BRANDON WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILIY

UPGRADEENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON NEW FACILITY PROPOSAL

By:

Justine Josephson-Laidlaw, Jordan Hoff, Meagan Glowa, Jordan Hanna, Rena Nayar

Environmental Assessment – ENVR 3250

April 9th 2015

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proponent, the City of Brandon, in addition to industrial stakeholders including Maple Leaf Foods Inc. and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, have brought forward the proposal for Brandon to upgrade the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWWTF) to a more centralized and efficient facility forward. Under the Environment Act, this is a Class 2 development, while under Provincial Jurisdiction, may have the need for additional federal comments.

The new facility boasts six new membrane bioreactors, which will be the largest in Canada of its type. The purpose of the upgrade is to improve Nitrogen and Phosphorus to 15mg/L and 1mg/L respectively. An additional role to this facility is to accommodate increased hog production from Maple Leaf Foods Inc. who has increased production, previously limited by waste treatment capacity. The new facility will also treat municipal waste along side industrial, making it centralized (CWWTF), with the previous municipal facility becoming a pre-treatment facility.

The project scope encompasses both spatial boundaries of the municipality of Brandon, as well as local environments surrounding the facility and downstream of the Assiniboine River. Environmental components of importance include the Assiniboine River, aquatic life, soil erosion and migratory birds. As part of the environmental assessment process, regular public consultations and input will be established to collect surrounding public concerns with the project.

Environmental effects pose low risk to environmental components and valued ecological components (VEC’s). Outflowing effluent is treated to high standards, further decreasing previous effluents to low concentrations of nutrients and eliminating byproducts from industrial processes. Of main concern to the proposed project is the impact on soil erosion, select species of aquatic life that are on the Species at Risk Act (SARA) list and the management of waste byproduct biosolids. With proper management and

2

mitigation measures, biosolids can be used – pending license approval for applicators – for agricultural spaces, and VEC’s protected through adaptive management and soft mitigation. In the unlikely event of defect of operations or facility technologies, there are environmental management system procedures in place to aid trained employees in a variety of environmental and technical scenarios.

Mitigation and follow up measures are integral parts of post-construction procedures. Regular testing of outflow effluent is to be done at predetermined distances and times. Constant pipeline and mechanical monitoring for structural integrity is done on a consistent basis. Reducing risk of environmental incident is imperative to ongoing operations for the new CWWTF.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................2LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES..........................................................5INTRODUCTION...................................................................................6

PROJECT OVERVIEW.........................................................................................6PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................6

PROJECT PURPOSE...........................................................................................6PROJECT COMPONENTS....................................................................................7

Outflow Pipes............................................................................................7Bioreactors................................................................................................7Inlet transfer pipeline................................................................................8Post-construction clean up and Remediation............................................8Operational waste.....................................................................................9

SCOPE..................................................................................................9SCOPE OF THE PROJECT...................................................................................9SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENT........................................................................10

ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION.....................................................10ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS.....................................................................11

Assiniboine River.....................................................................................11Aquatic Wildlife.......................................................................................11Riparian Zone..........................................................................................12Soil & Groundwater.................................................................................12Migratory Birds.......................................................................................12Public Health and Safety.........................................................................13Vegetation and Species at Risk...............................................................13Biophysical..............................................................................................13Socioeconomic.........................................................................................14

ALTERNATIVES TO AND ALTERNATIVE MEANS..............................14ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT.....................................................................15ALTERATIVE MEANS TO THE PROJECT.............................................................15

CONSULTATION & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT......................................17EDUCATION OF PROJECT................................................................................18STRUCTURE..................................................................................................19ADDITIONAL HEARINGS AND CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT...................................19

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT......................................20POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION.................20WATER QUALITY............................................................................................21AQUATIC WILDLIFE AND HABITAT...................................................................21SOIL/VEGETATION.........................................................................................22WILDLIFE AND HABITAT.................................................................................22

4

EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT...........................................22EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS.................................................22HEALTH AND SAFETY/ EMERGENCY RESPONSE................................................23EFFECTS ON LAND USE.................................................................................23RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT...................................................................23CUMULATIVE EFFECTS...................................................................................23

FOLLOW UP AND MONITORING.......................................................24CONCLUSION.....................................................................................26REFERENCES.....................................................................................27APPENDICES......................................................................................29

5

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Table 1 – Project Information Summary……………………………………………………………6

Table 2 – Measurable Environmental Indicators…………….……………………………………..13

Table 3 – Open House Round Table Process…….………………………………………………..19

Table 4 – VEC’s and Follow Up Actions…………………………………………………………..25

Table 5 – Potentially Affected Valued Ecosystem Components …………………………………...29

Table 6 – Freshwater Mussel Species………………………………………………………………29

Table 7 – Fish Species in Assiniboine River………………………………………………………..29

Table 8 – Summary of the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects………………………..30

Figure 1 – Aerial View………………………………………………………………………………7

Figure 2 – Inlet Pipe Location………………………………………………………………………8

Figure 3 – Mussels…………………………………………………………………………………11

Figure 4 – Waterfowl………………………………………………………………………………12

Figure 5 – White Lady Slipper……………………………………………………………………...13

Figure 6 – Primary Stakeholders…………………………………………………………………....17

Figure 7 – Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Stakeholders…………………………………………..17

Figure 8 – Order of Operations……………………………………………………………………18

6

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The proposed Brandon Wastewater Treatment Facility will be an upgrade of Brandon’s industrial wastewater treatment facility (IWWTF). The proposed location is just north of the Maple Leaf’s on 65th street E. The other wastewater treatment facility currently being used for municipal waste will become a pre-treatment facility for all waste for the City of Brandon. The upgraded facility will be a more centralized facility (CWWTF) for the municipality, processing both municipal and industrial waste. The new wastewater facility changes will accommodate the expected increase of 27,000 residents by 2050. New upgrades to the existing facility include membrane bioreactors that further decrease concentrations of nutrients, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus.

