CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - STAGE 1
THIRD PARTY DISCLAIMER A ND COPYRIGHT This document has been prepared by Dayton & Knight Ltd. for the benefit of the client to whom it is
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................... .......................................................................................................ES-1 ................................................ES-1 1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................ ............................................... 1-1 1.1
Background
1-1
TABL E OF CONT CONTENT ENTS S (con t’d.) t’ d.)
4.4 4.5 4.6
5.0
4.3.1 Treatment Facilities .......................................... ....................................... 4-4 4.3.2 Discharge Permit......................................... ............................................. 4-7 4.3.3 WWTP Engineering Audit, 2002............................................................. 2002........... .................................................. 4-7 4.3.4 Impact of Population Growth on Process Selection ................................ 4-8 Queen Victoria Hospital WWTP ............................................... ........................ 4-10 Documented Sanitary Sewer Overflows.............................................. Overflows .............................................. .............. 4-10 Solids Handling and Treatment ................................................ ......................... 4-11 4.6.1 Septage .................................................. ................................................. 4-11 4.6.2 Biosolids ............................................. ................................................... 4-12
EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY ....... 5-1 5.1 5.2 5.3
Wastewater Flow Rates....................................................... ................................. 5-2 Wastewater Quality.................................. ................................................ ............ 5-4 Inflow and Infiltration................................. ................................................... ...... 5-6 5.3.1 Municipal Sewage Regulation ......................................... ........................ 5-7
TABL E OF CONT CONTENT ENTS S (con t’d.) t’ d.)
7.2 9.0
7.1.5 Codes of Practice ................................................. .................................. 7-10 7.1.6 Source Control Education Programs......................................... ............. 7-10 7.1.7 City of Revelstoke Source Control Education ...................................... . 7-11 7.1.8 Alternatives for Source Control Education............................................ Education......... ................................... 7-12 Wastewater Volume Reduction ............................................ ............................. 7-12
PLAN CRITERIA................................ ............................................................. ............... 9-1 9.1 9.2 9.3
9.4 9.5 9.6
Population .............................................. ................................................... ........... 9-1 Wastewater Quantity................................ ................................................ ............ 9-1 Discharges to Surface Water..................................... ........................................... 9-2 9.3.1 Provincial Regulations and Guidelines.................................................... Guidelines....... ............................................. 9-2 9.3.2 Federal Regulations and Guidelines ....................................... ................. 9-4 Discharges to Land ........................................... ................................................... 9-5 Reclaimed Water...................................... ................................................... ......... 9-7 Beneficial Use of Biosolids ............................................... ................................ 9-10
TABL E OF CONT CONTENT ENTS S (con t’d.) t’ d.)
10.5
10.4.1 Agricultural Irrigation.............. ............................................... ............. 10-14 10.4.2 Forest Irrigation ............................................... .................................... 10-15 10.4.3 Reuse at Wastewater Treatment Facilities........................................... Facilities..... ...................................... 10-15 10.4.4 Landscape and Golf Course Irrigation................................................. Irrigation....... .......................................... 10-15 10.4.5 Industrial Process Water ............................................ .......................... 10-16 10.4.6 Landscape Impoundments and Wetlands............................................. 10-16 10.4.7 Snow Making ................................................ ....................................... 10-16 10.4.8 Exfiltration Basins for Groundwater Recharge ................................... 10-16 Beneficial Use of Biosolids ............................................... .............................. 10-17 10.5.1 Silviculture....................................................... Silviculture.... ................................................... .................................... 10-17 10.5.2 Agriculture ............................................ ............................................... 10-18 10.5.3 Land Reclamation .................................................. .............................. 10-19 10.5.4 Topsoil Manufacture............................................... Manufacture ............................................... ............................. 10-20 10.5.5 Landfill................................... .................................................... .............................................................. .......... 10-20 10.5.6 Composting Operations ................................................... .................... 10-21
TABL E OF CONT CONTENT ENTS S (con t’d.) t’ d.)
LIST OF TABLES 3-1 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 6-1 7-1 9-1 9-2
Population Growth in The City of Revelstoke............................... .................................. 3-6 Pump Stations ............................................ ................................................... ................... 4-3 WWTP Design Data ...................................................... ........................................................................................................ .................................................. 4-3 WWTP Influent Flows 2000 to 2006............................................ 2006 ............................................ ................................... 5-3 Projected Wastewater Flows 2006 to 2026........................ .............................................. 5-4 City Of Revelstoke Ratio of MDF to ADWF 2000 to 2006 ............................................ 5-7 Dry Weather Flow Statistics And RDI&I For Each Monitoring Site.............................. Site.. ............................ 5-8 Typical Characteristics of Discharges From Residential Onsite Systems (From Metcalf & Eddy, 1991) ............................................... ........................................ 5-10 Fish Species Presence .............................................. ................................................... ..... 6-5 Comparison Of Prohibited And Restricted Waste Discharges For Sanitary Sewers........ Sewers.. ........ .. 7-6 Effluent Requireenments For Discharges To Surface Waters (Moe, 1999) .................... 9-2 Water Quality Guideliens For Microbiological Indicators Mpn/100 Ml (MOE, 2006) 9-4
TABL E OF CONT CONTENT ENTS S (con t’d.) t’ d.)
8-1
Stage 1 – Liquid Waste Management Plan – Existing Stormwater System
10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5
Option 1 – Expand and Upgrade Existing Existing WWTP to Accommodate Entire Service Area Option 2 – Construct New WWTP to Accommodate Entire Service Area Option 3 – Construct New WWTP Near Mill and Upgrade Existing Existing WWTP Option 4 – Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct New WWTP WWTP to Serve Big Eddy Option 5 – Expand and Upgrade Existing Existing WWTP WWTP and Construct New WWTP WWTP at Big Eddy to Serve Big Eddy and Part of Revelstoke Option 6 – Construct New WWTP near Airport Option 7 – Construct New WWTP near Airport to Accommodate Entire Entire Service Area Area
10-6 10-7
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) is to lay the groun dwork for wastewater management over the next nex t 20 to 30 years. yea rs. The LWMP LWMP must address existing existing and future development, including servicing of areas that are not yet connected to the central wastewater collection system, greenfield developments, and the Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). The City is currently updating its Official Community Community Plan (OCP) to address planned new
Ministry of Environment (MOE), the local government has the authority to implement the Plan. Plan . This report contains the results of the Stage 1 LWMP, culminating in recommended options that will be advanced to Stage 2 for more detailed evaluation.
The MOE Guidelines require the local government to strike a Technical Committee comprised of municipal staff and representatives from senior government agencies, and a Local Advisory Committee comprised of local government staff, at least one elected official, and a cross-section of community interests. Adequate consultation with the public while preparing a LWMP LWMP is essential, since there is no mechanism mechanism to appeal a Plan once approved by the Minister. The process is intended to give the public open access to liquid waste planning within their own community.
A consulting team led by Dayton & Knight Ltd. was retained by the City of Revelstoke to assist
collecting and treating wastewater. These options were then presented to the community at the Stage One Open House. The option that was selected for advancement to Stage 2 was to continue to upgrade and expand the treatment facilities at the existing site for the foreseeable future (this was designated Option Option 1). All of the other options involved the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities at alternative sites (near the Downie Street Mill, at Big Eddy, at Westside Road or near the Airport); these options were not advanced to Stage 2, due to a combination of poor ground conditions, environmental and habitat concerns, community recreation conflicts, and high costs. However, it was recommended that the LWMP LWMP include a commitment by the City to undertake a formal investigation to determine if an alternative site for the wastewater treatment facilities might better serve the City’s n eeds for the long-term future. Additional input from the public will be solicited in Stage 2.
The selected approach (Option 1) is to upgrade and expand the existing wastewater treatment
Biosolids use options that were selected for advancement to the Stage 2 LWMP were identified to be manufacture manufacture of of compost compost and reclamation reclamation of of disturbed disturbed land land or contamin contaminated ated sites. sites. The City City is planning to construct construct a compost composting ing facility facility at the Jordan Pit that that will process waste solids solids from the WWTP, septage, and yard waste. The compost product will be used at City parks and recreation facilities and as cover material at the Regional District landfill.
Sampling and analysis should be undertaken in Stage 2 to evaluate the concentration of trace metals in the biosolids that were removed from the WWTP in 2006.
Treatment of wastewater and biosolids presents opportunities for energy recovery. Opportunities include combustion of the gas produced by anaerobic digestion for heating and/or generation of electrical power. Heat recovery from from the raw wastewater stream is also possible. The practical application of these options depends on such factors as the size of the treatment facilities and the
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
The City of Revelstoke has decided to undertake the development of a Liquid Waste
off, septage, solid residuals, and reuse or recycling of treated wastewater and solid residuals.
The LWMP must address existing and future development, d evelopment, including servicing of areas that are not yet connected to the central wastewater collection system, greenfield developments, and the Revelstoke Mountain Mountain Resort (RMR). The City is currently updating its Official Community Plan (OCP) to address planned new development and the resulting service area expansions.
The municipal OCP sets out the proposed strategy for future development in the study area. The LWMP is designed to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development according to the OCP, as well as to address existing problems. To ensure the consistency
would allow potential development. The City recently completed a study to explore the feasibility and cost of providing sewer service to the Clearview Heights area. This neighbourhood has petitioned the City for sewer service, and a local improvement project is currently being designed. The first phase of the local improvement is expected to proceed to construction in the summer of 2008. The first phase is limited to existing residents residents only. The City has also investigated the ground conditions in this area for slope stability and ground disposal of effluent.
Ground disposal of effluent from on-site (septic tank) systems can threaten groundwater and surface water quality if ground conditions (water table, soils, slope, etc.) are unsuitable. The MOE and the Ministry of Health (MOH) have concerns with some on-site sewage systems that affect groundwater and lake water quality in the study area. The LWMP
to become major facilities. If the community desires an alternative approach for the longterm future, planning and public consultation will be required, to select one or more sites for new wastewater treatment facilities to be constructed in the future.
A key issue for the Province is water conservation. This can reduce the volume of wastewater discharge to the environment, as well as result in potential cost savings for wastewater collection and treatment. The LWMP Guidelines and the Municipal Sewage Regulation (MSR) both emphasize reduction of inflow and infiltration (I&I) to the sanitary sewer system.
The provincial Guidelines specify that stormwater stormwater run-off be included in a LWMP. Urban development generally results in reduced infiltration of precipitation and increased surface
Certificates are prepared in Stage 3. When the Stage 3 LWMP is is approved by the Ministry of Environment (MOE), the local gove rnment has the authority to implement the Plan. Permits are cancelled in favour of Operational Certificates issued issued under the LWMP. An approved LWMP allows the local government to implement the works without further approvals from the electorate. An approved LWMP should should be updated from time to time (e.g. every 5 to 10 years), to monitor progress and evaluate changing conditions and new technologies.
As set out in the MOE Guidelines, the City’s LWMP was developed by the combined efforts of the Steering Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the Local Advisory Committee as summarized below.
members of the public that represent a cross-section of local interests (e.g. local businesses, businesses, rate rate payers payers associatio associations, ns, environmen environmental tal groups, groups, School School District District,, Rotary Rotary Club, First Nations representatives, interested citizens, etc.).
The Technical and Local Advisory Committees may be combined if desired, to facilitate communications between technical and community/stakeholder representatives. representatives. The City elected to combine the Technical and Local Advisory Committees for preparation of this LWMP. The Joint Committee membership membership is listed in Appendix 2.
