE (oC)

Daily Average -15.6 -12.8 -5.8 3.8 11.0 16.5 19.1 18.2 12.3 4.9 -5.0 -13.0 2.8

Daily Max -10.4 -7.4 -0.6 9.8 17.4 22.3 25.1 24.6 18.3 10.1 -0.7 -8.2 8.4

Daily Min -20.7 -18.2 -10.9 -2.3 4.6 10.6 13.2 11.7 6.2 -0.4 -9.2 -17.8 -2.8

PRECIPITATION (mm)

Monthly Average 20.6 14.0 27.1 32.1 67.3 82.4 76.6 63.9 49.2 34.1 21.1 24.5 512.8

*Environment Canada (http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1981_2010_e.html?stnID=3832&autofwd=1)

3.2 HYDROGEOLOGY

An examination of groundwater in the Whitemud watershed has identified that groundwater is the principal source of water in the area (MWS, 2010). Most of the aquifers are shallow, small, low yielding and scattered consisting of gravel, sand and silt. Thin sand aquifers are present in the Neepawa area with thin minor lenses in clay and silt deposits (Rutulis 1979). Water yields in this area are low to moderate (i.e. 0.1 L/s to 1.0 L/s) and water quality has been noted to be good to poor.


28 | P a g e

A notable exception to these shallow aquifers is the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer (ADA), which can be found south of Neepawa. ADA is a reliable water source covering a broad area at the south end of the watershed (MWS, 2010). Thick surficial sands containing good quality groundwater can be found within the ADA, where saturated sand thicknesses vary from approximately two to thirty metres within the boundaries of the aquifer. The management of the ADA is unique as it has its own Aquifer Management Plan which overrides individual watershed plans (MWS, 2010). This aquifer supplies potable water for small town, domestic and farm water supplies and for irrigated crops. The Town of Neepawa also obtains its water supply directly (wells) and indirectly (groundwater fed surface reservoir) from the ADA. Until recently, Neepawa obtained its water supply from the Lake Irwin Reservoir until a pipeline was built to bring water from the ADA, near Oberon, to supply the Town of Neepawa.

Most wells in the watershed are relatively shallow with 73% less than 30 metres (100 feet) deep; 22% less than 60 metres (200 feet) and 5% over 60 m (MWS, 2010). Most deeper wells were drilled as part of groundwater investigation programs and were sealed. Deeper wells (> 120 m) drilled into sand and gravel were completed in 1964 and were sealed. As well, most but not all wells in drilled into the 90 to 120 m range are also sealed. The deepest producing well (PID 38627) is 93 metres deep and can be found just east of McGregor. In general, wells completed into bedrock, in the region, tend to be deeper than wells completed in overburden aquifers.

Two registered production and 5 test wells have been drilled in the area that contains the existing lagoons (i.e. N ½ 34-14-15 W1), while there are numerous registered groundwater wells (approximately 97 wells) within a 3-km radius of the Project site (GIN, 2016). Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 0.9 to 4.3 metres below the ground surface in the observation wells.

Groundwater quality can be difficult to generalize in the region as the complex hydrogeology has produced fresh groundwater in some aquifers at considerable depth, while saline groundwater may be found in some areas at less than 10 m (MWS, 2010). Overburden aquifers have variable groundwater quality ranging from total dissolved solids (TDS) values less than 250 mg/L in some shallow sands to 23,000 mg/L near Gladstone, MB. North of Neepawa and east of the Manitoba Escarpment, the groundwater is Ca-Mg-HCO3

type with a TDS of 500 to 3000 mg/L (MWS, 2010). This more mineralized water also thought to have higher SO4 concentrations. In general, fresh groundwater is available in the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer and in many shallow (<10 m) sand and gravel deposits while water is saline in most intermediate to deep aquifers (>20m).

The permeable nature of the soils and exposure of the aquifer to the land surface in the Neepawa area makes it highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination (MWS, 2010). Sources of contamination in the area include sewage, petroleum products and agricultural fertilizers. Generally, in Manitoba, if the top of an aquifer is within six metres of ground surface it is considered vulnerable (MWS, 2010). The area surrounding the watercourse basins (i.e. outside of the Whitemud River) have therefore been determined to be groundwater pollution hazard areas, indicating that sand and gravel deposits are near the ground surface and risks for groundwater contamination are present if a source of contamination is present.