Table 1 - Project Information SummaryProject Name Brandon Centralized Waste Water Treatment

FacilityProponent City of BrandonDesigner AECOMDeveloper North American Construction Ltd. (NAC)Location City of Brandon; 65th Street EClass of Development

Class 2

Environmental Assessment Contact

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Approvals Board

Manitoba Conservation Online Public Registry

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/registries/brandonwastewater/

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT PURPOSE

The purpose of the new facility is to accommodate increased manufacturing capacity and residential growth. Industrial output has previously been limited by the capacity of current wastewater facilities that service large industrial facilities such as Pfizer’s manufacturing plant and Maple Leaf’s hog facility. Maple Leaf had in previous years been approved for a 50% increase in hog pens, but was unable to take advantage of their license due to restrictions on current wastewater facility capacities (Earth Tech, 2003). Maple Leaf invested $11 million to initiate the first phase of the wastewater treatment facility upgrade (Maple Leaf Foods Inc, 2006).

With the proposed upgrades to the IWWTF, Nitrogen and Phosphorus will be limited to 15mg/L and 1mg/L respectively. This limits unnecessary nutrient loading into the Assiniboine River and ultimately a portion of the Western Lake Winnipeg watershed. Upgrades proposed will modernize and increase environmental stewardship with wastewater treatment, and aid in economic growth in the industrial sector.

PROJECT COMPONENTS

OUTFLOW PIPES

The improved Brandon CWWTF is located at 65th street E in Brandon, Manitoba. The facility is approximately 700 metres south of the Assiniboine River. The construction of the outflow pipe will meet the current outflow pipe at the riparian zone on the riverbank. The installed pipelines will be approximately one metre in diameter within the pipe, with varying outflow rates depending on waste treatment rates within the facility. Clearing a four metre-wide pathway to the riverbank is required to allow excavation for the pipeline. Excavation dimensions will entail a two-metre deep trench by 1.2

FIGURE 1(CURRENT WASTERWATER FACILITY AERIAL VIEW, GOOGLE, 2015)

8

metres wide. The addition width will allow for easier assembly during construction, as well as monitoring equipment that analyzes pipeline integrity and potential structural compromises. Post-installation of pipeline will entail reusing excavated soil and organic matter back into the remainder of the excavated area. The new pipeline will be made in addition to the plants existing outflow pipe. An additional outflow pipe allows for greater treatment capacities enabled by the new implementation of membrane bioreactors.

BIOREACTORS

Membrane bioreactors of this scale will among the first in Canada to be implemented. This type of technology enables the CWWTF the ability to increase peak flows of 36 million litres per day (Twardzik, Newswire, June 2011). The new facility and reactor will treat waste from the city’s existing treatment facilities along with Pfizer’s and Maple Leaf’s generated waste. Assembly of new bioreactors is made easier with General Electric’s (GE) seamless prefabricated units, requiring less training and a smoother transition to an integrated system. Proper maintenance and monitoring of membrane bioreactor efficiency is a primary concern of the treatment facilities operations. Employees and technicians will be responsible for managing all six steel tanks in the new facility. These tanks will require sequential cleaning and filter assessment to ensure there are no blockages, overabundance of filtered material and no damages that may have been sustained.

INLET TRANSFER PIPELINE

A new inlet transfer pipe is required for the new upgraded facility between the municipal and current industrial treatment facilities. The purpose of this new transfer pipe is that the municipal plant will be repurposed as a pre-treatment

FIGURE 2(INLET PIPE LOCATION, ARCGIS, 2015)9

facility, and the subsequent waste will be transferred to the CWWTF to go through final treatment procedures. Construction of a new pipe will require excavation and clearing similar to the outflow pipe as stated above, however will be 3.30 kilometres in length. The extra space provided through excavation will be used for pipeline reinforcement. Because the inlet transfer pipe is moving partially treated waste, there are risks associated with the interactions between pretreated waste and the environment. To prevent such incidents, the pipeline will be fabricated with sequential layers of various nonporous materials and have a resistance to pressure, preventing leaks and seepage in case of a leak. More of mitigation measures associated with pipeline integrity will be explained in further detail below.

POST-CONSTRUCTION CLEAN UP AND REMEDIATION

The environmental assessment also considers post-construction clean up as an important project component to the integrity of the city’s wastewater facility management plan. Construction materials cover a wide array of materials that can interact with the environment through many access points. It is important to remove construction materials including packaging, pallets, paints, resins, sealants, cement mix and other materials using during the upgrading process. It is also explicitly expressed that materials and components removed from the earlier facility be discarded with appropriately. Old filtration tanks and reactors among other components must be disposed of in accordance with legislation under: (Manitoba Conservation, 2002)

Waste Disposal Grounds Regulations (150/91) Litter Regulation (92/88R) Insanitary Conditions Regulations (325/88R)

The purpose of these regulations and course of action for the upgraded CWWTF is to prevent any environmental harm through soil or groundwater contamination coming from heavy metals or toxic substances. Certain chemicals included in the construction process can pose risks to human, wildlife and economic health. Proper wastes management and disposal is a

10

key component in mitigating any environmental risk associated with the CWWTF project.

OPERATIONAL WASTE

Effluent outflow from the CWWTF is closely monitored through the follow up and monitoring program (see subsequent pages) and facilitated through implementation of new membrane bioreactors. Nitrogen and Phosphorus are the main constituents of concern, being reduced to below 15mg/L and 1mg/L respectively. Other contaminants will be filtered out and treated from residential, commercial and industrial waste streams accordingly. The resulting filtered materials constitute by definition a biosolid.

Biosolids produced through the CWWTF can be applied to agricultural practices as a fertilizer. However, to do so, following the environmental assessment of the facility, an application for land application is required on an annual basis to use the biosolids (CCME, 2010). This is a requirement of the Environment Act, which in addition to the Nutrient Management Regulation, any person(s) must apply for a license, and the usage must be made public. All licenses issued for the summer term, and anyone wishing to continue use into the next agricultural season must reapply to use biosolids.

SCOPEThe proposed Brandon Wastewater Treatment Facility is an expansion of the existing treatment facilities. The project includes the construction of one new outfall pipe, technological upgrades, a new permanent access road and the reclamation of land in areas of construction. The project definition is to be completed in 2015, the design of the buildings upgrades is to be complete in 2016 and the site preparation, construction is to begin in 2017. Once construction is complete operations will be ongoing.