The local government must also organize a public participation process. Adequate consultation with the public while preparing a LWMP is essential, since there is no mechanism to appeal a LWMP once approved by the the Minister. Furthermore, the bylaw
•
Prioritize areas of existing development requiring connection to the sewer facility based on projected costs in relation to projected nutrient reduction (phosphorus and/or nitrogen), resolution of health concerns and any other projected benefits.
•
Examine all methods of sewage treatment and disposal of treated liquid waste and bio-solids including those that may be suggested by the public for technical practicality and cost.
•
Provide direction on both long-term and short-term disposal and utilization of waste sludge from the sewage treatment plant and septage from septic tanks.
•
Examine all watercourses contained within the City boundaries and classify all water
Stage 1
will outline possible sewage treatment and disposal methods with rough preliminary costs, including ideas received at the first public information meeting;
Stage 2
will outline the various options with an implementation schedule. The various options will be costed out in sufficient detail to give some appreciation of short and long range user costs. The health and environmental benefits and concerns with respect to each option are to be clearly presented. The Stage 2 draft will be presented at a second public information meeting where further public input will b e solicited to assist Council in selection of the preferred option;
•
Prepare submissions on behalf of the City of Revelstoke to the Ministry of Environment for their review and approval, of each of the final documents as they are produced.
•
Prepare press releases and informational handouts as required during the course of the development of the LWMP.
1.4 1.4
Conduct of Study
The City of Revelstoke issued a request for proposals to prepare a LWMP in November 2006. The process commenced on December 11, 2006 with a Council recommendation to accept Dayton & Knight Ltd.’s proposal for assisting the City to prepare the LWMP.
by the Joint Joint Advisory Advisory Committee, Committee, the the draft draft material material was presented presented at the Public Public Open Open House to gain input from the public. The Stage 1 LWMP report was then submitted to the MOE Nelson office for review. After the Stage 1 report was endorsed by MOE Nelson, Stage 2 was initiated.
1.5
Acknowledgements
The participation and assistance of all of the members of the Steering Committee and the Joint Advisory Committee is gratefully acknowledged (see Appendix 2 for a list of the Committee membership). In addition, we thank the City of Revelstoke staff for their valuable assistance in providing technical information, organizing Committee meetings, and providing follow-up documentation.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 2.0
PUBLIC PUBL IC CONSULTA CONSULTATION TION
Effective public consultation is essential to the success of the LWMP LWMP process. The public consultation program for the LWMP commenced with the formation of the Steering, Technical and Local Advisory Committees, and continued through newsletters, posting information on the
2.
Joint Advisory Committee Meeting No. 1
Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) Meeting No. 1 was held o n May 9, 2007. Committee terms of reference, meeting protocols, role of committees and means of defining consensus were reviewed with with the members of the the JAC. The work plan and schedule were also reviewed. JAC Meeting No. 1 also included a presentation on the Municipal Sewage Regulation, and the fundamentals of wastewater treatment.
3.
Joint Advisory Committee Meeting No. 2
JAC Meeting No. 2 was held June 19, 2007 to discuss the initial sections of the
disadvantages for each of the seven concept options. It was agreed that an aerial map showing the committee’s preferred option along with the alternate WWTP sites associated with the other concept options would be presented for discussion at the Public Open House. Ho use. The Committee’s preferred option (Option 1) was to retain the central wastewater collection system, and to upgrade and expand the treatment facilities at the location of the existing aerated lagoon facility.
The Committee also requested that the City provide basic information regarding Development Cost charges at the Public Open House. Supplemental information was to be provided on information basis.
6.
Joint Committee Meeting No. 5
consulting team, who were available for discussion and questions throughout the evening. Representatives of senior government regulatory agencies were also present. There was a summary slide presentation by Dayton & Knight Ltd., followed by a question and answer session.
Approximately fifty people attended the Open House, and nineteen questionnaires were filled out and submitted. The primary purpose of the Open House was to obtain public feedback regarding which options should be advanced to Stage 2 of the LWMP for more detailed study.
A summary of the questionnaire responses is attached in Appendix 3. As shown, most of the respondents (nearly 70%) learned of the Open House through newspaper advertising
WWTP near Downie Street Mill), 63% disagreed with Option 3 (new WWTP at Big Eddy), and 58% disagreed d isagreed with Option 4 (new WWTP near Airport). Suggestions regarding the options are listed on page 6 of the summary included in Appendix 3.
Nearly 80% of respondents agreed that the open house material was easy to understand, with 10% disagreeing and 10% not answering this this question (#10). Approximately 85% agreed that the level of information presented at the Open House was appropriate, with 5% disagreeing and 10% not answering this question (#11).
Question #12 requested additional ad ditional input from members of the public; the comments received are listed on page 7 of the summary contained in Appendix 3.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 3.0
EXISTING EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND LA ND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION
3.1
Wastewater and Drainage Facilities Facilit ies Plannin g
Wastewater and drainage facilities must must be planned for the long-term future. future. Long term
of rainwater that infiltrates into the ground, and increasing the amount of o f surface runoff. Protection of key natural components of the drainage network, as well as drainage and detention facilities constructed to control flooding downstream of developments and/or to remove contaminants from surface runoff, can require significant amounts of space. Land use planning and development should include consideration of the space requirements for protected areas and drainage facilities.
3.2 3.2
Official Communit y Plan Plan
In order to properly plan for wastewater facilities, it is necessary to project future land use and populations within the Plan area. The LWMP guidelines require that the Official Official Community Plan (OCP) completed by the municipal or regional government(s) form the basis of the LWMP (B.C. Environment, 1992a). The LWMP should then be incorporated
C:\DWG Projects\City of Revelstoke\Plots-April Background Reports\Parks and Recreation-11x17.mxd
City of Revelstoke OCP Comprehensive Review May 2007
Legend City Boundary-2007 Main Transportation Routes Rail Line Lakes, Rivers and Creeks Marshes OCP Land Use Residential Rural Residential Neighbourhoods Resort Cores Resort Lands Public & Institutional Central Business District Commercial Neighbourhood Commercial Highway Commercial Service Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Airport Industri Industrial al Urban Reserve Parks and Trails Agricultural Agricultural Sand & Gravel Reservoir Drawdown
1:40,000
0
500
1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500
Development within the City boundary is constrained by the Columbia River, by steep terrain, unstable soils, lack of accessibility by roads, protection of the natural setting of Revelstoke, and other factors. Future development will be focused on vacant lands, lands, which hold potential for some form of urban development yet do not easily fit within one particular land use designation.
The 1996 OCP lists the following Council policies directly relating to the wastewater system:
•
require that all residential, commercial, industrial and public/institutional developments are served by the community sanitary sewer system or a properly functioning on-site sewerage disposal system;
The Official Community Plan (OCP) requires that all residential, commercial, industrial and public/institutional developments be served by the community sanitary sewer system or a properly functioning on/site sewerage disposal system.
Included in the 1996 OCP is the Mount Mackenzie Resort Area Official Community Plan Amendment, which includes a Vision, Principles, Policies, and an Implementation Plan. The community’s vision for the Revelstoke Mountain Resort (formerly Mount Mackenzie Resort) is a four-season tourism destination and commercial activity node surrounded by mixed-use neighbourhoods.
The Mount Mackenzie Resort Area 1996 OCP includes the following policies directly relating to the wastewater and drainage system:
3.3 3.3
Service Service Population Projections
According to the Canada Census data, the population of the City of Revelstoke in 2001 was 7,827. The 2006 population was 8,026 according to BC Stats, which represents an increase of about 0.5% per year from 2001 to 2006. Updating of the OCP at the time time of writing this report included three potential development scenarios for population growth, namely high, moderate and low growth scenarios. For all three scenarios, the City’s base population was projected to increase to about 9,900 people by b y the year 2026. Most of the population growth was attributed to the RMR, including both in-migrating workers and resort guests.
The high growth scenario was based on the assumption that the RMR would be fully constructed by 2026 (16,520 Bed Units), and would carry an equivalent population of
occupancy to reduce the risk of encountering capacity shortfalls. This results in a projected total population equivalent of about 19,500 people, p eople, assuming the medium growth scenario (i.e., 9,900 City base population, plus 1,300 in-migrant workers, plus 8,260 resort guests). As shown, the projected 2025 service population for the the WWTP is about 19,500; this compares to the 2025 service population of 17,100 estimated previously (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2006).
TABL E 3-1 POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CITY OF REVELSTOKE (adapted from BHA, 2008) 3 WWTP Service Population 1 City Population Year (including in1,3 2 2,3 City RMR City + RMR migrants) 1995 1997
8 286
5,815 5 883
-
5,815 5 883
Currently unserviced areas with development potential are Arrow Heights, Revelstoke Mountain Resort, Big Eddy, and Clearview Heights. As described in Section 3.3, service population projections for the wastewater collection and treatment system were based on the (conservative) assumption that all residents would eventually be connected to sewer.
3.4.1
Arrow Heights
The developed Arrow Heights area to be serviced is approximately 58.5 ha. The total future area could exceed 150 ha. The land located within Arrow Heights is currently zoned for Single Family Residential. Currently the Arrow Heights development is intended to allow for minimum 0.084 to 0.09 ha lots with development densities of about 10 development units per hectare (DU/ha). This allowance would allow for a maximum maximum of 650 to 695 lots in the Arrow Arrow Heights area. Total build-out population was estimated at
3.4.2
Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR)
Considerable development is expected to occur in the near future at Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). The recreational area is about 4,450 ha (USL 1990), adjacent to the Arrow Heights area on the west slope of Mt. Mackenzie. The resort area includes about 200 ha (OCP). Several studies were conducted for the development of RMR including use of the City treatment facility, or construction of an independent treatment facility that discharged to ground (rapid infiltration) or to the Columbia River, or produced reclaimed water for snowmaking.
The City recently completed a formal agreement to accept the RMR wastewater at the City of Revelstoke WWTP. Since the trunk sewer will pass through the Arrow Heights area, this will facilitate servicing of Arrow Heights.
3.4.3
Big Eddy
The Big Eddy area has poor drainage conditions and is potentially unsuitable for ground disposal of wastewater. Sewer servicing of this area would allow potential development. The City is currently evaluating provision of sewers to the Big Eddy area.
3.4.4
Clearview Heights, CPR Hill
The Clearview Heights area lies along the north side of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) tracks between Pearson Street on the west, the Eastern Access Road on the East and Trans Canada Highway to the North. The development currently has about 35 properties now on septic tanks and drain fields. About 120 non-sewered lots are
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 4.0
EXISTING EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES
The study area for the LWMP encompasses the areas that are serviced by centralized collection and treatment of domestic wastewater at the Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP is a two-cell aerated lagoon system, which discharges secondary-treated effluent to the Illecillewaet River. An overview of the existing City of Revelstoke wastewater system is illustrated on Figure 4-1. Unserviced areas with development potential such as Arrow Arrow Heights,
River, were tied together and connected to the Downie pump station, which discharged to the Columbia River. In 1975, the sewer system was connected to the new wastewater treatment plant, with the treated effluent discharged to the Illecillewaet Illecillewaet River. The capacity of the consolidated sewer system was not adequate, and storm sewers began being disconnected from the system in 1975. Some parts of the downtown area of the Downie subsystem are still on combined sewers.
A computer model of the wastewater collection system has been developed to identify bottlenecks, and to allow evaluation of the effects of new development on the system (Dayton & Knight Ltd., March 2008). The model was calibrated with new rain gauge and flow data from 2006, to provide more information about the capacity and condition of the sewer system. Efforts to reduce inflow and infiltration of storm runoff and groundwater are described in Section 5.3 of this report.