29 | P a g e

3.3 HYDROLOGY

The nearest watercourse is the Whitemud River which travels close by (i.e. 15 to 20 m) the south and east sides of the existing lagoon. This river is the receiving watercourse for the treated effluent once the treatment is complete. An existing discharge pipe is located in the southeast corner of the eastern-most lagoon cell, which then travels approximately 63 m before emptying into the Whitemud River. The Whitemud River empties into the Lake Manitoba from its headwaters at Riding Mountain National Park. Several tributaries and other watercourses (i.e. Stoney Creek, Boggy Creek, Big Grass River, Pine Creek, Squirrel Creek, Rat Creek) provide flow into the Whitemud River Watershed.

The Whitemud River has a total drainage basin area of approximately 7,400 km² (AAFC-PFRA, 2004) and is partially regulated by the Lake Irwin Dam on Boggy Creek, just upstream of the Town of Neepawa. Boggy Creek becomes the Whitemud River at its confluence with Stony Creek, which adds drainage from approximately 330 km² along the southwest edge of Riding Mountain, which is west and northwest of the Town of Neepawa (AECOM, 2013). Boggy Creek has a drainage area of approximately 830 km².

Similar to other temperate prairie rivers, the Whitemud River undergoes wide seasonal fluctuations in discharge associated with frozen conditions in the winter and the annual spring melt. A consistent base flow is maintained though operation of the Lake Irwin Dam. The current operation of the Lake Irwin Dam is based on a fixed release of 0.2 m³/s (17,280 m3/day), with additional flows occurring over a fixed spillway structure when water levels are high in the lake (AECOM, 2013).

Based on estimates derived in an assessment completed by AECOM (2013), average monthly flows in the Whitemud River in the Town of Neepawa (downstream of the confluence with Stony Creek) are approximately 5.9 m³/s (509,760 m3/day), 1.4 m³/s (120,960 m3/day), and 0.56 m³/s (48,384 m3/day) in April, May and June, respectively, declining to near the base flow 0.2 m³/s for the remainder of the year. A review of the historical dataset (1961-1992), has indicated that late-summer flows were frequently below 0.15 m³/s (12,960 m3/day), and dropped below 0.1 m³/s (8,640 m3/day) approximately 10% during this time period.

Downstream of the Town of Neepawa, inflows to the Whitemud River occur throughout its run during periods of surface runoff, but incremental increases in flow during dry periods appear to be restricted to the reach of the river downstream of the Town of Gladstone, likely due to base flows in tributaries such as Big Grass Marsh Drain, Pine Creek, and Rat Creek. Lakes, ponds, and sloughs are also present throughout the region and occupy shallow depressions. These wetlands appear to be interconnected but there is no drain index information available for Neepawa to confirm their connectivity.

As reported by AECOM (2013), for a nearby expansion to a hog processing facility (i.e. HyLife Foods), an assessment of water quality on the Whitemud River was completed in 2008. Additional data was also available from CWS from 2007 to 2012 for various water quality parameters upstream and downstream of Neepawa’s existing WWTF. The more recent data was taken from an upstream station (MB05LLS005) located on Boggy Creek between Lake Irwin and the Town of Neepawa while the downstream station (MB05LLS001) was at the community of Westbourne near Lake Manitoba (approximately 142 km


30 | P a g e

downstream from the WWTF). Data from the 2008 assessment overlapped the data examined at the downstream station (MB05LLS001) only. Results from the water quality assessment completed in 2013 are provided in Table 3-2. The reported data indicates that increases have been recorded from the 2008 data for nitrogen (TKN and dissolved), phosphorus, and Total Suspended Sediments (AECOM, 2013).