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The scope of the project includes construction, operation, maintenance and renovations. Construction activities include excavating soils, disposing of

11

waste from site, installing membrane bioreactors, operating heavy machinery and equipment, constructing required expansions of facility, laying gravel down for new access road and operating new technologies and facilities. An important note within the scope of the project, is that it includes operational wastes (biosolids), it does not, however, include the usage and monitoring of application of those biosolids for agricultural purposes. Applicators interested in the CWWTF’s biosolids must apply for an license and an assessment of the application area before using the facilities biosolids; this falls under the jurisdiction of Manitoba Conservation.

SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

The scope of the environment includes identification of environmental components, assessment, mitigation to alleviate environmental effects and the evaluation of the significance of environmental effects. The effects taken into consideration include the direct and indirect biophysical and socioeconomic effects. The purpose is outlined and the alternatives to and the alternative means considered are defined.

The spatial boundary of the assessment include the industrial zoned area which holds the Maple Leaf Foods plant, the municipal treatment facility on Richmond East, the lagoons on 65th street which are east of the Brandon Wastewater Facility, nearby agricultural land and residential neighbourhoods.

Project area includes the construction area and associated activity Local area includes neighbouring agricultural lands, residential

neighbourhoods and other commercial plants nearby

Regional area includes the City of Brandon and downstream residents.

ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTIONThe environmental assessment focuses on Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). VECs are natural and socio-economic features which are notable or valued due to their ecological, scientific, aesthetic, health, resource,

12

spiritual or cultural importance and are at risk of being affected by the proposed project. The VECS may be affected directly or indirectly at some point during planning, construction or operation. The City of Brandon, Technical Advisory Committees, and Manitoba Conservation identified the VECs for the Brandon Wastewater Facility project and Water Stewardship the environmental assessment team has identified the VECs as:

Assiniboine River Aquatic wildlife Riparian zone Soil Ground water Health and public safety Migratory birds Vegetation Species at Risk

A complete list of VEC’s and the rationale behind their value and sensitivity can be found in the appendices.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS

ASSINIBOINE RIVER

The Assiniboine River plays an important role in Manitoba’s ecological health. The river is valued for its aesthetic and recreational purposes. The quality and water levels of the river not only affect the City of Brandon but also other downstream regions such as Winnipeg. Excessive water deposits could create dangerous scenarios during the flood season. The Brandon Wastewater Facility have a responsibility to protect the Assiniboine River so the city of Brandon and neighbouring communities downstream have access to a clean water source. The health of the Assiniboine River is of significance to Ducks Unlimited Canada, Riverbank Discovery Center, Brandon Environment Committee, Assiniboine Hills Conservation District, Royal Bank of Canada and the Province of Manitoba such groups are invested in the support and promotion of Brandon’s water conservation plan (City of Brandon, 2013). Nutrient monitoring must be implemented to ensure the quality of the Assiniboine River (City of Brandon, 2013).

13

AQUATIC WILDLIFE

The Assiniboine River contains important habitats for number species, including fifty different fish species and eight different mussel species all of which are reliant on water quality and quantity (City of Brandon, 2013). A biologically diverse ecosystem is a good indicator of environmental health. The Maple Leaf mussel is of significance to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) who has recommended the species be covered under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) (City of Brandon, 2013). Construction should occur during spawning season and site surveys should be conducted to determine the presence or absence of sensitive species in the project study area.

RIPARIAN ZONE

The riparian zone contains essential habitats for wildlife, assists in the reduction of erosion and may act as a buffer zone to trap excess pollutants and nutrients. A healthy riparian zone may also slow the river flow, which is particularly important during the flood season (Manitoba Government).

SOIL & GROUNDWATER

Agricultural land holds high social and economic value in the city of Brandon; many industries in the region rely on soil quality. Preventive measure must be put in place to avoid high remediation costs required to repair contaminated sites.

Ground water quality is of value to the city of Brandon residents, agricultural farmers and local businesses. In order to increase water quality during spring run-off or times of high turbidity the city will blend groundwater from the underground aquifer with Assiniboine River water source (City of Brandon, 2013). The Brandon Wastewater Facility should

FIGURE 3GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2013FIGURE 3(MUSSELS, GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2013)

14

take all measures to prevent run-off, contaminate deposits and lagoon leakages from entering the environment during construction.

MIGRATORY BIRDS

(City College of San Francisco College, 2008.) The Brandon wastewater facility is located 20 kilometers from the Douglas Marsh, which is a protected habitat for numerous migratory birds including the Yellow Rail, Virginia and Sora Rails, Sedge Wren, Le Conte’s, Sharp-tailed Sparrows and Waterfowl (Nature Manitoba, 2013). The close location of the protected habitat creates concern of avian interaction with the lagoons. Preventive measures and increased monitoring of the lagoons should occur during migration season. Conservation planning is directed by the Brandon Naturalist Society (Canadian Important Bird Areas, 2001).

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Good air quality is a valued component to the city of Brandon. Poor air quality can harm health, put residents at greater risk for disease and damage agriculture crops. It is important that the Wastewater facility does not compromise the quality of air during construction and operation.

VEGETATION AND SPECIES AT RISK

The vegetation in the area provides wildlife with important habitat, food sources and travel corridors. The Brandon area is a known region to contain the Small white lady slipper. The Small white lady slipper is a federally and provincially endangered orchid, which relies on prairie habitat, undisturbed grasslands and

FIGURE 4 (WATERFOWL, CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO COLLEGE, 2008.)

FIGURE 5 (WHITE LADY SLIPPER, WILDFOLOWER CENTER, 2015) 15

roadside ditches (Manitoba’s Species at Risk). Site surveys must confirm the presence or absence of the species before outfall pipe excavation takes place.

There are a number species that may be found in the study area. Some are of concern such as the Yellow rail (Government of Canada, 2015), and others are endangered/rare species. Both have been listed under SARA.