TABL E 4-1 PUMP STATIONS Sewage Station
Description
Pumps
Pump Design Flow
Peak Modelled Wet Weather Flow1
28.4 L/s
28.6 L/s
Comments
Burke
Serves the Burke sub-area. Pumps into the 100 mm ø AC forcemain to the MH SW001 in the Wales subarea.
2 – Smith & Loveless 4B2B pumps (3 hp).
Wales
Serves the Wales sub-area. sub-area. Pumps into the 250 mm ø AC forcemain to the MH SD084 in the Downie subarea.
2 – Chicago VPM #64121, 1750 rpm pumps. pumps.
60 L/s
66.1 L/s
Nearing capacity. Refer to D&K letter, Revelstoke crossing development for detailed pump station upgrading requirements.
Downie
Main influent pump station to the WWTP. Receives flow from Burke, Wales and Downie sub-areas. sub-areas. Pumps into 400 mm ø AC forcemain to the WWTP.
2 – Gorman Rupp Model T8A2, 50 Hp, 1050 rpm
71 L/s2
136.5 L/s
Station is >25 years old. Pumps replaced 2001. At capacity, refer to D&K letter, Revelstoke crossing development for detailed pump station upgrading requirements.
Moss
Serves the Moss sub-area. Pumps into 150 mm ø AC forcemain to the MH SD124, then into the 400 mm ø forcemain to the WWTP.
2 - Flygt C3127MT 433 Imp (9.4 HP, 1800 rpm) pumps
18.0 L/s
11.7 L/s
No improvement is required for current condition.
Edward
Serves the Edwards sub-area. sub-area. Pumps into 100 mm ø AC forcemain to MH SD239 in the Downie sub-area.
2 – Flygt C3127 484 Imp (10 hp) pumps
26.0 L/s
16.9 L/s
No improvement is required for current condition.
4.3
Revelstok e Wastewater Treatment Plant
4.3.1
Treatment Facilities
The Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) incorporates two aerated lagoons in series, followed by chlorination, and discharge to the Illecillewaet River. Sewage is pumped from the Downie pump station to a comminutor at the inlet works at the WWTP. Lagoon Cell 1 has an area of 0.44 hectares and a volume of 19,750 m3. Lagoon Cell 2 is larger with an area of 1.3 hectares and a volume of 60,000 m3. The effluent is disinfected disinfected in a chlorine contact tank prior to discharge. discharge. Following the chlorine contact tank, the effluent flows by gravity to the Illecillewaet River in a 350 mm AC pipe approximately
•
2007 replace the coarse bubble diffusers with a fine bubble system;
•
2007/08 improvements to the chlorine tank (use of UV disinfection to replace the chlorine is not recommended until the treatment is converted to an activated sludge process);
•
2007/08 motor control centre (MCC) upgrade; and
•
2007 upgrade the plant power to 600 V.
Recommended upgrades for 2008 include a new headworks screening building, upgrades to the existing building, and adding a diffuser to the river outfall as required in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS). These improvements, which will require additional funding beyond the existing $2 million budget, will provide the WWTP with a capacity of 8,500 population equivalents, assuming that other improvements for operations and
TABL E 4-2 WWTP DESIGN DESIGN DATA 2006 Facilities Service Population Wastewater Quantity
Influent Wastewater
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)
2010 Design
6,500
8,500
m3/d
2,925
3,825
3
Maximum Design Flow*
m /d
9,000
11,475
Average Annual Unit
L/c/d
45 0
45 0
Concentration
mg/L
20 0
20 0
Daily load
kg/d
66 0
66 0
Concentration
mg/L
20 0
20 0
Daily load
kg/d
66 0
66 0
1
1
1.8
1.8
5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Chlorine Contact Tank
Number of tanks Water depth
m
Width
m
8.3
8.3
Lengt
m
11.8
11.8
88
68
Detention time, ADWF
min
4.3.2
Discharge Permit
The City of Revelstoke WWTP operates under Ministry of Environment Pollution Control Permit No. PE-02147 and its amendments (attached as Appendix 4), which specify the following requirements:
•
effluent maximum BOD5
45 mg/L
•
effluent maximum TSS
60 mg/L
•
effluent maximum discharge
•
chlorine residual in disinfection chamber with minimum 1 hour retention time at average flow rates
4,152 m3/d
0.5 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L
than lagoon cleaning. Odours may be an issue issue during a solids removal program. The need for an effluent sampling station was also identified. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) completed in conjunction with the audit identified the potential need for phosphorus and ammonia removal from the discharge. The EIS also identified the need for a diffuser on the outfall pipe to improve dilution.
4.3.4
Impact of Population Growth on Process Selection
The current WWTP service population equivalent is about 6,500; the current plant treatment capacity with appropriate upgrades is about 8,500 people (see Section 4.3.1). Increased service population growth beyond 8,500 will require additional upgrades. As
The City has previously reviewed the following options for the treatment plant to serve increasing population due to development that was forecast at that time (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2006):
•
Option 1: continue at the existing site of the WWTP with discharge of treated wastewater to the Illecillewaet River – capital costs estimated at $12.7 million for the first stage (12,000 population) and $6 million for the final stage to serve 17,100;
•
Option 2: replace the existing WWTP with with a new plant constructed on the east bank of the Columbia River, west of the Downie mill – capital costs estimated at $28 million for the first stage (12,000 population) and a nd $10 million for the final stage to serve 17,100; and
4.4
Queen Victor ia Hospi tal WWTP WWTP
The Queen Victoria Hospital, which is situated on the west side of the Arrow Heights region, has its own wastewater treatment facility, with discharge to the Illecillewaet Rive r via an outfall (Figure 4-1). A copy of the discharge permit (PE-00250) is included in Appendix 4. The hospital maximum day permitted discharge is 57 m3/d. Current sewage flow is reported to be about 80% of capacity. The City is currently conducting discussions with the Hospital regarding connection of their wastewater discharge to the trunk main that will service the Revelstoke Mountain Resort; this will allow the Hospital wastewater treatment plant to be decommissioned, since the wastewater will then be conveyed to the City’s WWTP.
4.6 4.6
Solids Handlin Handlin g and Treatment Treatment
4.6.1
Septage
Onsite systems are those designed for treatment and ground disposal of wastewater within the boundaries of individual lots or parcels. These systems typically include a septic tank followed by a subsurface disposal field. Accumulated solids (normally (normally referred to as “septage”) must be periodically removed from septic tanks by pumper trucks, to prevent clogging of the disposal field. Pumper truck discharges can include industrial and commercial wastes as well as septage septag e generated in onsite systems.
During the summers of 1999 and 2001, odour events were reported at the WWTP. It is
are currently being evaluated. The facility is to meet meet the required standards of the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (Sylvis, 2008).
4.6.2
Biosolids
Biosolids is the name given to the solids residuals resulting from wastewater treatment after those solids have been sufficiently treated so that they can be beneficially used as a soil conditioner (see Section 9.6). Waste solids at the the Revelstoke WWTP gradually accumulate at the bottom of the treatment lagoons; these partially stabilized solids must be periodically removed and disposed of or further processed for beneficial use. The solids recently removed from the WWTP (Section 4.3.1) were we re transported to the Jordan Pit, where construction of a composting facility is planned (see Section 4.6.1 above).
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 5.0
EXISTING EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY
As described in Section 3.0, long term planning for domestic wastewater collection and treatment is necessary to avoid costly duplication and/or relocation of existing facilities and to deal with future population increases and development. Reasonably accurate projections of the quantity and quality of domestic wastewater are necessary to determine future needs, so that
5.1
Wastewater Flow Rates
The City of Revelstoke does not maintain permanent flow monitoring stations on the wastewater collection system. Pump run times are recorded in hours per day. A flow monitoring study was conducted from February 21 to March 10, 2006 and from March 24 to April 17, 2006. The location of each of these flow monitors monitors and the contributing area is shown on Figure 4-1 in Section 4. Additional data from another flow monitoring study in December 2006 are currently being analyzed.
The influent flow rate to the WWTP is measured with a parshall flume located in the headworks building. The flow meter at the chlorine chlorine contact tank is not currently in use. The installation of a magnetic flow meter is planned in the new headworks building.
TABLE TABL E 5-1 WWTP INFLUENT FLOWS 2000 TO 2006 Service Population
Year
4
Average Wet Weather 4 (AWWF)
Maximum Day (MDF)
6,088
2001
6,157
2,955
480
2,675
435
3,198
519
4,192
681
2002
6,225
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2003
6,293
2,954
469
2,466
392
3,411
542
5,589
888
2004
6,362
2,939
462
2,581
406
3,503
551
4,623
727
2005
6,430
2,811
437
2,453
381
3,058
476
6,156
957
6,430
2,944
458
2,661
414
3,409
530
4,825
750
6,284
2,951
470
2,582
410
3,350
530
4,970
790
Average
3
Average Dry Weather 3 (ADWF)
2000
6
2
2
cubic metres/day 3,102
2006
1
Average Day (ADF)
5
litres/ capita/day 509
cubic metres/day 2,657
litres/ capita/day 436
cubic metres/day 3,519
litres/ capita/day 578
cubic metres/day 4,437
litres/ capita/day 729
Extrapolated from Table 3-1 Average daily flow from January 1 to December 31 of each year Minimum 60-day moving average flow for each year Maximum 60-day moving average flow for each year
Figure 5-1 – WWTP Influent Flow Rate 2000 to 2006
The projected wastewater flows to the planning horizon of 2026 based on the per capita flow rates shown in Table 5-1 and the projected populations from Table 3-1 are summarized in Table 5-2. As shown, the plant average day flow is projected to increase 3
3
from 2,944 m /d in 2006 to about 8118 m /d in 2026 (including flows from RMR). 3
Flows from the Queen Victoria Hospital are estimated to increase from about 45 m /d in 3
2006 to 65 m /d in 2026 (these flows have been included in the City flows in Table 5-2).
TABL E 5-2 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS 2006 TO 2026 Service Population Year 2006 2010 2015 2020
City 6,430 8,800 9,700 10 700
1
City + RMR 6,430 10,300 13,500 17 700
2
3
Wastewater Flow Rate, City (m /d) Average Average Average Dry Maximum Wet Day Weather Day Weather 2,944 2,661 3,409 4,825 4,185 3,657 4,713 7,001 4,613 4,031 5,195 7,717 5 089 4 447 5 731 8 513
3
3
Wastewater Flow Rate, City + RMR (m /d) Average Average Average Dry Maximum Wet Day Weather Day Weather 2,944 2,661 3,409 4,825 4,560 3,981 5,217 7,685 5,563 4,852 6,472 9,450 6 839 5 959 8 083 11 705
300 Influent Effluent
250
Permitted Maximum 200
) L / g m ( 150 D O B 100
50
0
2 0 n a J
2 0 l u J
3 0 n a J
3 0 l u J
4 0 n a J
4 0 l u J
5 0 n a J
5 0 l u J
6 0 n a J
6 0 l u J
7 0 n a J
For the purposes of this study, the design influent concentrations of 200 mg/L TSS and 200 mg/L BOD5 were adopted for projecting future wastewater mass loads of BOD5 and TSS. Composite sampling of the WWTP influent should be implemented implemented as proposed in earlier studies, to confirm wastewater quality; this information is important to ensure cost-effective design of future treatment facilities.