Table 3-2 – Historical River Water Quality Assessment

Parameter Upstream samplinglocation

Downstream samplinglocation

Limits1

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 0.9 to 2.69 mg/L 0.8 to 2.4 mg/L

Dissolved Nitrogen (NO3 and NO2) 0.02 to 7.62 mg/L 0.01 to 2.34 mg/L

Total Phosphorus 0.04 to 0.66 mg/L 0.04 to 0.63 mg/L 0.05 mg/L

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 1.1 to 5.6 mg/L 1.0 to 6.9 mg/L n/a

Bacteriological (E.coli) 10 to 120

CFU/100 mL 10 to 240

CFU/100 mL 200 CFU/100 mL

Total Suspended Sediments (TSS) 1 to 180 mg/L 3 to 238 mg/L25 mg/L induced

change from background – 1 day

1: Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines, 2011

Portions of the Whitemud River are a part of a nutrient management zone which has been designated to protect water quality by encouraging responsible nutrient planning. Setback distances from the shoreline of the receiving water body have been set by MB Sustainable Development to regulate the application of materials containing nutrients. A nutrient buffer zone surrounding the watercourse has a setback of 3 m, as the site is covered with permanent vegetation and the Whitemud River is not considered vulnerable in the Nutrient Management Regulation.

A review of Manitoba’s Sustainable Development Water Resources Management Database has indicated that no licensed water users exist up to 3 km downstream of the existing lagoon site on the Whitemud River (McCombe, pers. comm., 2016). The nearest wastewater treatment facility is operated HyLife Foods in accordance with the requirements of Environmental Act License No. 2870. This facility is located approximately 900 m southeast of the lagoon site.


31 | P a g e

3.4 FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Previous fish surveys in the Whitemud River near the Town of Neepawa have been completed for past infrastructure expansions (AMEC, 2013, BMCE, 2014, Earth Tech, 2008). Notable fish species known to occur in the river include northern pike, white sucker, walleye, yellow perch, burbot, chestnut lamprey. A list of fish thought to inhabit the Whitemud River is provided in Table 3-3. Angling on the river is primarily for recreational sport fish purposes as no subsistence or commercial fishing occurs on the Whitemud River (Tourism Westman, 2012).

The Whitemud River is classified as complex habitat (i.e. Type ‘A’), indicating that flows are intermittent or perennial with large bodied (i.e. indicator) fish species with commercial, domestic, or sport fishery value are present (Milani, 2003).

As previously mentioned, the Whitemud River discharges into Lake Manitoba, approximately 190 km downstream of the Project site. Lake Manitoba fish populations are unlikely to use habitats, as far upstream as the Town of Neepawa, due to barriers to upstream fish passage along the river (AECOM, 2010).

Table 3-3 – Fish Species that Inhabit the Whitemud River (Earth Tech 2008)

Scienti c Name Common Name

Ameiuris nebulosis Brown bullheadCatostomus commersoni White suckerCulaea inconstans Brook sticklebackEsox lucius Northern pikeEtheostoma exile Iowa darter

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darterHybognathus hankinsoni Brassy minnowIchthyoinyzon castaneus Chestnut lampreyLota Iota BurbotLuxilus cornutus Common shinerMargariscus margarita Pearl dace

Moxostoma anisurum Silver redhorseMoxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead redhorseNotropis atherinoides Emerald shinerNotropis dorsalis Bigmouth shinerNotropis heterolepis Blacknose shinerNotropis hudsonius Spottail shiner

Notropis stramineus Sand shinerNoturus flavus StonecatPerca flavescens Yellow perch Percina maculata Blackside darter


32 | P a g e

Scienti c Name Common Name

Percopsis otniscomaycus Trout-perchPimephales promelas Fathead minnow

Pungitius puitgitius Ninespine sticklebackRhinichthys atratulus Blacknose daceRhinichthys cataractae Longnose daceSeinotilus atromaculatus Creek chubSanders vitreus Walleye

3.5 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

The propose development is located in the Shilo Ecodistrict which is part of the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion and the Prairies Ecozone (Smith et al, 1998). Vegetation in the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion is considered to be a transition between the boreal forests in the north and the grasslands to the south. The natural vegetation varies, with most loamy areas typically having trembling aspen groves in moister locations to various types of grasslands on drier landscapes. Rapidly drained and well drained sites are generally dominated by grassland with hazel, common and creeping juniper, white spruce, trembling aspen and sometimes scrub bur oak (Smith et al, 1998). The natural grasslands typically consist of mixed-grass prairie including species such as spear grass, wheat grass and blue grama grass. Alkali grass, wild foxtail barley, red samphire and sea blite are found in more saline areas. North facing slopes generally have a larger forest cover with less grass and no juniper. Trembling aspen and balsam poplar, and dense alder and red-osier dogwood are common on imperfectly drained sites. Poorly drained sites have willow, alder and red-osier dog-wood with a grass or sedge groundcover. Maple and ash trees can be found along larger waterways.