Table 2 - Measurable Environmental IndicatorsEnvironmental Attribute

Environmental Indicator

Measurable Parameter

Species abundance, Small white lady slipper

Absence or presence of species

Patch occupancy surveys using transects throughout project study area

Effluent discharge Total volume discharged

Cubic metres per hour

Total suspended solids Parts per million of Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Soil quality pH level Alkalinity testSoil erosion Loss of sediment Metres per yearGroundwater quality Parts per million

samples from peristaltic pump

Air quality, biogas Concentration of Particulate matter in air

Parts per million

BIOPHYSICAL

Brandon is located in southwestern Manitoba and is situated around the Assiniboine River. The terrain varies between flat and moderately rolling topography. Though sparsely situated, the most commonly found vegetation in the area is the Oak and Trembling Aspen and more sporadically, the Bur Oak and the Scrubby Aspen. Brandon’s climate is classified as boreal, sub humid continental with warm summers (Michalyna et al. 1976). The Brandon Wastewater Facility is approximately one kilometer north of the Assiniboine River. Level topography creates a slow drainage (Michalyna et al. 1976) and physical location makes Brandon susceptible to extreme flooding during years of high precipitation and spring run-off. The majority of rural Brandon’s land use are cereal crops or agricultural in nature. If a flood were

16

to produce higher than normal water levels in the lagoons or a bioreactor should fail during flooding, excess nitrogen and phosphorus could damage farmland and vegetation. Emergency evacuation and cleanup strategies are a priority in the region.

SOCIOECONOMIC

The project will serve the 46,061 residents of Brandon (City of Brandon, 2013). The site’s location is approximately one kilometer from the city but the facilities’ end product will have effects on the Assiniboine River which is essential to recreational activities such as boating and fishing, and are used to increase water levels in duck ponds and interpretive bonds which are relied upon for conservation and education (City of Brandon, 2013). Brandon’s industrial economy focuses on agriculture, metal manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and more recently, oil drilling (Brandon Economic Development, 2015) with one of the largest employers being Maple Leaf Consumer Foods. The Brandon Wastewater Facility upgrade will provide residents with increased employment during construction and with more technologically advanced training to meet higher standards and use the membrane bioreactor equipment.

ALTERNATIVES TO AND ALTERNATIVE MEANSThe upgrades being proposed for the wastewater treatment facility in Brandon, Manitoba is enabling the City to accommodate population growth and expanded industrial operations. The chosen path of development for the project is to keep in commission the old municipal plant as a pre-treatment facility that sends partially treated wastewater to the industrial treatment site (IWWTF) southeast adjacent to the Maple Leap plant. Fully treated wastewater will then enter the Assiniboine River east of the site. Bio solids or sludge from the treatment process will be sent to the anaerobic basins or sludge lagoons north of the Assiniboine River. The existing three lagoons will only be in operation for sludge rotational storage and extreme weather conditions when the treatment facilities cannot treat all of the incoming

17

wastewater. Bio solid production is expected to increase by 750 dry tons resulting in more frequent sludge removal and in turn application to agricultural lands. The chosen path also calls for an updated pipe inlet between the municipal and industrial treatment sites that will be 3.3 kilometres long.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

The no action alternative would deny the City of Brandon the increased need for wastewater services as the urban population increases. Industrial growth also would be limited to what the current system can handle in regards to treatment capacity. Not going ahead with the project in some form will deny the greater Brandon area economic growth and prosperity. The Maple Leaf Production facility will be able to increase output and utilize the full capacity of their facility when there is a greater threshold to treat more wastewater. Therefore just demanding reduction programs for the amount of waste treated is not feasible as it would be stagnant population and industrial growth.

Options for having a party other than the City of Brandon to treat wastewater have not been explored. Brandon has a responsibility to treat and deal with negative externalities of prosperous growth within its own jurisdiction and to not export those externalities elsewhere.

ALTERATIVE MEANS TO THE PROJECT

It is the City of Brandon`s best interest to utilize existing sites for expanded wastewater treatment to benefit in great cost reductions and savings. Choosing a different site altogether would be a financial burden nether the City or Maple Leaf and the Provincial Government could afford together. The ecological sensitivity of being next to the Assiniboine River is necessary to be able to have efficient disposal of final treated wastewater even when the River is one of the most valued ecosystem components. Alternative locations to the project are therefore limited to the existing Brandon wastewater study area and network of existing infrastructure.

18

The desired option of having two treatment sites as described above does have one alternative means of carrying out the project. Decommissioning the existing municipal treatment site and upgrading the existing Industrial Treatment site to handle all the treatment processes in one consolidated place is an alternative. Environmental benefits to this option include:

Consolidated management and operations resulting in less area where potential accidents and malfunctions occur

Increased distance of operations from residents of Brandon, consolidated plant will be at Maple Leaf site which is father east then the municipal plant

Need to upgrade pipe inlet connecting the two treatment facilities which requires excavation and increase needs to monitor and ensure no leakage or pipe failure occur

The argument against has a strong financial backing supporting that costs of decommissioning the municipal treatment site and increased upgrade costs at the Industrial site. This option may pose too large of a finical burden on the City and taxpayers. As well decommissioning the primary treatment facility that is in good working order may result in increased energy consumption and decommissioning/construction costs even in the long term. The municipal facility is still providing a good environmental service to the City of Brandon, ending that and investing more efforts into new construction of additional treatment operations at the industrial site along with the current industrial facility improvements is a step backwards. Environmental concerns with pipe inlet connections and two separate management sites do have sufficient mediation solutions.

Technology advancements have made the lagoon operations at the Brandon Wastewater Treatment facility less significant. Original concerns with the capacity of the lagoons to treat wastewater are lessoned as they now primarily operate as the anaerobic basins for final sludge/bio solid treatment. The environmental pressure on the lagoons is less due to the new design and technology implantation of the membrane bioreactors at the Industrial Secondary Treatment Facility. The previous concern over seepage

19

Primary Stakeholde

rs

Individuals

Residents of Brandon

Agricultural

Landowners &

Farmers

Private Companies

Example: Pfezer,

Maple Leaf

City of Brandon

into the Assiniboine River is still present but not as extreme as before. The alternative to the lagoon part of the process is to install new ones in a less environmentally sensitive area. It would be ideal to locate closer to the industrial treatment site however this option is difficult as the current space within city limits around the facility are occupied by Maple Leaf and other industrial private landowners. As well there are rail lines and yards owned by Canadian Pacific and Canadian National that cross section available land plots. Lagoon operations would also question the ground integrity for train passage. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency anaerobic lagoon costs are primarily concerned with the earthwork such as forming the embankment, compacting, lining, and excavation and are typically 0.2 to 0.8 hectares in surface area. There would be adverse disturbance if a new site would be selected. A new lagoon operations site would have to be considered outside Brandon city limits where providing sufficient land from private landowners and agricultural land use would likely result in expropriation scenarios.