The alkalinity in the influent wastewater is is about 150 mg/L. The effluent alkalinity is less than 60 mg/L during the fall. fall. Destruction of alkalinity through the lagoon system system is attributed to bacterial oxidation of ammonia (nitrification) during warm summer weather, which produces acidity; this has caused low pH in the plant effluent (less than pH 6 during summer). Future upgrades may need to to include consideration of biological denitrification to recover alkalinity or chemical addition (e.g. lime) to ensure that acidic conditions do not develop during summer and negatively impact biological treatment.
sanitary sewers (e.g., roof downspouts that are connected to the sanitary sewer and surface runoff entering manholes). 5.3.1
Municipal Sewage Regulation
The Municipal Sewage Regulation (MSR) for British Columbia states that, where the maximum day flow at the WWTP exceeds 2.0 2. 0 times the average dry weather wea ther flow (ADWF) during rain or snowmelt events, and if the contributory population exceeds 10,000 persons, the discharger should show how I&I can be reduced as part of a LWMP. The ADWF at the City’s system for the six year period from 2000 to 2006 is summarized in Table 5-3, together with the Maximum Day Flows (MDF) for the same period. The ADWF was estimated as the minimum 60-day moving average of the daily flows recorded in a given year. The ADWF occurs between November and April, April, and
5.3.2
I&I Studies
Flow data were collected for six sites from February 21 to March 10, 2006 and from March 24 to April 17, 2006. The flow rate, in litres per second, was recorded every 5 minutes. Measured sewer flows consist of base sanitary flow (BSF), ground water infiltration (GWI), and rainfall dependent inflow and infiltration (RDI&I). (RDI&I). The snowfall snowfal l event with the subsequent rainfall event from February 26 to 28, 2006 was considered to be a reasonable approximation of the effects of a 1 in 10 year rainfall event on the sewer network; this event resulted in high I&I flows observed on February 28, 2006. Table 5-4 5-4 summarize summarizess the dry weather flow (DWF) statistics and the rainfall dependent inflow and infiltration (RDI&I) for each site (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2007). The review revie w indicated indicate d that ground water infiltr infiltration ation (GWI) (GWI) made up 34% to 77% of the dry weather flow. This is in line with observations of high groundwater within the City. The I&I rate averaged 17,500
5.4 5.4
Bioso lids Quantity and Quality
Biosolids is the name given to the solid residuals produced by wastewater treatment, after the solids have been sufficiently treated so that they can be beneficially reused as a soil conditioner and natural fertilizer. fertilizer. Untreated wastewater solids are generally referred to as sludge.
As described in Section 4.3.1, the City of Revelstoke has a lagoon system for wastewater treatment. Biosolids that are produced in the wastewater treatment treatment process settle to the bottom of the lagoon, where they gradually decay due to bacterial action. Accumulated residual solids must be removed from time to time. It is recommended that the lagoon be dewatered and desludged about every ten years. The City of Revelstoke cleaned Cell 1 in
In the City of Revelstoke approximately 2,300 residents, as well as some commercial and tourist facilities have on-site wastewater treatment (septic tanks and drain fields). Residents with on-site treatment in 2001 were distributed as follows: Arrow Heights 1,200; Big Eddy 1,000; Clearbrook Heights (CPR Hill) 50 to 100; Alpine Lane 50. The annual septage 3
disposal volumes are not known, but have been estimated at about 1,800 m /year with 3.4 % solids content (USL 2001).
No data regarding the characteristics of septage in the study area were available. Typical characteristics for septage from properly functioning residential onsite systems are shown in Table 5-5. According to USEPA (1984), “Septage facility designers should be cognizant of the fact that highly contaminated industrial sludges, sometimes disposed of together with domestic septage, can severely upset treatment treatment processes. Monitoring
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 6.0
CAPACITIES OF LAND LA ND AND WATER TO ACCEPT WASTE
This section provides an initial summary of known environmental characteristics in the study area. General information extracted from the City of Revelstoke Official Community Plan (OCP) update is illustrated on Figure 6-1 (Hydrology) and 6-2 (Areas of Environmental E nvironmental Value).
C:\DWG Projects\City of Revelstoke\Plots-AprilB ackground Reports\Hydrology.mxd
City of Revelstoke OCP Comprehensive Review May 2007 r e i v R t e a w ll e i c l e Il
Legend City Boundary-2007
Revelstoke Dam
Legal Lots Main Transportation Routes Lakes Rivers and Creeks Marshes Upper Arrow Lake
Riparian Assessment Areas
Columbia River
1:40,000
0
500
1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500
C:\DWG Projects\City of Revelstoke\Plots-April Background Reports\Environmental Values.mxd
City of Revelstoke OCP Comprehensive Review May 2007
Legend City Boundary-2007 Legal Lots Main Transportation Routes Lakes, Rivers and Creeks Marshes
Environmental Values Values Very High High Moderate
1:40,000
0
500
1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500
The construction of the Hugh Keenleyside dam near Castlegar in 1968 has had a large impact on the valley near Revelstoke. The Arrow Lakes Reservoir Reservoir now seasonally floods floods the Columbia River valley up to the Revelstoke Airport, and occasionally as far as the Revelstoke dam. This has resulted in the creation of a large wetland area centred on the airport, in what used to be predominantly farmland. These wetlands provide important important habitat for a variety of wildlife, notably birds (Trembley 1993, Machmer & Steeger 2003).
Riparian areas along the Illecillewaet River and the Columbia River also provide important wildlife habitat and migratory corridors. The black cottonwood riparian forests forests located along portions of the Columbia River and Illecillewaet River are of high wildlife value and should be retained. Mature black cottonwood stands are ranked by the BC Conservation Data Centre as among the rarest plant communities of the province (Egan et al. 1997).
Numerous small streams and springs, many of which are not marked on 1:20000 TRIM maps, are located on the hillsides above downtown Revelstoke and the Arrow Heights/RMR neighbourhoods. However, the streams that once ran through Revelstoke have been historically culverted culve rted and now form part of the storm sewer system of Revelstoke. The streams above Arrow Heights and the the RMR drain into Williamson Williamson Lake. Fish presence in the study area is summarized on the figure included in Appendix 7, and is discussed in the following sections.
6.2.1
Columbia River and Arrow Lakes Reservoir
A number of studies have previously been conducted on the Columbia River downstream of the Revelstoke Dam. Dam. Studies focussing on white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) have been summarized by Golder (2002, 2006). One of only two two known spawning areas
TABL E 6-1 FISH SPECIES PRESENCE Columbia River
Illecillewaet River
burbot
mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni )
bridgelip sucker (Catastomus columbianus )
northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis )
bull trout
peamouth chub ( Mylocheilus Mylocheilus caurinus)
carp (Cyprinus carpio )
pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri )
eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis )
rainbow trout
kokanee
redside shiner ( Richardsonius Richardsonius balteatus balteatus )
lake chub (Couesius plumbeus )
prickly sculpin (Cottus asper )
lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis )
slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus )
largescale sucker ( Catostomus macrocheilus )
torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus )
leopard dace ( Rhinichthys Rhinichthys falcatus)
walleye (Stizostedion Stizostedion vitreus)
Rhinichthys cataractae cataractae ) longnose dace ( Rhinichthys
westslope cutthroat trout
longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus )
white sturgeon
bull trout
peamouth chub
eastern brook trout kokanee
rainbow trout
6.2.2
Illecillewaet River
The Illecillewaet River is a tributary of the Columbia River and originates o riginates from the Illecillewaet glacier on the west slope of the Selkirk Mountains. It flows in a generally south-western direction to join with the Columbia River near Revelstoke approximately 2 km downstream of the outfall from the WWTP (see Figure 4-1). The area of the 2
watershed drained by the Illecillewaet River is approximately 1,202 km . The 7-day low 3
flow with a 2-year return period, based on data from 1964-1972, was 6.88 m /s. The 3
average flow in the river for the period 1963-1988 was 53.3 m /s.
The Illecillewaet River originates from the Illecillewaet Neve in Glacier National Park and runs for a length of 62 km before reaching the Columbia River. As a large part of its its watershed includes glaciated or alpine terrain, which receives large snowfalls over the
studies was mountain whitefish, and the river provides spawning habitat to largescale and longnose suckers (R.L & L. 1994).
The Illecillewaet River also provides boating opportunities such as canoeing and kayaking, and also provides an excellent location for white water rafting.
There are no registered water licenses on the Illecillewaet River according to the Provincial Water Licenses Database. 6.2.3
Bridge Creek
Bridge Creek enters the Illecillewaet River immediately upstream of the present outfall. As mentioned earlier, a spawning channel provides valuable habitat for kokanee.
fish bearing or not. Under this regulation, a minimum minimum buffer of 30 m from the top of bank should be maintained for permanent streams and fish bearing streams.
Non-permanent streams are streams that are dry for part of the year. These are often found in small gullies or depressions and may only flow during spring and heavy rain events. Even though they may be dry for part of the year, they may provide important fish habitat or contribute nutrients to to fish-bearing streams. Under the RAR, a 15 m wide wide buffer on either side of non-permanent, non-fish bearing streams must be maintained.
6.3
Rare and Endangered Endanger ed Species
Within the study area, several rare and endangered species are known to occur (see Appendix 7). Since at this stage only possible options for the LWMP are being
6.4
Disch arges to Surface Waters
The City of Revelstoke WWTP is the only permitted discharge of treated wastewater to surface waters within the study study area, and is under MOE jurisdiction. Surface discharges of storm surface runoff within the City are to the Columbia River and the Illecillewaet River.
The conclusions that were developed during the environmental impact study (EIS) of the WWTP discharge are summarized below (Masse, 2003).
1.
Water Quality: In general, the water quality downstream of the sewage treatment plant outfall at the edge of the initial dilution zone (IDZ) was found to be satisfactory, and all Provincial Water Quality Quality Guidelines were met. met. However,
2.
Outfall Design: To increase the dilution capacity during extreme low flows flows in the river and to ensure that the outflow is submerged all year round, it was recommended that the bank discharge outfall be replaced with a diffuser securely fixed to the bottom of the Illecillewaet River.
3.
Disinfection: To comply with the the current regulations, a dechlorination facility is being installed to reduce the residual chlorine in the effluent to 0.01 mg/L before discharge.
6.5 6.5
Appli cation to Land
6.5.1
Onsite (Ground Disposal) Systems
•
intermittent dosing of drainfields is important to maintain drainfield life;
•
soil moisture is the most important factor affecting the survival of bacteria and viruses in soil - in dry soils, bacteria die quickly (a few days), in wet soils and in cool weather, bacteria can survive for long periods (over 40 days) and travel long distances (more than 100 metres);
•
the useful life of absorption fields is typically in the range 10-30 years; and
•
typical problems encountered with failed absorption fields include unsuitable soil conditions, high water table, faulty design and/or construction, overloading (under design), damage to the field, inadequate or no maintenance, and steep slope.
Factors which affect the capacity of land to accept wastewater discharges include surface slope, soil type and permeability, depth to groundwater, presence of artesian water, susceptibility to flooding, and proximity of sensitive surface water bodies. Area soils and
Based on the review of data provided in Appendix 8 and summarized on Figures 6-3 and 6-4, Arrow Heights, the Revelstoke Mountain Resort Area and the Airport Bench have the potential to remain remain serviced by onsite systems. Some consideration should be given to the potential impact of ground disposal in the Arrow Heights area on the aquifer associated with TW01-2. Big Eddy, as a result of a reported high groundwater table, is inferred not to be amenable to ground disposal disposal of septic effluent. In addition, even though Airport Bench is listed as being suitable for ground disposal, it is noted that shallow wells and reported poor water quality suggest that it is inadvisable to continue to service this area with both ground disposal of septic effluent and wells, many of which are reportedly shallow.