Much of the native vegetation in this Ecozone has been altered by agriculture (i.e. crop and rangelands) (Smith et al, 1998).

White-tailed deer are widespread and can be found in areas that provide both grazing and cover habitat, in the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion (Smith et al, 1998). Other species that may be found in the ecoregion include elk (wapiti), coyote, badger, white-tailed jack rabbit, Richardson’s ground, squirrel and northern pocket gopher.

Characteristic bird species of the Ecozone include ferruginous hawk, sage grouse, American avocet and burrowing owl, but their numbers are often severely reduced through habitat loss (Smith et al, 1998). Other representative birds include great blue heron, black-billed magpie, Baltimore oriole, veery and brown thrasher. This Ecozone provides major breeding, staging and nesting habitat for ducks, geese, other waterfowl and shore birds, even though a significant reduction in wetlands (to both extent and frequency) has occurred.


33 | P a g e

3.6 PROTECTED SPECIES AND SENSITIVE HABITATS

Upon completion of a search of the MB Sustainable Development’s Data Centre's rare species database, no occurrences of rare species were found for the area of interest, at this time (Friesen, personal comm. 2016). Given the surrounding land use is disturbed by agricultural and recreational activities, the likelihood of occurrence for other unknown rare species is little to none. No further investigation for rare species is recommended at this time.

The Whitemud River and other major tributaries have been identified as prime wildlife habitat by the Neepawa and Area District Planning Board (CPSB, 2006). As part of their policies, the Planning Board shall discourage any development in this area and land within and immediately adjacent to these areas shall be retained for rural use unless applications for development can demonstrate that an adverse impact on the wildlife population will not be created. The Development Plan for the Planning District further states that “the Planning District Board and Member Councils shall be aware of the potential for environmental impacts and may consult with appropriate government departments to determine the extent of negative impacts, if any, on the environment” (CPSB, 2006). The Plan also provides policies to protect water quality of Lake Irwin for health reasons and to maintain the effectiveness of the existing wastewater treatment facility for the Town.

The Whitemud Watershed Wildlife Management Area is the closest protected area to the Project Site being located approximately 10 km southeast of the site. This Management Area includes 13 widely-spaced parcels that provide habitat for deer, upland game birds, amphibians and other wildlife (Manitoba Conservation, 2012).

3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC

The proposed expansion is located within the limits of the Town of Neepawa, which has a current population at 4,609 residents. As previously stated, the Town anticipates their population to grow to 6,000 residents by the year 2021, and to nearly 7,500 by 2037. The economy in the Town of Neepawa and the area is dependent on agriculture (Town of Neepawa, 2016). The area supports many types of crops and livestock operations and Neepawa is a major agriculture service centre for many of the producers in the area.

As previously mentioned, the area surrounding the existing lagoon is used for agriculture (hay and croplands), a cemetery and a golf course. A school, hospital and a park can also be found within a 1 km radius of the western edge of the existing lagoon (i.e. upstream of the effluent discharge point) whereas no strip malls, day cares, nursery schools, senior care facilities, or churches are found within a 1 km radius of the Project Site (Google Inc., 2016).

The nearest Indigenous community (Rolling River First Nation) is located 42 km northwest of the proposed Project and no traditional use planning areas exist near the site (CWS, 2016). As well, no licensed downstream users are located within 3 km of the lagoon site exist (McCombe, personal comm. 2016).