The final discussion typically revolves around cost of the alternative project options however in the case for the Brandon Wastewater Treatment Facility it is important to understand that existing facilities can be more environmentally sound as long as proper mediation, monitoring, and follow up is taken. It is typically a better option to re-purpose and recycle existing conditions to construct entirely new facilities elsewhere.

CONSULTATION & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT The Brandon Wastewater Treatment Facility is essentially a point project with five sites or main components of operations: the municipal primary treatment site, secondary industrial treatment site, the anaerobic basins and lagoons, the pipe inlet between facilities and the effluent discharge site. There are some

20

linear qualities to the project such as the pipe inlet however all project developments will take place within Brandon city limits, the City of Brandon being the main authority. Maple Leaf has a high pre invested interest in the project they too will hold some authority in providing information to other interested groups. Wastewater treatment is a public service that enables all residents who live in the Brandon area who are connected to the pipe system or use septic removal companies who empty into the system to be primary stakeholders. As well as industry that relies on safe, efficient and guaranteed disposal of their wastewater. Farmers who accept sludge disposal on their agricultural lands also are primary stakeholders. Given that there are potentially going to be concerns over the project from a variety of interests it makes sense to organize primary stakeholders into likeminded organizational groups as seen in Figure 6. Secondary stakeholders concern the regulators and tertiary fall into Non-Government Organizations who have an interest in the project and Universities who may have research interests (Figure 7).

EDUCATION OF PROJECT

The challenge starts after the project has been introduced to all interest parties. It would be inappropriate to involve all the primary stakeholders together as they are a very diverse group with different concerns. The residents of Brandon may have interest in increased odour and nuisance issues if any in new operations, the sustainability of the increased hog production facility, and Pfizer’s endocrine disrupting substances going through wastewater treatment. Even in an organized open house setting

with pre assigned speakers issues that are not directly related will come out such as Maple Leaps job sustainability so it is therefore appropriate for some primary stakeholders such as Maple Leaf and the City of Brandon to collaborate together before hand. The first step of open houses should be information providing sessions where experts from Maple Leaf, the City, and Government of Manitoba educate the public. Some concerns such as the endocrine disrupting substances are already successfully being treated in

FIGURE 7: PRIMARY, SECONDARY, & TERTIARY STAKEHOLDERS

21

existing wastewater facilities. The educating of these processes allows for better overall engagement.

It is not enough to just educate the public and private industry. The project is catered to Brandon’s future population growth and local economic growth such as Maple Leaf’s capacity of production increase. The City of Brandon will have a high level of commitment to involve not only Maple Leaf but other potential large companies that rely on a safe consistent wastewater disposal as well. These large groups will have more resources then the average resident or small business to recommend experts to the open house events. These

relationships between city government and local industry should happen before open houses commence to the public.

Engaging Continued Conversation Outstanding concerns addressed to party of interest in a back and forth dialogue

Development Purpose & Concerns City & Large Industry pre Hearing Enagement

Directed Open Houses & CEC Hearings

Introduction of Project Newspaper/local media adds & announcements Press Release from City Hall

FIGURE 8: ORDER OF OPERATIONS

22

STRUCTURE

It is important to have open houses focused towards each group to promote meaningful and progressive dialogue. The City and industry open houses will commence first as some public concerns may be industry specific therefore it makes sense to organize the order of operations in this form. The second round of open houses will involve farmers and agricultural landowners who have or plan to receive bio solids onto their land. The third round will focus on residents of Brandon and their concerns. Round four will be addressed to secondary and tertiary stakeholders and comments they want to make. Each of the four rounds will have the first open house as purely and educational informative session at which point individuals, companies, organizations, and government can submit a request to the City to speak or ask questions in later open houses.

Table 4 illustrates the order in how engagement will commence; each new round will commence after the one preceding it. Anyone can attend any round and session, however, speaking rights and questions will be carefully allocated to the appropriate group or individual and any concerns that happened in other rounds can be brought to attention again at a new round as that concern may be shared among many. This structure will alleviate some of the management stresses of informing and facilitating public and private engagement. Sessions will commence in a timely manner however there will be appropriate time breaks in between sessions to ensure every party has the time needed to come back to additional sessions will meaningful information. There is not a limit to three sessions for each round; additional sessions may be added depending on interest and demand for them.

Table 3: Open House Rounds and SessionsStage Round One Round Two Round

ThreeRound Four

Local Industry

Agricultural Landowners &Farmers

Residents of Brandon

Secondary and Tertiary Stakeholders

23

Educational Sessions

Session 1.1 Session 2.1 Session 3.1 Session 4.1

Dialogue Session 1.2 Session 2.2 Session 3.2 Session 4.2Dialogue Session 1.3… Session 2.3 Session 3.3 Session 4.3

ADDITIONAL HEARINGS AND CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT

A continued dialogue will continue between the public, private industry, organizations, and the City of Brandon. However there will be a need for a Clean Environment Commission (CEC) set of Hearings as well. The open houses will do their best to inform and involve all interested parties so that when CEC Hearings commence individuals and groups will be able to provide meaningful interaction with the CEC Board so that the CEC can come to concise and meaningful license recommendations for the wastewater treatment facility.

All information will be updated and posted to the City of Brandon’s Website from all open houses and links to the CEC Hearings. As well this Environment Act Project Proposal and final Licensing Agreement will be available online as well in public libraries.

The City of Brandon is prepared to address concerns from all parties over information gaps on treatment procedures, increase in wastewater flow from increased industrial activity, odor nuisance concerns, and increased construction activity in study area. Some early proposed mitigation measures to address public concern are to have discussions about obtaining a performance bond guarantee from the membrane bio reactor manufacturer to save on potential expenses, installation of a new aeration system to combat odor concerns, and to continually be proactive in providing all the necessary information along many media forms to the public residents and industries of Brandon. Outstanding concerns the City is preparing to consult about are the concerns on project cost fluctuations, occurrence of some odor/nuisance, and unsustainable/unplanned

24

exponential growth from industry. Parameters will need to be set in place to ensure that the new upgraded wastewater facility capacity is not abused.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION

The environmental assessment included the identification of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs), a review of the potential environmental effects of the project on each VEC, and the effects of the environment on the project itself (G.J. Bull & Associates, Inc., 2005). Mitigation measures were identified to reduce the overall impact of potential adverse environmental effects and many of these measures have been integrated into the project design (CEAA, 2011).The environmental effects were evaluated based on the following specific characteristics or attributes:

Duration Geographic Extent Magnitude Reversibility Ecological Context Overall Rating and Significance

The components that were evaluated for potential environmental effects were: surface and groundwater quality, aquatic resources, soils, vegetation, wildlife and habitat, air quality, public health and safety, socio-economic effects, and the effects of the environment on the project (G.J. Bull & Associates, Inc., 2005).  The valued ecosystem components most likely to be impacted by the project are described below while mitigation measures are listed in Table 8 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects Table (Appendices).