Relevant to the assessment of areas suitable for ground disposal is the water table elevation in the near surface sediments. In general terms, within the sand and gravel that
6.5.2
Spray Irrigation of Reclaimed Water
Discharge of reclaimed water to land by spray irrigation is subject to many of the same limitations described above for subsurface absorption of effluent. Reclamation and reuse of treated effluent by spray irrigation irrigation also requires a substantial amount of land. This can be illustrated by way of example. For the City of Vernon with a contributing population of about 36,000 (average flow 13,000 cubic metres/day), a land area of 970 ha is needed in the dry local climate, and about 925 ha-m of seasonal storage is necessary to store the effluent during the non-irrigation season (City (City of Vernon, 2002). The storage volume is sized to accommodate approximately 2 years of effluent discharge, to allow for continued storage during years with unseasonably wet summer weather when it is not possible to irrigate. Land area requirements in general depend on local soils, topography, and crops as well as climate. The potential for reuse of wastewater for for irrigation in the study area is is
The OCP identifies the following six categories c ategories where Development Permits will be required:
•
Watershed Management Development Permit Area
•
Downtown Revitalization Development Permit Area
•
Highway Entry Corridor Commercial and Industrial Development Permit Area
•
Victoria Road/Townley Street Entrance Linkage Development Permit Area
•
Old Selkirk School Site Multiple Family Residential Development Permit Area
•
Multiple Family Residential Development Permit Area
The OCP 1996 lists the following guidelines for the Watershed Management Development Permit Area directly relating to the LWMP:
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 7.0
SOURCE CONTROL AND WASTE WA STE VOLUME REDUCTION
7.1 7.1
Source Control
Regulation of waste discharges into sanitary sewers is essential for the protection of public health and the environment. These discharges may enter the system via service
use bylaws, also referred to as source control bylaws. A source control approach that includes a significant educational component is likely to be more effective than one of strict policing and enforcement. However, it must be emphasized that it is essential to prevent unauthorized discharges of industrial, toxic, and/or dangerous wastes to the wastewater collection and treatment treatment system. Responsibilities for inspection and enforcement of source control regulations should be clearly defined.
This section contains a discussion of concept source control approaches for minimizing the discharge of contaminants to the sanitary sewer system. Recommendations for source control are contained in Section 11.1 of this report.
7.1.1
Source Control Bylaw
parameters parameters for for domestic domestic wastewa wastewater, ter, inhibito inhibitory ry effect effect on an activated activated sludge sludge process, process, pose a hazard to sewer worker health, or are known to accumulate in biosolids. Hazardous substances are typically prohibited and therefore do not require concentration limits. limits. The Supplemental List contains substances that are of potential concern for environmental release or human health, and can be implemented in the municipal bylaw depending on existing industries/commercials in in the community. The core substances are included in Table 7-1. The focus of the CCME for the Model Sewer Use Bylaw is on wastewater, however, prohibited substances for stormwater are to be identified and best management practices practices to protect protect stormw stormwater ater quality quality (constr (construction uction erosion erosion,, sediment sediment control, control, outdoor outdoor storage of materials) are required.
TABLE 7-1 COMPARISON OF PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED RESTRICTED WASTE DISCHARGES FOR SA NITARY SEWERS
Regulated Parameters
1. General Contaminants Air Contaminant Waste Colour, Dyes Corrosive Wastes Construction Dewatering Flammable/Explosive Wastes Foaming Agent Food Waste Fuel Hauled Waste/Septic Tank Waste Hazardous (Special) Wastes High Strength Wastes High Temperature Waste High Volume Discharge Leachate Odorous Waste Obstructive/Interfering Obstructive/Inte rfering Wastes Pathogenic/Biomedical Pathogenic/B iomedical Wastes PCBs
CCME Model Sewer Use Bylaw
P
P
P P P P see 7 see 6 P P P P
Comparison of the Discharge Limits for Prohibited/Restricted Wastes Regional Regional Fraser Capital District of Metro City of District of Valley Regional ComoxVancouver Revelstoke Nanaimo Regional District Strathcona (2004) (1998) District (2002) (1997)
P P P P P 5 mm P P P P
P P
P P P
P R P
P
City of Powell River (2005)
Ontario Model Bylaw (1988)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
5 mm
5 mm
P1 P R P
P1 P R P
P
P P
P P P P
P P P P P
5 mm
5 mm
5 mm
5 mm
P1 P
R P
R
P
R P
P R
P R
P
P P R
City of Campbell River (1997)
P R P
5 mm
P P P P
City of Kelowna (1996)
P P
P P P
P P
P R P
P R P
P
P
P
P P R
p P
P P P
TABLE TABL E 7-1 CONT’D CONT’D COMPARISON OF PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED WASTE DISCHARGES FOR SANITARY SEWERS
Regulated Parameters
Water/Groundwater/Cooling Water Treatment - Resistant Toxic Vapours 2. Inorganic Contaminants Aluminum, mg/L Antimony, mg/L Arsenic, mg/L Bismuth, mg/L Boron, mg/L Cadmium, mg/L Chlorides, mg/L Chromium (total), mg/L Cobalt, mg/L Copper, mg/L Cyanide (total), mg/L Fluorides, mg/L Hydrogen Sulphide, mg/L Iron, mg/L Lead, mg/L Manganese, mg/L Mercury, mg/L Molybdenum, mg/L
CCME Model Sewer Use Bylaw
Comparison of the Discharge Limits for Prohibited/Restricted Wastes Regional Regional Fraser Capital District of Metro City of District of Valley Regional ComoxVancouver Revelstoke Nanaimo Regional District Strathcona (2004) (1998) District (2002) (1997)
City of Kelowna (1996)
City of Campbell River (1997)
City of Powell River (2005)
Ontario Model Bylaw (1988)
P P
P
5.0 0.1
0.2 1500 0.37 5 1.0 1.0
0.1 0.1 5
1.0
50
50
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.2
50 0.2
50 0.2
4.0 5.0 2.0 1.0
0.1 1500 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0
5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0
4.0 5.0 2.0 1.0
4.0 5.0 2.0 1.0
0.3 1500 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0
10 1.0 1 .0 5.0 0.05 1.0
50 0.5 5.0 0.05 5.0
50 0.5 5.0 0.05 5.0
10 1.0 5.0 0.05 1.0
10 1.0 5.0 0.05 1.0
50 1.0 5.0 0.02 5.0
50 0.2
0.4
50
50
50
1.0
0.2
0.2
50 0.2
50 0.10
4.0 5.0 2.0 1.0
5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0
50 0.1 1500 4.0 5.0 1.0 1.0
10 1.0 5.0 0.05 1.0
50 0.5 5.0 0.05 5.0
50 0.5 5.0 0.05 1.0
50 5 1.0
1.0 1500 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 10 50 5.0 5.0 0.1 5.0
TABLE TABL E 7-1 CONT’D CONT’D COMPARISON OF PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED WASTE DISCHARGES FOR SANITARY SEWERS
Regulated Parameters
Sulphate, mg/L Sulphide, mg/L Tin, mg/L Titanium, mg/L Vanadium, mg/L Zinc, mg/L 3. Conventional Contamination BOD5, mg/L COD, mg/L Total Ammonia (mg N/L) Fats, Oils & Grease (total)4, mg/L Suspended Solids, mg/L 4. Physical Characteristics pH Maximum Temperature 5. Organic Contamination Benzene, mg/L Ethyl Benzene (mg/L) Toluene (mg/L) Tylenes (mg/L) Chlorophenols, mg/L
CCME Model Sewer Use Bylaw 1500 0.3
Comparison of the Discharge Limits for Prohibited/Restricted Wastes Regional Regional Fraser Capital District of Metro City of District of Valley Regional ComoxVancouver Revelstoke Nanaimo Regional District Strathcona (2004) (1998) District (2002) (1997) 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
City of Kelowna (1996)
City of Campbell River (1997)
City of Powell River (2005)
Ontario Model Bylaw (1988)
1500 1.0 5.0
1500 1.0 5.0
1500 1.0
1500 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0
0.03
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
300
300 400
500 1000
300 600
300
500
500 1000
500 750
500 1000
300
150 155 300
100
100
150
150
100
150
150
400 800 40 100
350
350
300
600
350
600
350
350
350
5.5-9.5 5.5-9.5
5.5-11.0 5.5-11.0 65oC
5.5-11 65oC
5.5-10.5 5.5-10.53 65oC
5.5-12.0 65oC
5.5-11.0 65oC
5.5-113 65oC
5.5-11.0 65oC
5.5-9.5 54oC
5.5-9.5 65oC
0.1
0.10 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.052
0.10
0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
24 100 (85/15) 300 6-11.5 60oC 0.01 0.08
0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.052
0.052
0.05
TABLE TABL E 7-1 CONT’D CONT’D COMPARISON OF PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED WASTE DISCHARGES FOR SANITARY SEWERS
Regulated Parameters
CCME Model Sewer Use Bylaw
Tetra Chloroethylene, Chloroethyl ene, mg/L Chlorinated Phenols, mg/L Chloroform, mg/L Benzidine and benzidine dihydrochloride, mg/L Dichlorobenzene Dichlorobenze ne (1,2-), mg/L Dichlorobenzene Dichlorobenze ne (1,4), mg/L Ethylbenzene, Ethylbenzen e, mg/L Hexachlorobenzene, Hexachloroben zene, mg/L Methylene chloride (dichloromethane), mg/L PCBs (chlorobiphenyls), (chlorobipheny ls), mg/L Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroet hane (1,1,2,2-), mg/L Trichloroethylene, Trichloroethy lene, mg/L Xylenes (total), mg/L P R 1 2 3 4
0.05
Comparison of the Discharge Limits for Prohibited/Restricted Wastes Regional Regional Fraser Capital District of Metro City of District of Valley Regional ComoxVancouver Revelstoke Nanaimo Regional District Strathcona (2004) (1998) District (2002) (1997) R R 0.05 R 0.05 R
0.04 – 0.088 0.09 0.057 0.055 0.0981 0.004 0.04 0.054 0.32
Prohibited Waste Restricted Waste, numerical limit not specified. Discharge allowed at authorized receiving stations only. Chlorinated phenols are the total of chlorophenols, dichlorophenols, dichlorophenol s, trichlorophenols, trichloropheno ls, tetrachlorophenols tetrachloroph enols and pentachlorophenols pentachlorophe nols Two Hour Composite Sample (composed of 8 grab samples collected at consecutive 15 min. intervals) Includes petroleum hydrocarbons.
City of Kelowna (1996)
City of Campbell River (1997)
City of Powell River (2005)
Ontario Model Bylaw (1988)
The City of Revelstoke revised its Sanitary Sewer System Bylaw in 2002 (Sewer Regulations Bylaw No. 1683-2002). The Bylaw regulates discharges discharges to the sewer system in paragraphs paragra phs 5.06 to 5.18. 5.18 . Prohibited Wastes defined in the City of Revelstoke’s bylaw, compared to bylaws from other jurisdictions are summarized summarized in Table 7-1. Prohibited wastes in the City of Revelstoke include septic waste or sewage or waste that originates outside the Municipal boundaries. Restricted Wastes include those which can be accepted safely at sewage treatment plants, but have specific limits on discharge concentrations. The concentrations for Restricted Wastes are included in Table 7-1. A Permit is normally required for the discharge of Restricted Wastes, and will typically apply to non-domestic discharges from the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sectors (Bylaw No. 1683, paragraph 5.10). Waste Discharge Permits Permits may include include to the following elements:
7.1.2
Inspection and Monitoring
City of Revelstoke Bylaw No. 1683-2002 specifies that the Superintendent of Public Works or other authorized person may at any reasonable time enter any property or premises in order to determine whether the provisions of the Bylaw are being carried out.