34 | P a g e

3.7.1 Heritage Resources

The Heritage Resources Branch of Manitoba Sport, Culture, and Heritage was contacted to identify whether any heritage resources are located within in the proposed lagoon expansion area. According to the branch records, the potential to impact heritage resources was low, and the Heritage Resources Branch had no concerns with the project.

If any last-minute discoveries, and possible destruction, of heritage resources and human remains are found at the site during construction, the Town will work with Heritage Resources Branch to mitigate any concerns as required.


35 | P a g e

4 Potential Environmental Effects 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION

4.1.1 Air Quality Impacts

Construction activities will create dust and emissions from construction machinery. Dust suppression using water sprays or mists will be used to alleviate potential dust from being raised. Air quality effects from any dust generation during construction would be localized and temporary and is considered to have a low or negligible environmental effect. Emissions from construction equipment will be temporary and minimized by having machinery operating within normal limits and outfitted with mufflers (where application) to reduce air emissions. Contributions from construction activities and operations to greenhouse gas emissions are not expected to be significantly above background levels and are unlikely to contribute significantly to overall greenhouse gas inventories from the area.

4.1.2 Soils Impacts

A risk exists, during the construction of the facility, for a spill to occur from construction machinery and vehicle equipment. To reduce this risk storage of fuel, other petroleum products and lubricants will not be permitted within the area of the water supply. Therefore, the risk of occurrence is small based and additionally standard construction best practices for managing clean-up and removal of any impacted soils will be used to prevent any impacts.

4.1.3 Surface Water and Fish Habitat

Potential environmental impacts to surface water and fish habitat are expected to be minor and short term during construction. The majority of the work will take place at least 250m from the Whitemud River in a new structure which will house the components of the waste water treatment facility. The installation of a new effluent discharge line could potentially increase erosion and sedimentation into the Whitemud River. Standard construction best management practices for sedimentation and erosion control will be implemented during construction to reduce potential effects to aquatic life.

4.1.4 Climate Change Adaptation

As previously mentioned, contributions from construction activities and operations to greenhouse gas emissions are not expected to be significantly above background levels and are unlikely to contribute significantly to overall greenhouse gas inventories from the area.


36 | P a g e

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM OPERATING NEW FACILITY

4.2.1 Air Quality Odour Considerations

It is anticipated that during the operation of the WWTF there would not be any release of pollutants to the air.

It is not anticipated that the operation of the new WWTF will create any more odours than the current facility. The conversion to a continuously discharging aerated lagoon may actually result in less odour issues in spring than the current operation of the facultative lagoon. The operation of the solids dewatering cells should also pose minimal odour concerns. The solids will generally be covered by water, and when it is exposed for drying, it is expected this will take place over winter for the optimal freeze-drying process.

4.2.2 Soils Impacts

The new aerated cells will be constructed with a liner to current standards. Potential adverse impacts to soil quality are assessed to be negligible. Disposal of biosolids to surrounding agricultural lands will be done through controlled and approved procedures.

4.2.3 Groundwater Impacts

The proposed activities associated with the WWTF upgrades are not expected to impact groundwater resources. Ponds will be lined with compacted clay liner and other treatment cells (i.e. MBBR) are to be constructed out of concrete. Due to the small footprint of the proposed upgrade and expansion, existing groundwater monitoring wells will continue to be used to monitor potential impacts to groundwater resources. The potential environmental effects to groundwater resources are therefore expected to be negligible during operations.

4.2.4 Wildlife Habitat

The potential effects to wildlife and habitat loss were assessed to be negligible as all activities are occurring in areas previously disturbed.

4.2.5 Surface Water and Fish Habitat

The proposed new facility is expected to result in improved wastewater effluent to the Whitemud River over the current facultative treatment process. The expected reduction in TSS, BOD, and nutrient loading in the effluent should have a positive effect on the receiving surface water quality.

The length of hydraulic retention in the ponds should also result in effluent temperatures that are close to the receiving body ambient temperature. This should minimize any temperature shock, or effects in the waterbody.