WATER QUALITY

25

The proposed wastewater treatment facility expansion will be discharging treated effluent through two outfall pipes, one new and one already in use. Potential changes in surface water quality from construction, operation and maintenance activities were examined. It was concluded the upgrades to the treatment facility would reduce nutrient concentrations in the effluent and would improve the downstream environment of the Assiniboine River (CEC, 2003).Potentially adverse effects to surface water quality could occur as a result of the incorrect operation of the treatment facility or due to a malfunction in the equipment, leading to the discharge of untreated effluent into the Assiniboine River (G.J. Bull & Associates, Inc., 2005). Water quality may be adversely affected in the short term. Mitigation measures to reduce the risk of accidents or malfunctions are listed in table 8.

 AQUATIC WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

Potential impacts of construction, operation and maintenance of the treatment facility on fish, other aquatic species and habitat were examined. Potential adverse effects of the project include loss of fish habitat, altered water flows and increased sediment loading at the effluent discharge point (CEAA, 2011). A species of mollusc, the Maple Leaf Mussel may occur or has the potential to occur in the project study area and has been assessed by COSEWIC as endangered (CEAA, 2011). Site surveys should be undertaken to determine the presence or absence of the Maple Leaf Mussel and safe handling protocols should be developed in case the species is encountered in the course of construction activities (CEAA, 2011).

SOIL/VEGETATION

The expansion of the treatment facility will result in the removal of soil and vegetation at the facility site, along the 2 km inlet pipe between facilities and the 600 m outlet pipe in a riparian area. The treatment facility expansion was designed to minimize the area of disturbance during

26

construction. Appropriate reclamation and re-vegetation measures will reduce the impacts to these environmental components. The overall significance of adverse effects from the project on soil and vegetation is low and reversible.

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

The project is likely to affect wildlife in the area through habitat loss and fragmentation during construction activities (CEAA, 2011). However the project will be situated in a previously disturbed area and will not result in significant changes to wildlife or wildlife habitat (CEAA, 2011).  

EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT

The environmental assessment considered potential effects the environment may have on the project as part of the evaluation of effects (CEAA, 2011). The potential environmental effects during the construction and operation phases would largely be related to severe weather events including extreme cold weather, droughts, flooding and heavy precipitation events. Design flexibility and redundancy will help mitigate these effects. Additional mitigation measures are described in Table 8.

EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

The risk of accidents or malfunctions, which could occur during the construction and operation phases of the treatment facility were considered as part of the environmental assessment (G.J. Bull & Associates, Inc., 2005). The following scenarios were examined:

Hazardous Materials Spills Breaks in the Collector System Breakage of the Outfall Pipe   Failure of Effluent Treatment Failure of Odour Controls Transportation Accidents Fires and Explosions

(Source: Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited, 2001).

27

Mitigation measures to reduce the risk of accidents or malfunctions are described in Table 8 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects. An Environmental Management System (EMS) will be developed for the construction and operation of the project (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited, 2001). The EMS will also include protocols such as a Spill Response Plan for Petroleum Products (fuel) and Sewage, which describes the safety response procedures and equipment to deal safely with a potential spill of wastewaters (G.J. Bull & Associates, Inc., 2005). An Operation Plan and Manual will also be developed for the facility to provide further guidance to operators for the proper and safe operation of the facility (G.J. Bull & Associates, Inc., 2005).

HEALTH AND SAFETY/ EMERGENCY RESPONSE

All contractors will be required to develop a health and safety plan for their component of work prior to the start of construction. The health and safety plan would typically include:• Site location and prime contacts;• Local emergency and project contact numbers;• Description and map of emergency routes;• Safety equipment required;• List of site hazards and mitigation; and,• Potential waste generation and disposal methods.(Source: Port Metro Vancouver, 2005).

EFFECTS ON LAND USE

The expansion of the treatment facility is not expected to alter land use planning, as the area is pre-designated for industry (Earth Tech Inc., 2006).

RESIDUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Taking into account the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, it has been determined that the project is not likely to cause significant environmental effects to water quality, vegetation, wildlife and habitat and

28

air quality (CEAA, 2011).

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The consideration of environmental effects of a project must also take into consideration any cumulative effects that are likely to result from the project activity in combination with any other past, present or future likely projects or activities (Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited, 2001).The proposed expansion of the treatment facility will accommodate increased production at the nearby Maple Leaf hog processing plant. The Valued Ecosystem Components most likely to be impacted by the cumulative effects of the project are the Assiniboine River and its aquatic resources.

 Additional industrial activity from the Maple Leaf plant is likely to increase water use from the Assiniboine River. Water resources within the Assiniboine River basin are at risk of being over-allocated, particularly during drought conditions (CEC, 2003). The City of Brandon and Maple Leaf should be required to implement appropriate water conservation strategies to address these concerns (CEC, 2003). It is anticipated the expansion of the hog processing plant will also result in an increase in the quantity of biosolids produced. The sustainability of the hog-processing sector in Manitoba is not well established. Some of the most significant adverse environmental impacts of intensive hog production result from the application of manure on land and the subsequent increase in nitrogen and phosphorous in surface and groundwater sources (CEC, 2003). A significant number of the hogs to be processed at the expanded Maple Leaf plant are expected to be raised in the Assiniboine River basin, which will impact the assimilative capacity of the river (CEC, 2003). While the improvements to the treatment facility will result in improved river water quality, the extent to which increased hog production may negate these improvements is unknown (CEC, 2003). It is recommended that specific indicators be developed to assess the sustainability of hog production in the Assiniboine River basin.

29

FOLLOW UP AND MONITORINGAs a follow up program to assess the mitigation measures of the expansion of the Brandon Water Treatment Facility, programs will be put in place to assess completed and future mitigation measures in order to avoid residual adverse environmental effects.