In general, where inspection and monitoring requirements contained in sanitary sewer use bylaws do not require require composite composite samples samples to to be taken, taken, this will likely likely result result in in grab sampli sampling ng in cases where the discharger is required to take the samples, due to the higher cost of composite sampling over a 24 hour period. Grab samples are not a reliable indicator of discharge quality, since contaminant concentrations may vary widely over time. In addition, grab sampling provides the opportunity for the discharger to sample selectively
7.1.5
Codes of Practice
In jurisdictions where there is a large number of small volume dischargers in a particular industrial or commercial sector (eg. photo-finishers, auto repair shops, dry cleaners, restaurants, etc.), Codes of Practice may be used to simplify monitoring and enforcement. Codes of Practice are generally developed for specific industrial or commercial sectors. Businesses operating according to an approved Code of Practice may not require a Waste Discharge Permit under the applicable sewer use bylaw. A Code of Practice usually contains detailed requirements regarding pretreatment of discharges, waste segregation, waste collection and disposal, waste reduction techniques, inspection and servicing frequency, reporting, and record-keeping. There are currently no Codes of Practice developed for the study area.
requirements, less raw material use, lower operation and maintenance costs, reduced or eliminated regulatory compliance costs, and fewer hazards to employees through exposure to toxic substances. Further benefits include improved public image and employee morale. Householders should be encouraged to use less hazardous products, and to properly store and dispose of wastes.
Education programs designed to reduce contaminant inputs to sanitary sewers have many elements in common with education programs aimed at protection of the storm drainage system. To minimize costs, a single program should be designed to serve both objectives. Further, an education program for source control of pollutant inputs to the sanitary sewer and storm drain systems should be one component of a broader educational program which includes other waste management issues such as solid waste and water conservation. All of
The Revelstoke Community Environmental Strategy 2003 includes targets for wastewater and stormwater. One goal of this strategy was to improve public knowledge regarding the harmful impact of illegal dumping of substances substance s into the storm sewer system, etc.
7.1.8
Alternatives for Source Control Education
An effective education and public involvement strategy should be an integral part of the liquid waste management planning process. The need for liquid waste management planning should be emphasized emphasized in education education programs programs by clearly clearly outlining outlining the the potential potential negative impacts of contaminated discharges on the long-term sustainability of resources and receiving water uses in general. It is important important to include clear goals and objectives which can visibly demonstrate progress and success.
The uses of water delivered to residential homes can be categorized as "inside home" and "outside home." Water use inside the the home has a significant impact on wastewater volumes, since most in-home water is directed to the sanitary sewer after use. Water conservation measures aimed at reducing in-home water use can reduce sewage flow volumes. Most of the water used outside the home is for irrigation, and does not impact wastewater flows, since it does not normally go to the sanitary sewer after use. Commercial establishments and large public institutions are often large users of water for irrigation and indoor uses. Water use inside commercial and institutional buildings is mainly for sanitation, and many of the water conservation techniques for domestic users are applicable to commercial and institutional users as well.
Wastewater flows consist of a base flow that varies over the course of each day. The base
With a decrease in wastewater flows due to water efficiency efforts, the hydraulic load to the pumping stations and the wastewater treatment plant could be reduced. Some capital cost savings can be realized through water conservation by reducing the hydraulic load to treatment components that are governed by flow (e.g., influent screens and settling tanks), but these these are relativ relatively ely minor. minor. Water Water conservati conservation on may also also result result in in capital capital savings savings for the wastewater transmission system (pump stations and piping). However, reduced water use would not affect the mass loading of contaminants carried by the wastewater stream (e.g. solids, BOD5, etc.) and this is what governs the design of secondary treatment and solids digestion processes. Due to the high I&I in the Revelstoke system, water conservation may not have a significant impact on wastewater collection and treatment costs until the I&I is substantially reduced.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 8.0
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANA GEMENT
Development generally increases the volume and rate of storm surface runoff, due to an increase in the amount of impervious area caused by the construction of roofs and paved surfaces. surfaces. The increased runoff caused by development can cause flooding in downstream areas, increase erosion in watercourses, and reduce dry season stream flows due to lower groundwater reserves.
season base flows in streams. These changes typically result in significant significant environmental degradation (e.g., loss of habitat and food sources, reduced species diversity) not directly associated with water quality. As a result, the approach to urban stormwater management management has evolved to include techniques that protect, restore, and mimic the natural (predevelopment) hydrology of a watershed as closely as possible.
Protection of the natural hydrology can include non-structural techniques designed to reduce the amount of impervious surface area created by development and to protect key components of the natural drainage system. This can be accomplished through clustering of housing in designated areas to leave relatively large amounts of land undisturbed, as well as the use of narrower streets, reduced setbacks from lot lines to reduce driveway lengths, reduced parking ratios and stall sizes, single-side sidewalks, and smaller cul-de-sacs. Structural techniques may also be used to mimic the predevelopment hydrology, by infiltrating collected runoff into the ground, temporarily
impervious through the construction of roofs, streets, sidewalks and parking lots, and consequently speeds the runoff rate and increases the runoff volume, due to a reduction in rainfall losses from surface wetting, depression storage, and soil infiltration.
Improved or increased hydraulic capacity in the urban drainage system to prevent flooding of low-lying areas can significantly alter the runoff process. When natural channels are deepened, lined, and straightened or when storm sewers are installed, watershed storage time is reduced, and the peak rate of runoff is increased. Man-made structures can be provided to replace replace natural natural detention detention in stream channels, channels, floodplains, floodplains, and ponds. ponds.
Drainage design should incorporate a minor and major major system. The minor system is usually designed to handle storm flows from 2 to 25 year rainfall recurrence intervals, and the major system is designed to handle excess flows up to 100 year recurrence intervals.
•
improved channel hydraulics;
•
diversion of portions or all of the flow;
•
temporary storage in detention facilities;
•
policy changes changes to to reduce runoff, runoff, such as as land development development policy policy changes; changes;
•
purchase of floodplain floodplain and use restrictions restrictions;; and
•
combinations of the above.
Runoff quantity control for smaller, more frequent (minor) storms is important to protect watercourses from in cases, where development results in increased frequency of erosive flows. This may be undertaken through the following techniques:
Monitoring of urban runoff quality is a complex and costly undertaking, due to the transient nature of the flows and the number of water analyses required. Comprehensive long-term studies regarding the quality of urban surface runoff have been carried out in the U.S. and elsewhere. Constituents found in general urban runoff that frequently exceed British Columbia water quality criteria include suspended solids, lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, chromium, nickel, arsenic, and phosphorus. Runoff from heavily-travelled highways and roads may exceed provincial water quality criteria for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, in addition to the constituents listed above (B.C. Environment, 1992b).
No studies studies describin describing g the quality quality of storm surface runoff within within the City City of Revelst Revelstoke oke were were found. Based on data from other jurisdictions, potential sources of contamination within the City are as follows:
protection of the existing storm drain system (regular cleaning of catchbasins, elimination of illicit connections), modification of domestic and non-domestic practices to reduce or eliminate the production of pollutants or to prevent contact between pollutants and stormwater runoff, and on-site structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to remove or reduce the pollutant load in surface runoff, before it enters the drainage system.
Management solutions for the enhancement of urban runoff quality include both structural and non-structural approaches. Non-structural management solutions include source controls (regulatory and educational) and land use regulations. regulations. Structural approaches include the construction of stormwater treatment facilities, which are often referred to as Best Management Practices Prac tices (BMPs); these include the following measures:
procedures for applying BMPs to specific situations are available (e.g., B.C. Environment, 1992b and Dayton & Knight Ltd. et.al., 1999). Both structural and nonstructural approaches are usually evaluated when comprehensive drainage studies are carried out for individual catchments.
8.3 8.3
Existin g Drainage Facili Facili ties
8.3.1
Overview of System
The City of Revelstoke provides an underground storm drainage system in the more developed parts of the City such as Farewell, Downtown, South Revelstoke, and a small area of Columbia Park. Open drainage ditches are used in Arrow Heights and the Big Eddy (OCP 1519-1996, Section 3). The existing storm drainage system system for the City is
existing treatment system to combined sewer standards, and construction of “in system” storage. The third alternative, separation of the storm storm and sanitary sewer systems, systems, was recommended. Sewer separation had begun earlier in conjunction with a street upgrading program in 1974 to reduce exceeding the permitted discharge, and is ongo ing.
8.4 8.4
Drainage Policies and Regulations
8.4.1
Provincial and Federal Policies and Legislation
Regulations regarding the quality of surface runoff discharges have not been developed for British Columbia. The Province has published guidelines to assist municipalities in developing programs to improve the management of urban surface runoff for protection of life and property and the environment (e.g., B.C. Environment, 1992b and CH2M Hill and
Commercial/High Density development is proposed. The leave strip guidelines are suggested minimum widths and may be altered by federal or provincial regulatory regu latory staff (e.g., increased to protect critical fish habitat).
The Fish-Stream Crossing Guidelines (Ministry of Forests, 2002) recommend the type of crossing for fish fish bearing streams. streams. Although the Fish-Stream Crossing Guidelines were developed for the forestry sector, it is likely that similar recommendations will be made by the regulatory agencies for other activities such as urban development that involve stream crossings.
The Provincial Streamside Protection Regulation was repealed and replaced by the Riparian Areas Regulation by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council on July 27,
2004. The new Regulation sets out requirements for for Streamside Protection and
a) all residential, commercial, industrial and public/institutional developments are required manage storm drainage in a manner which does not impact upon adjacent private or public property. b) natural drainage patterns are to be retained through the use of overland flows, open channels, swale routing and existing natural drainage courses where possible; and c) storm drainage works are to be separated from sanitary sewer works at the time of road reconstruction projects.
Restrictions for storm water discharges that are contained in the City of Revelstoke Sewer Regulation Bylaw No. 1683-2002 are listed below.
a) Where any person discharges or proposes to discharge any waste into the Sanitary Sewer System or a watercourse which does not comply with the terms and conditions
8.5 8.5
Watershed Watershed Inventory
Drainage planning should begin with an up-to-date inventory of existing watersheds, drainage facilities, known problems, and water quality data. The initial step in conducting an inventory of the watershed(s) is the delineation of drainage basin and sub-basin boundaries boundaries on a plan of the watershed watershed area. Basins which encompas encompasss more more than one one political political jurisdict jurisdiction ion should should be identified, identified, so so that governing governing agencies agencies can cooperate cooperate to ensure a consistent and effective approach.
Some B.C. Municipalities and regional districts have developed comprehensive stormwater bylaws and/or policies policies that encompass encompass flood protection, protection, erosion erosion protection, protection, and water quality (e.g., City of Coquitlam, Capital Regional District). District). Guidance for developing such
then prepared to define site-specific, measurable hydrologic and environmental objectives. Hydrologic objectives include groundwater recharge, flood and erosion control, stream baseflow baseflow preservatio preservation, n, and stabili stabilization zation of of water levels. Environmental Environmental objectives objectives include include water and/or sediment quality parameters such as turbidity, dissolved oxygen, particulate and dissolved contaminant and nutrient levels, water temperature, indicator bacteria, and toxicity. An evaluation of hydrologic conditions (hydrology, hydrogeology) and environmental conditions (water and sediment quality) within the watershed through the assembly of existing data and the acquisition of new data is necessary to help define priorities, priorities, develop the the plan of action, action, and establi establish sh baseline baseline condition conditionss to monitor monitor improvements.