Of more concern to fish habitat is the impacts from ammonia levels in the effluent, specifically un-ionized ammonia. Although the regulations state a less than 1.25 mg/L of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent, data has shown that it needs to be much less than this to maintain a non-lethal effect in fish habitat. With the


37 | P a g e

proposed MBBR treatment process specifically designed for ammonia reduction, the effluent quality is expected to achieve this non-lethal objective. As demonstrated in the 2016-17 pilot testing, the ammonia (TAN) levels in the effluent are expected to be 5 mg/L or less (depending on temperature); which results in an un-ionized fraction of 0.07 mg/L. At these levels, there was shown to be 0% mortality and 0% stressing of the sample trout.

The Whitemud River has average monthly flows in the Town of Neepawa (downstream of the confluence with Stony Creek) of approximately 5.9 m³/s (509,760 m3/day) in April, declining to near the base flow 0.2 m³/s (17,280 m3/day) for the remainder of the year. Therefore, with peak flows in spring during a critical cool water fish spawning season, there is expected to be more dilution occurring in the receiving body –further reducing any impacts from the effluent.


38 | P a g e

5 Environmental Mitigation Measures Long-term residual effects are not anticipated, but short-term residual effects are considered local, minor in magnitude, short term in duration, and reversible over time after environmental protection and mitigation measures are applied.

Annual monitoring reports for the proposed lagoon upgrades and expansion will be provided to Manitoba’s Sustainable Development Branch, along with reporting for the existing lagoon, according to the facility's licence to operate.

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION DURING CONSTRUCTION

5.1.1 Air Quality

Well maintained vehicles and equipment and reduction of unnecessarily transportation and idling of vehicles will assist in mitigating air quality impacts.

The control of dust with water sprays or an approved dust suppressant will limit the impact of dust to the air quality. Prompt re-establishment of vegetation disturbed during construction and also limiting certain work to periods of low winds will also help mitigate air quality impacts.

5.1.2 Soils

Preparation of an emergency response plan to mitigate potential impacts to soil by contaminants from petroleum products as well as use and availability of on-site spill clean-up equipment and materials, using properly maintained equipment and fuelling procedures.

Minimal ground disturbance is anticipated during the construction phase. The reestablishment of vegetation and backfill of any short trenches or excavations will occur as soon as possible after any disturbance to reduce the loss of soil due to wind or water erosion.

5.1.3 Surface Water

Surface water issues may be mitigated during construction by redirecting surface run-off, pumping accumulated water to adjacent ditches and installing proper erosion control practices such as silt fences and erosion control blankets.

Properly maintained, operated and fueled equipment will assist with the mitigation of potential fuel or petroleum spills. Manitoba Sustainable Development will be notified through the emergency response line and appropriate measures will be taken according to Manitoba Sustainable Development requirements.

Washing, refueling and servicing machinery and storage of fuel and other materials for the machinery will occur in such a way to prevent any deleterious substances from entering the water. Vehicles will stay on


39 | P a g e

established roads and not unnecessarily disturb riparian zones. Any disturbed vegetation will be re-established as soon as possible.

5.1.4 Groundwater

The same mitigation efforts as described for surface water can be applied to as mitigation measures to reduce potential impact to any groundwater.

5.1.5 Vegetation and Wildlife

The establishment of vegetation will occur as soon as practically possible for disturbed areas. Minimizing laydown areas and construction activities will act as a measure to reduce disturbance to soils, and vegetation. Proper noise control and dust control as previously discussed will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts.

5.1.6 Fisheries

Fisheries impacts will be mitigated by controlling run-off and any construction related discharge to the watercourse to reduce potential harmful effects. The work area will be set back from riparian zones and a vegetated buffer will remain intact to minimize any sediment from entering the Whitemud River. Proper erosion and sedimentation control measures for working near water will be implemented. These measures will limit any short term temporary impact to fisheries during construction activities.

5.1.7 Noise and Vibration

Unnecessary operation of equipment, properly muffled vehicles and equipment on site and properly maintained equipment will be assist in mitigating noise and vibration issues.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION DURING OPERATION OF NEW FACILITY

5.2.1 Nutrient Loading

With the incorporation of the MBBR treatment process for nitrification, nutrient loading from ammonia to the receiving body will be reduced.