Prior to construction of the expansion, all employees will be trained as per their role to the follow up plan in order to avoid gaps in information. The follow up plan will include temporal documentation requirements as well as emergency event documentation requirements. The aspects of the project that will require follow up to assess mitigation go as follows:

Table 4 – VEC Mitigation Measures and Follow Up Action(s)VEC and Mitigation Measure(s)

Follow Up Action(s)

Indicator Responsibility

River Turbidity from outflow pipe, Rip Rap effectiveness

Asses sediment in water column

Ppm of baseline and current ppm values

Employee sample every other day to detect possible fluctuation and record.

Birds, Lagoon Nets

Asses net effectiveness

Presence / absence of birds

Check Morning and Evening, with special attention to migration season. Record findings

Soil Quality, avoid construction during rainy season and barrier around inlet pipe to prevent leaks

Groundwater monitor and Test Soil

Nutrient holding capacity and presence, PPM and litmus test

Employee perform test once a month around lagoon and inlet pipe. Record findings

River health (including fish and Maple Leaf mussel), treat

Catch outflow pipe effluent two times a day

Asses Phosphorus, Nitrogen and endocrine disrupting chemicals

Employee Perform three times daily and record

30

outflow pipe effluent to the highest standard as to not introduce excess nutrients into riverRiver Bank erosion, Plant Vegetation after outflow pipe construction

Vegetation sampling monthly

Asses biodiversity Employee preform trisect vegetation sampling monthly and record

Under The Species at Risk Act (SARA) if a Maple Leaf mussel or any species listed under SARA for that matter are found during monitoring, will be reported to a federal agency.

The proponent will send Manitoba Conservation an annual report on environmental protection and monitoring to ensure they are complying with regulations and environmental standards. They will also make reports available to public through the city of Brandon’s website to promote transparency.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONFollowing the review of the project components, scope of the environment and mitigation measures, the findings show that the CWWTF would pose a low risk for adverse environmental effects. Because of the improved technologies filtering contaminants and nutrients, the CWWTF poses positive environmental effects for water quality, with a secondary effect of capturing industrial wastes that increased economic output of industry within Brandon.

31

Mitigation measures shown in the appendices cover all environmental risk areas. Reinforcing inlet and outflow pipes will reduce environmental risk by adding a backup component in the incident any portion of pipeline becomes compromised. The high standard of training and response practice by employees will allow prompt and efficient measures to be applied in the case of malfunctions or emergencies; the likes of which are more serious but very unlikely. In using proposed mitigation measures, the riparian zone, soil erosion, aquatic life and VEC’s will be monitored on a constant basis.

It is the recommendation of the assessment panel to the director of the Approvals Branch of Manitoba Conservation to move forward with this proposal. The positive economic benefits from the proposed development and improved support for a growing economy and population are highly beneficial to the region. The development comes with low-risk environmental impacts, which, in an environmental incident, can be responded to quickly and mitigated easily.

32

REFERENCESBrandon Economic Development. (2015). Economic Base. Retrieved from http://economicdevelopmentbrandon.com/economic-base

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (2010). A Review of the Current Canadian Legislative Framework for Wastewater Biosolids. Retrieved from http://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/waste/biosolids/pn_1446_biosolids_leg_review_eng.pdf

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. (2011). Comprehensive Study Report: Lake Winnipeg East Side (Provincial Road 304 to Berens River – All-Season Road Project). Retrieved from: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/50022/50022E.pdf

Canadian Important Bird Areas. 2001. Community Conservation Plan for the Douglas Marsh Important Bird Area. Retrieved from http://www.ibacanada.ca/conservationplans/mbdouglasmarsh.pdf.

City College of San Francisco. (2008). Yellow Rail. Retrieved from http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jmorlan/yera012108dq.htm.

City of Brandon. (2013). Brandon & Area Planning District Fringe Area Growth Strategy. Retrieved from http://brandon.ca/images/pdf/planning/GrowthStrategy/adoptedGrowthStategy.pdf

City of Brandon. (2013, May). Water Conservation Plan. Retrieved from http://brandon.ca/images/pdf/adminReports/waterConservationPlan.pdf.

Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. (2006). Notice of Alteration to the City of Brandon’s Wastewater Treatment Facility 2003 Environment Act Proposal, Brandon, Manitoba. Retrieved from: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/registries/brandonwastewater/noticealter_et.pdf

Earth Tech. (2003, March). Notice of Alteration to Accommodate the Second Shift at Maple Leaf Pork, Brandon, Manitoba. Retrieved from http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/registries/brandonwastewater/mapleleafnoa/sec2.pdf

G.J. Bull & Associates Inc. (2005). Village of Carmacks Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Predesign Study Final Report. Retrieved from: http://www.yukonwaterboard.ca/registers/municipal/MN08-077/1.2.6.pdf

Government of Canada. (2013, June. 27). Aquatic Species at Risk. Mapleleaf (Great Lakes – Western St. Lawernce Population). Retrieved from

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/mapleleaf-feuillederable-gl-eng.html.

Government of Canada. (2015, March 23) COSEWIC Assessment Summary and Status Report: Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis. Retrieved from http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=2096.

Jacques Whitford Environmental Limited. (2001). Report to Halifax Regional Municipality on Halifax Harbour Solutions Project Environmental Screening. Retrieved from:

http://www.halifax.ca/harboursol/documents/ea_screening_report_001.pdf

Manitoba Clean Environment Commission. (2003). Report on Public Hearings City of Brandon Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Maple Leaf Foods Inc. Hog Processing Plant Alteration. Retrieved from: http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/resource/reports/Commissioned-Reports-2002-2003-Brandon_Maple_Leaf_Plant.pdf

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. (2012). Environment Act Licence 2991. Retrieved from: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/archive/2012/licences/2991.pdf

Maple Leaf Foods Inc. (2006, December). Improved Wastewater Treatment Means Cleaner Assiniboine River. Retrieved from http://investor.mapleleaf.ca/phoenix.zhtml?c=88490&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=944335

Michalyna, et al. (1976). Soils of the Brandon Region Study Area. Retrieved from http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/mb/mb30/mb30_report.pdf.