Stormwater issues are best addressed on a watershed basis, by considering drainage area boundaries boundaries rather rather than political political boundaries. boundaries. For effective effective stormwater stormwater management, management, the
limitations in existing developments. Therefore, land use restrictions restrictions are a critical component of stormwater management for new developments and redevelopments.
Monitoring of stormwater quality is difficult, due to the transient nature of runoff events. Extensive sampling of runoff events using automated equipment capable of collecting flow-proportioned composite samples is required to assess pollutant loading s from specific areas with reasonable accuracy. Further, laboratory analyses for for the pollutants of concern (particularly for toxic organic compounds) is expensive. Sources of toxic substances may be difficult to locate by water sampling, especially in cases where inputs of pollutants are periodic rather than continuous. Many toxic compounds, however, including some metals and organics and indicator bacteria, tend to associate with particulates. A few sediment grab samples taken from major tributaries have been successfully used to trace pollutant sources upstream in storm drain systems, and to focus
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
9.0
PLAN PLA N CRITERIA CRITERIA
This section contains the criteria used for developing and evaluating liquid waste management alternatives.
9.3
Disch arges to Surface Water
Criteria for treated wastewater discharges set out in this section are based on existing provincial provincial regulations regulations and impending impending federal federal regulati regulations. ons.
9.3.1
Provincial Regulations and Guidelines
The Municipal Sewage Regulation (MSR) administered by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) applies to all discharges to surface water and to discharges to ground in excess of 3
22.75 m /d (MOE, (MOE, 1999). The effluent criteria for discharges of treated wastewater to surface waters (based on the MSR) are summarized in Table 9-1.
TABL E 9-1
Toxicity The following toxicity standards are based on the MSR, Part 4 Standards for Effluent Reuse and Discharges to the Environment.
9 (1) A person must not discharge effluent, unless (a) the discharge passes a 96 hour LC50 bioassay test as defined by Environment Canada’s Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Rainbow Trout, Reference Method, EPS 1/RM/13, or (b) if the discharge fails a bioassay test described in paragraph (a), the discharge passes a test conducted as a follow up according to requirements set out in Schedule 6 of the MSR.
(3) If subsection (1) applies, a person p erson must not discharge effluent unless the discharge is monitored for toxicity in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 6, Table 3.
Table 9-2 shows the allowable concentrations of microbiological indicators in accordance with the Ministry of Environment Water Quality Guidelines (British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines, 2006 Edition) for recreational use.
TABL E 9-2 WATER QUALITY QUAL ITY GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL INDICATORS MPN/100 ML (MOE, 2006)
Escherichia coli Enterococci Fecal coliforms
Recreation - secondary contact, crustacean harvesting geometric mean* < 385/100 mL < 100/100 mL None applicable
Recreation - primary contact geometric mean* < 77/100 mL < 20/100 mL < 200/100 mL
residual chlorine
0.02 mg/L
acutely toxic effluent
discharge of a non-acutely toxic effluent include specific requirements and timelines to identify and reduce toxicity in cases of acute toxicity test failure
ammonia
include specific requirements if acute toxicity test failure is due to ammonia that would authorize discharge of ammonia in effluent based on receiving environment considerations.
Monitoring of the environment and timelines to achieve effluent discharge levels are based on risk while considering elements such as sensitivity of the receiving environment, size and composition composition of the effluent effluent release. In the long-term the wastewater effluents discharge levels require wastewater treatment systems equiva lent in performance to secondary treatment with additional treatment if required.
3
Ground disposal systems with design flows of less than 22.75 m /d (i.e., single home systems up to community systems servicing 50 to 60 homes) are administered by the Ministry of Health (MOH). (MOH). Larger discharges to ground are administered administered by the Ministry of Environment Environment under the Municipal Sewage Regulation. The MSR sets out water quality standards for discharges to to ground disposal systems. Systems administered by the MOH are not regulated on the basis of water quality standards, but the systems are to be designed and installed in accordance with the MOH Sewerage System Standard Practice Manual.
The Ministry of Community Services requires that loca l governments meet the following requirements in order to be eligible e ligible for infrastructure funding assistance from the Province:
Further to the above, Interior Health (Salmon Arm Office) has provided the following comments:
•
Interior Health would support creation of a bylaw which sets a minimum lot sizes for subdivisions where disposal will be through on-site wastewater system; and
•
Interior Health would support the creation of a holding tank bylaw to address failing septic systems that cannot connect to City sewer and do not have space to install a replacement septic system, provided these are for a limited time period.
9.5
Reclaimed Water
Historically in British Columbia, and generally throughout North America, the emphasis in
reclaimed water. Use of reclaimed water must be authorized in writing writing by the local health authority having jurisdiction.
TABL E 9-3 RECLAIMED WA TER CATEGORY AND PERMITTED USES Unrestricted Public Access Category EFFLUENT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 6 > pH < 9 BOD5 < 10 milligrams/litre milligrams/litre Turbidity < 2 NTU Fecal coliforms < 2.2/100 millilitres URBAN Parks
-
Playgrounds
-
Cemeteries Golf Courses Road Rights-of-Way School Grounds Residential Lawns
Restricted Public Access Category EFFUENT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 6 > pH < 9 BOD5 < 45 milligrams/litre milligrams/litre TSS < 45 milligrams/litre milligrams/litre TSS Fecal coliforms < 200/100 millilitres AGRICULTURAL Commercially processed food crops Fodder, Fibre Pasture Silviculture Nurseries Sod Farms Spring Frost Protection
According to the MSR, the use of reclaimed water requires the following:
•
in the absence of seasonal storage, the provision of at least 20 days emergency storage (the storage volume may be reduced to 2 days if multiple treatment units are used);
•
the system for conveying reclaimed water must incorporate safeguards to prevent cross connection with the potable water system;
•
provide in addition addition to to seasonal seasonal storage storage an alternative alternative method method of disposing disposing of the reclaimed water or satisfy the manager that no such alternative is required to assure public health health protectio protection n and treatment treatment reliability. reliability.
•
authorization in writing by the local health authority or the establishment of a local service area under which a municipality, or a private corporation under contract to a municipality, assumes responsibility for the system;
•
the provision of user information when Unrestricted Public Access Category uses are
reclaimed sewage effluent apply to treated and recycled grey water as well as to reclaimed sewage. According to the MSR, water reuse projects must be approved in consultation with the MOH. MOH. For complex in-house wastewater collection, treatment and reuse facilities, it is regarded by the MOH as beyond the scope of the average householder to adequately operate, maintain, and monitor these systems. This is supported by experience elsewhere as well as in British British Columbia. The MOH has serious concerns with the reuse of any reclaimed wastewater at the residential level, due to the potential for cross-connections with the potable water system. The risk to public health is regarded by MOH as unacceptably high in areas of B.C. where a relatively plentiful renewable potable supply is available.
The MOH has allowed demonstration projects for grey water recycling (e.g., CK Choi Building and Quayside Village in North Vancouver). These projects required special
during a restricted time period of up to fifteen months. Approvals do not usually require as extensive public or stakeholder review as Permits, and are often issued in a shorter time period than Permits.
Permits usually allow an annual application of biosolids to a site, with maximum limits established for dry solids, nitrogen, metals, and perhaps other parameters depending upon product quality and receiving environment conditions. Environmental monitoring and reporting are also prescribed. prescribed. A Permit application requires a proactive public and stakeholder agency review, often including posting of signs at the biosolids application site, notification in the B.C. Gazette and one or more local papers, possibly door to door notification of neighbours, public meetings and a much broader review by other government agencies. The MOE has broad discretionary powers in determining the extent of the public input required.
The three biosolids products described in the OMRR are designated “biosolids” (treated wastewater organic soils), “compost” (biosolids composted with or without other organic wastes), and “biosolids growing medium” (topsoil manufactured using treated biosolids). Compost and biosolids are further designated Class A or Class B, with the higher quality product being Class A. Classification depends on trace element (metal) concentrations, treatment method, pathogen content, and vector attraction reduction (vectors are carriers such as insects that are capable of transmitting disease-causing organisms, commonly referred to as pathogens). According to the definitions contained in the OMRR, OMRR, Class A compost and biosolids growing medium are defined as “retail grade organic matter”. Class B compost, Class A biosolids and Class B biosolids are defined as “managed organic matter.” The OMRR also lays out requirements for sampling, analysis and record keeping, as well as maximum cumulative limits for designated trace metals at biosolids application sites.
The principal difference between Class A and Class B biosolids is that Class A has been pasteurized to reduce the risk of disease caused by pathogenic microorganisms. In addition, the maximum allowable mercury content of Class A biosolids is 5 mg/kg, compared to 15 mg/kg for Class B biosolids. The trace metals standards contained in the OMRR for the various biosolids products are shown in Table 9-4.
TABL E 9-4 OMRR TRACE METALS LIMITS Parameter (milligrams/kilogram (milligrams/kilogram dry weight unless otherwise noted)
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium
B.C. Organic Matter Recycling Regulation Managed Organic Matter Retail Grade Organic Matter Biosolids Class B Compost Class A Compost Class A1 Growing and Class B Containing Biosolids Medium Biosolids Biosolids (Topsoil)2 75 75 13 13 20 20 1.5 3 1060 -100 100
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 10.0
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AL TERNATIVES
This section contains background discussion regarding wastewater and biosolids treatment technologies (Sections 10.1 and 10.2), followed by an outline of preliminary wastewater collection and treatment options that were considered for the City of Revelstoke (Section 10.3). Discussion regarding potential options for septage treatment, reclamation of treated wastewater,
•
advanced treatment – may include removal of phosphorus by chemical addition, removal of phosphorus and/or nitrogen by a community of microorganisms (similar to secondary treatment), and filtering to remove fine solids escaping secondary treatment; and
•
disinfection – destruction or inactivation of disease-causing organisms by chlorination, ozonation, or ultra violet light (if chlorination is practiced, de-chlorination is normally required).
10.1 10.1
Wastewater Treatment Technol ogi es
The City of Revelstoke has a legal obligation to provide reliable and effective wastewater treatment for its citizens. citizens. An important consideration in meeting this obligation is the selection of treatment technologies that are reliable and cost effective, and that can consistently meet mandated effluent effluent quality criteria. Larger plants typically utilize
In addition to small mechanical facilities incorporating suspended and fixed growth systems, natural systems may be appropriate to smaller treatment plants. Natural systems include various lagoon options including anaerobic, facultative, aerobic and aerated (fully and partially mixed). Technologies that use natural systems to treat wastewater include natural wetlands, constructed wetlands and aquatic plant systems. systems. Wetlands are normally used for polishing effluent following secondary treatment, but they may also be used as a secondary treatment process if sufficient sufficient space is available. An additional function is to use effluent to supplement flows into natural wetlands that are water-short due to development pressures. pressures. In general, general, the suspended suspended growth growth and fixed fixed growth growth technologi technologies es have a proven record and capital and operating costs are well documented. The same is true true for the lagoon systems. Data are limited limited for wetland systems.
The only major wastewater treatment facility within the study area is the City of Revelstoke
For larger plants, anaerobic digestion with energy (methane gas) recovery is normally used for the stabilization stabilization process. Because of the large, gas-tight reactors needed for for anaerobic digestion, this technology is cost-effective only for larger facilities, typically with an average daily flow of at least 7,500 m3/d. For smaller plants, aerobic digestion digestion is often used to stabilize stabilize biosolids. Other methods of stabilization (and pasteurization) include composting, and pH adjustment (usually by adding lime). In general, solids stabilization processes are one of the principal odour sources at wastewater treatment facilities, particularly those that involve high temperature (thermophilic) treatment.