With the incorporation of the disk filters for phosphorus removal, nutrient loading from phosphorus to the receiving body will be noticeably reduced. However, with the implementation of this phosphorus removal technology, there will now be a solids stream to be managed more regularly.

The solids from the disk filters will be directed to wards dewatering ponds for collection and storage. Once the solids have filled the ponds, they will need to be mechanically removed and disposed of. The preferred disposal means would be land application to nearby farmer’s fields. Because the filtration process requires a coagulant and polymer, the biosolids may have higher than normal metal content. This could result in lower application rate if metals become the limiting factor (and not nutrient load), and more land area required.


40 | P a g e

6 Project Phasing Summary The proposed upgrades described in this EAP are to be phased in due to project scale and available funding. At this time there is assumed to be two project phases; Phase 1 works is for 2018/2019 construction and Phase 2 is for 2019/2020 construction.

6.1 PHASE 1 WORK PROGRAM

The Town currently has $4.4M in funding through the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund (CWWF), andwill be managed through the Manitoba Water Services. Board.

The intent is to construct the Phase 1 Upgrades with these funds, this would consist of:

1. Construction of two (2) new aerated lagoon cells in the footprint of the existing Cell #2.

2. Supply and installation of aeration system for new aerated cells.

3. Extension of forcemains from primary cell to new aerated cells.

4. Construction of new wastewater treatment facility building to house aeration blowers and treatment equipment.

5. Supply and installation of new UV disinfection system.

6. Supply and installation of bulk alum feed system.

One of the first actions will be to drain Cell #2 and relocate biosolids to Cell #1 (to be land applied under Phase 2 program). Also, a new interconnection pipe will be installed from Cell #1 to Cell #3 to allow Cell #2 to be by-passed. Thus, during construction the facility will operate as a two-cell facultative lagoon.

It will be the owner’s intent to request an early discharge of cell #2 in May of 2018 to allow earlier access to start construction of new aerated cells.

Once the new aeration cells are constructed, they will need to have their liner inspected and approved by October 2018. and aeration system. Once the aeration equipment and UV system are operational in late 2018, the new aeration cells will be placed into service. The Town’s wastewater will then be directed to the new aerated cells, then flow through the new WWTF for disinfection by UV. As the effluent leaves the facility it will be dosed with alum and then directed to the existing Cell #3.

It is the intent that interim operation, until Phase 2 commences, to utilize Cell #3 for phosphorus reduction (settling after alum dose), and additional opportunity for nitrification to further reduce ammonia levels.

Although it may be more feasible to have the UV disinfection after Cell #3, this is would be difficult and costly (to pump) given the hydraulic profile of gravity flow through the WWTF.


41 | P a g e

During this interim operation, the facility may experience some challenges meeting more stringent phosphorus and ammonia parameters in the colder months. It is requested that this be considered in the EAL for interim operation.

With the completed Phase 1, Cell #1 will be placed out of service to allow biosolids to dewater, and Cell #3 will be a temporary Polishing Pond.

Figure 6-1 shows the proposed interim treatment process when Phase 1 is complete. Figure 6-2 shows the flow path of the wastewater through the cells and WWTF.

Figure 6-1 – Phase 1 Treatment Process

Figure 6-2 – Interim Operation Post-Phase 1

Aerated Cells

Polishing Pond

Ae

WWTF – (UV and Alum)

Discharge

Future Dewatering Ponds g(Phase 2)

Cell #2 By-pass

Primary Cell y(Out of service)

Alum with Bulk Storage

Aerated Fully Mixed Cell #1A

Aerated Partially Mixed Cell #1B

Air

Blowers

UV Disinfection WWTF

Treated Effluent to Whitemud River

Polishing Pond

Wastewater Flow


42 | P a g e

6.2 PHASE 2 WORK PROGRAM

Currently it is the intent of the Town and MWSB to obtain additional funding for Phase 2 work in 2018/2019. Once Phase 2 funding is obtained, tendering and construction would soon take place, with detail design being “shovel-ready” in early 2018.