Manitoba’s Species at Risk. (n.d). Small White Lady’s-Slipper. Retrieved from http://www.manitoba.ca/conservation/wildlife/sar/pdf/ladyslipper.pdf.

Manitoba Conservation. (2002, March). Guideline for Construction and Demolition Waste Management. Retrieved from http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/pollutionprevention/publications/cd_waste_guideline_e.pdf

Manitoba Government. (n.d). The Role and Importance of Riparian Areas of Manitoba. Retrieved from http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/water_info/riparian/riparian_areas.html.

Nature Manitoba. (2013). Manitoba Important Bird Areas. Retrieved from http://www.naturemanitoba.ca/birder/iba_old.pdf

34

Port Metro Vancouver. (2005). Deltaport Third Berth Project Environmental Assessment Application. Retrieved from: http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/docs/default-source/projects-deltaport-third-berth-project/EA_App_Chapter_19_to_21.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Twardzik, Renee. (2011, June). Manitoba, Canada, City Upgrades Wastewater Treatment Plant with GE Advanced Technology. Retrieved from http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/759827/manitoba-canada-city-upgrades-wastewater-treatment-plant-with-ge-advanced-technology

Wildflower Center. (2015). Native Plant Database, Cypripedium Candidum. Retrieved from http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=CYCA5.

35

APPENDICES Table 5 - Potentially Affected Valued Ecosystem ComponentsVEC RationaleAssiniboine River Sensitive environment

Habitat suitabilityRecreational useHuman health

Aquatic Wildlife Ecological significanceRecreational useScientific interest

Riparian zone Sensitive environmentHabitat suitabilityRiver stabilizer

Soil Sensitive environmentEconomic significance

Ground water Human healthResponsibility to neighbouring communities

Health Sensitive environmentEconomic significance

Migratory birds Ecological significanceProtected area neighbouringAesthetics

Vegetation Habitat suitabilitySpecies of interest

Species at Risk – Lady slipper Maple Leaf Mussel

Protected speciesScientific interest

Table 6 - Freshwater mussel species (City of Brandon, 2013)Fat mucket Three Ridge

Pink Heelsplitter

White Heelspliter

Pocketbook Black and Sand Shell

Pigtoe Maple Leaf

Table 7 - Common Names of Fish Species found in the Assiniboine River (City of Brandon, 2013)Nothern Pike GoldeyeMooneye Chestnut LampreyQuillback Sucker White SuckerSilver Redhorse Sucker

Golden Redhorse Sucker

Shorthead Redhorse Sucker

Black Bullhead

Channel Catfish StonecatTadpole Madtom Trout-perchBurbot Brook SticklebackNinespine Stickleback

Rock Bass

Iowa Darter Johnny DarterYellow Perch Blackside DarterRiver Darter SaugerSand Shiner Finescale DaceFathead Minnnow Flathead ChubBlacknose Dace Longnose DaceCreek Chub Lake SturgeonCentral Mudminnow WalleyeFreshwater Drum Spotfin ShinerWhite Bass Common CarpCommon Shiner Silver ChubGolden Shiner Emerald ShinerRiver Shiner Bigmouth ShinerBlackchin Shiner Blacknose ShinerSpottail ShinerTable 8 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects

Biophysical Component

Potential Environmental Effect

Mitigation Measure

Duration

Geographic Extent

Magnitude

Reversibility

Ecological Context

Rating

Significant (Y/N)

Soils Removal of soil cover for construction at expansion site and along new inlet and outfall pipe routes. Compaction from construction equipment.

Erosion control (where applicable). Reclamation and revegetation. Minimize area of disturbance.

Very Low

Moderate Very Low

Very High

Low Very Low

N

Vegetation

Removal of vegetation for construction at expansion site and along new inlet and outfall pipe routes.

Revegetation upon completion of construction. Minimize area of disturbance during

Very Low

Moderate Very Low

Very High

Low Very Low

N

37

construction.Groundwater Quality

Degradation of groundwater quality due to leakage resulting from equipment malfunction or infrastructure failure.

Regular maintenance of equipment.

Very Low

Moderate Moderate

Very High

Moderate

Moderate

N

Surface Water Quality

Degradation of surface water quality from discharge of treated effluent from wastewater treatment and disposal outfall.

Treatment system to meet discharge criteria. System redundancy. Monitoring of Assiniboine River influent and effluent.

Very Low

Moderate Moderate

Very High

Moderate

Moderate

N

Degradation of surface water quality through erosion at outfall discharge point.

Monitor flows in and out of wetlands. Adjustment of flows as necessary.

Release of petroleum hydrocarbons from equipment or sediment during construction.

Spill contingency in place. Construction equipment refuelling at designated area.

Fisheries Resources

Degradation of fisheries habitat through direct discharge of effluent to surface waters. Construction disturbance during spawning.

Treatment system to meet discharge criteria. System redundancy. Monitoring of Assiniboine River and systems. Construction work during non-spawning seasons.

High Low Moderate

High Moderate

Moderate

N

Wildlife Habitat loss during construction.

Minimize disturbance and clearing. Fencing of facility. Reclamation after completion of construction.

High Low Very Low

Very High

Low Low N

Air Quality

Degradation of local air quality

Engineering design to

Very Low

Low Low Very High

Low Low N

38

resulting from fugitive treatment facility emissions and biogas flaring.

include odour control systems/features.

Noise Noise generated by equipment during construction. Noise generated during regular operation of treatment facility.

Set back distances and buffer zones. Construction work scheduelling. Enclosing noise generating systems components.

High Low Moderate

Very High

Low Low N

Socio-economic Effects

Hiring construction crew and staffing at expanded facility.

Encourage local contractors and First Nations to apply for work opportunities.

High Low Low Very Low

Low Low N

Public Health and Safety

Potential human health effects and safety issues for personnel at treatment facility. Potential short term human health effects from construction and operation and maintenance.

Training of personnel working with water and wastewater treatment. Spill response plan. Treatment facility odour and noise supression features.

Very Low

Low Low High Low Moderate

N

Effects of Environment on Project

Effects of the natural environment on the design of the project. Natural hazards include extreme cold weather damaging infrastructure; flooding and heavy precipitation events resulting in runoff of untreated effluent.

Routine facility inspection. Monitoring of climate conditions on site. Design flexibility and redundancy.

High Low Low Moderate

Low Low N

39