Phase 2 Upgrades would consist of the remaining work program:

1. Construction of new concrete cast-in-place MBBR tankage.

2. Supply and installation of aeration system and media for MBBR.

3. Construction of two (2) new dewatering ponds in Cell #3.

4. Supply and installation of new disk filter equipment into WWTF.

5. Dewater old Cell #1 and Cell #3 and dewater (thicken) biosolids.

6. Removal of biosolids for land application.

7. Decommission old cells (cut berms to allow drainage).

To allow construction of new Dewatering Ponds, operation of the interim Polishing Pond will cease. The WWTF will discharge directly to the Whitemud River. Depending on when construction starts (summer or winter), it could be possible to have the new MBBR and disk filter in operation prior to taking the Polishing Pond out of service. However, if funding deadlines are driving the project schedule, the facility may discharge directly to the Whitemud River without full operation of the MBBR and disk filter.

Figure 6-3 shows the flow path of the wastewater through the cells, MBBR and WWTF.

Figure 6-3 – Operation Post-Phase 2 Works

Aerated Cells

Decommissioned Cell

Ae Cells

WWTF Wastewater Flow

Decommissioned Cell

MBBR

Discharge

Dewatering gPonds


43 | P a g e

7 References AECOM. 2013. Notice of Alteration Request – HyLife Foods Pork Processing Facility and R3 Innovations Inc./Town of Neepawa IWWTF, Neepawa MB. Retrieved online from http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/registries/index.html

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (AAFC-PFRA), Prairies East Region. 2004. Summary of Resources and Land Use Issues Related to Riparian Areas in the Whitemud River Watershed Study Area. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Winnipeg.

Burns Maendel Consulting Engineers Ltd. (BMCE). 2014. Environmental Act Proposal, Sedimentation Pond, Neepawa, MB. Retrieved online from http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/registries/index.html

Community Planning Services Branch (CPSB). 2006. The Neepawa and Area Planning District, Development Plan. Original text by Underwood McClellan Ltd. Retrieved online from http://www.neepawaareaplanning.com/neepawa

Earth Tech. 2008. Request for Alteration to the Town of Neepawa’s Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility, Neepawa, Manitoba. Project No. 97297. Retrieved online from http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/registries/index.html

Friesen, Chris. 2016. Personal communication (email). Coordinator. Manitoba Conservation Data Center. Manitoba Sustainable Development.

Groundwater Information Network (GIN). 2016. Manitoba Water Well Information. Retrieved from http://gw-info.net.

Manitoba Conservation (MB Conserv.). date unknown. Nutrient Management Regulation. Obtained October 2016 http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/waterstewardship/wqmz/index.html

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (CWS). 2016. Manitoba Land Initiative, Core Maps – Data Warehouse. Retrieved from https://mli2.gov.mb.ca//mli_data/index.html

Manitoba Conservation. 2012. Habitat Conservation, Wildlife Management Areas, Western Region. Retrieved online from https://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/habcons/wmas/western.html#whitemud_watershed

Manitoba Water Stewardship (MWS). 2010. Groundwater Resources of the Whitemud Watershed, Draft. Groundwater Management Section.


44 | P a g e

MWS. 2011. Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines. Winnipeg, MB.

McCombe, Christopher. 2016. Personal communication (email). Database Manager. Water Use Licensing. Manitoba Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, MB.

Milani, D.W. 2013. Fish community and fish habitat inventory of streams and constructed drains throughout agricultural areas of Manitoba (2002-2006). Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1247: xvi + 6,153 p.

Province of Manitoba, Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Branch. 1988. Groundwater Availability Study Neepawa Area. Province of Manitoba, Department of Natural Resources.

Rutulis, M. 1979. Groundwater Resources in Neepawa and Area Planning District. Retrieved online from https://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/waterstewardship/reports/groundwater/resources/neepawa.pdf

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 Landscapes. Technical Bulletin 98-9E. Land Resource Unit, Brandon Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Tourism Westman. 2012. Southwest Manitoba, a Prairie Escape. Retrieved online from http://www.tourismwestman.ca/index.php?pageid=481

Town of Neepawa. 2016. Neepawa Land of Plenty, Community Profile. Town of Neepawa Website: http://www.neepawa.ca/main.asp?cat_ID=2

Documents

TEL: 204.942.6391 +BOVBSZ +BOVBSZ