10.3 10.3
Preliminary Wastewater Wastewater Collection and Treatment Treatment Alternatives for the City of Revelstoke
•
Option 1 would require expansion and upgrading of the existing wastewater treatment process from aerated lagoons to a mechanical treatment plant, since the site is not sufficient in size to use expanded lagoon technology for the long-term future.
•
The existing outfall to the Illecillewaet River may have to be abandoned because of the insufficient dilution of discharged water in the river – a new Pump Station and a new outfall may be required to discharge into the Columbia River – the need for a new outfall and or its timing will be determined following completion of the Environmental Impact Study currently underway.
•
Arrow Heights: A new pump station at Arrow Heights with two forcemains of 300 mm diameter to the WWTP would be required, with a gravity connection from RMR to Arrow Heights (planned in 2007/2008).
•
Big Eddy: A new pump station and forcemain could connect Big Eddy to the existing system. An upgrade of the existing Wales Pump Station and parts of the the existing
Clearview Heights developments), Big Eddy, Arrow Heights, and Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). •
Downie Pump Station would need to be upgraded and a new forcemain to the new site of the WWTP would need to be built.
•
The planned upgrade of the existing WWTP would be undertaken to ensure service to the City of Revelstoke including Arrow Heights and RMR for the short term future (until about 2012/2014) – the upgrade includes a new aeration system, and a new chlorination system. No expansion of the the existing WWTP WWTP would be undertaken.
•
The existing WWTP and outfall would eventually be abandoned after construction of the new plant, and the site could be used for other purposes.
•
A new pump station at Arrow Heights with forcemain to Downie Pump Station would be required, with a gravity connection from RMR to Arrow Heights.
•
Big Eddy: see Option 1. A new pump station and forcemain forcemain connects Big Eddy to
upgraded as in Option 2 and would serve part of the City of Revelstoke, Arrow Heights, and RMR for the long term future (the existing WWTP would serve a population of 8,500). (Note, Big Eddy was not included in this Option). •
Downie Pump Station would need to be upgraded and a new forcemain to the new site of the WWTP would need to be built.
•
Arrow Heights: A new pump station at Arrow Heights Heigh ts with forcemain to the WWTP would be required, with a gravity connection from RMR to Arrow Heights.
•
Big Eddy: see Option 1. A new pump station and forcemain forcemain connects Big Eddy service area to the existing City system.
•
Trunk Sewer System: upgrades required.
•
Option 3 was previously investigated by the City, although the populations that were used do not match the current OCP update, and Big Eddy was not included in the service area – the estimated cost was $23.5 million (2006 dollars) to serve 17,100
10.3.5 Option 5 – Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct New WWTP at Big Eddy to Serve Big Eddy and the Northern Part of Revelstoke
•
Option 5 is illustrated on Figure 10-5 – this option is similar to Option 4, except that the new WWTP at Big Eddy would wo uld also serve the northern part of o f the City of Revelstoke.
•
Upgrade Wales Pump Station and construct new forcemain to connect the northern part of the City to the new WWTP at Big Eddy.
•
Depending on the results of the Environmental Impact Study, it may be necessary to abandon the existing outfall to the Illecillewaet River, and construct new pump station and new outfall to the Columbia River (see Option 1).
•
Construct a new pump station at Arrow Heights with forcemain to the existing WWTP, with a gravity connection from RMR to Arrow Heights He ights (planned for 2007/2008).
•
After construction of the new WWTP, a new forcemain to connect Arrow Heights and RMR to the new WWTP would be required, and the forcemain to the existing WWTP could be abandoned.
•
Big Eddy: see Option 1. A new pump station and forcemain forcemain connects Big Eddy service area to the existing City system.
•
Trunk Sewer System: upgrades required.
•
After construction of the new WWTP, a new forcemain to connect Arrow Heights and RMR to the new WWTP would be required and the forcemain to the existing WWTP could be abandoned.
•
The existing WWTP and outfall would be abandoned after construction of the new plant, and the site could be used for other purposes.
•
Connect trailer park and Oscar Pump Station to the sewer system: Forcemain Reversal at Oscar Pump Station and Upgrade of Oscar Pump Pump Station. Detailed evaluation of the options will show if Moss Pump Station and Edward Pump Pu mp Station require an upgrade.
•
Big Eddy: see Option 1.
•
Trunk Sewer System: upgrades required.
10.3.8 All Options
•
Alternate locations in these areas out of the floodplain are recommended. The proposed WWTP in Big Eddy should have low impacts provided it is constructed behind the Big Eddy dyke.
•
Upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP should have few impacts provided the site is not enlarged; however, any expansion of the site is likely to impact the wetland areas that surround the WWTP on three sides.
The proposed locations of any new outfalls may also result in impacts. Two possible outfall locations, near the Centennial Ball Park and near the Big Eddy Road bridge, will have the lowest impacts. The river is easily accessible at these two locations, and the main flow of the Columbia River is located in close proximity to the bank. Other proposed outfall locations, at the west end of Mill Street, at the west end of Downie Street, near the airport, and at the south end of Big Eddy, will have greater impacts, as the corridor for the
TABL E 10-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF WASTEWATER COLL ECTION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS OPTIONS Option 1
Description Upgrade and expand existing facilities
2
New WWTP near Mill Street
3
Upgrade existing WWTP, new WWTP near Mill Street
Potential Impacts Illecillewaet River or Columbia River outfall Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River Wetland and greenspace present adjacent to Columbia River Location of proposed WWTP and outfall. Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River Location of new WWTP and outfall Illecillewaet River and Columbia River outfall Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River.
Impact Low/Moderate
Low/Moderate Depends on location of WWTP and outfall.
Low/Moderate Depends on location of WWTP and outfall
10.4 10.4
Use of Reclaimed Water
Criteria for effluent reuse in British Columbia are set out in the MSR (see Section 9.3.3). Reuse programs must be designed to make beneficial use of effluent (to provide water and nutrients to crops or other beneficial use), and also to protect human health and the environment. envir onment. Water reuse in British Columbia is currently practiced at Vernon, Cranbrook, 100 Mile House (all range, pasture or crop spray irrigation projects) and at Osoyoos and French Creek (golf course irrigation). Onsite use of reclaimed water is currently undertaken at several wastewater treatment facilities in British Columbia for site irrigation, washdown water, and process water; this has resulted in a significant reduction in the consumption of potable water (e.g. from $32,000/yr to $6,000/yr at the J.A.M.E.S. facility at Abbotsford). The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) recently undertook a study to evaluate options for the reuse of treated effluent; onsite reuse at
10.4.1 Agricultural Irrigation
Because effluent irrigation is regulated by the MSR, no permit is required from the B.C. Ministry of Environment (MOE). Instead, the discharger must register the intention to use the reclaimed water with the appropriate Regional Manager of MOE, and undertake the required environmental studies and effluent analyses. Municipalities intending to begin effluent irrigation must begin the process well in advance by registering their intent with the MOE. Prior to starting construction of an effluent irrigation system, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of the proposed application sites is required. The study must assess the potential impact of the effluent on the environment and human health.
The capacity of agricultural areas to accept ground disposal of reclaimed wastewater
10.4.2 Forest Irrigation
There is an extensive amount of forested land in the Revelstoke area, although much of this is located on steeply sloping terrain that is not in close proximity to the existing WWTP. The requirements and constraints associated with this option would be similar to those described above for agricultural irrigation, although the costs would be higher for forest irrigation. The Resort Municipality of Whistler Whistler considered this approach, but did not implement forest irrigation using effluent due to the high costs.
10.4.3 Reuse at Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Potential applications for reclaimed water at WWTPs include washdown water, process water (polymer mixing etc.), bioscrubber irrigation, landscape irrigation on grounds.
10.4.5 Industrial Process Water
Uses of reclaimed water are industry-specific (e.g. cooling water, concrete ready-mix). There may be potential for use at industrial locations in the study area. An inventory of local industry would be needed to assess potential reuse locations, volumes and the costs of providing providing reclaimed reclaimed water water of the necessary necessary quality. quality.
10.4.6 Landscape Impoundments and Wetlands
There may be potential for discharge of reclaimed-quality water to engineered wetland areas in the study area; these wetland areas could be designed as public amenities with walking trails and rest areas that include educational displays. Landscape impoundments could be incorporated into golf courses and parks. This option would require site-specific
distance to water supply wells (i.e. vertical and lateral permeability, distance to hydraulic boundary conditions) conditions)
10.5 10.5
Beneficial Use of Bioso lids
Potential opportunities to use biosolids within the study area include silviculture, agriculture, and land reclamation initiatives, as well as feed stock in composting operations and landfill cover. A summary of potential beneficial uses for treated biosolids would have to meet provincial standards as set out in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (see Section 9.4).
The existing Revelstoke WWTP WWTP does not incorporate biosolids treatment. Solids accumulate over time in the quiescent (settling) section of the aerated lagoon system.
The City of Campbell River maintains a hybrid poplar plantation onsite at their wastewater treatment facility; Class B biosolids produced at the plant land applied annually in liquid (under watered) form on the poplar plantation (this has also been undertaken at the Abbotsford-Mission facility using dewatered solids). solids). Harvesting of the trees when mature will help the City to recover the costs of the program. Biosolids applications to hybrid poplar plantati plantations ons are are less technically technically complicated complicated than applicatio applications ns to natural natural forest, forest, since the hybrid poplars are planted in rows with machinery access in mind.
Biosolids use in silviculture involves the application of biosolids in either a liquid (5% total solids as described above) or dewatered form (20% to 30% total solids typical) to forest stands as a slow release organic fertilizer. The application rate of biosolids depends on numerous factors, including tree species, stand age, previous stand management, soil conditions, slope, aspect, and biosolids characteristics. Biosolids applications to natural
application of Class A biosolids to agricultural land to enhance corn production for livestock feed has been undertaken by the City of Salmon Arm. The City of Prince George currently produces Class B biosolids for agricultural applications.
The potential for biosolids applications in the study area would have to be explored through meetings and consultations with local agricultural organizations. The area required to accommodate the annual biosolids output from the study area would be similar to that for silviculture (Section 10.5.1).
10.5.3 Land Reclamation
Biosolids have been used throughout the Province in the reclamation of gravel pits and mineral mines. Class B biosolids are suitable for both types types of application, provided that
Mine reclamation offers the ability ability to use large quantities of biosolids. In some cases, dewatered biosolids may be stored onsite and later applied to assist in the reclamation of tailings dams and piles. Biosolids can also be applied to waste rock rock dumps and slopes.
Operational biosolids mine reclamation programs are challenging to initiate, with mine partners usually requiring a series of monitored demonstration plots prior to the implementation of a large-scale program. Biosolids used in mineral mine mine reclamation are typically used as a dewatered product (at least 20% total solids by weight), due to long transportation distances to the mine site.
10.5.4 Topsoil Manufacture
Manufacture of topsoil (defined as biosolids growing media in OMRR) can be undertaken
Landfill sites in the study area may offer a potential for application for biosolids, depending on location and site conditions.
10.5.6 Composting Operations
Composting using digested or undigested biosolids as one component of the feed stream can be used to produce produce a more marketable marketable product than biosolids alone. Composting using undigested biosolids is undertaken by the City of Kelowna and the ComoxStrathcona Regional District on Vancouver Island among others.
Class B biosolids and/or undigested biosolids can be used for composting feedstock, and the compost produced has no restrictions or end use, provided that regulatory requirements are met (e.g., OMRR). Biosolids generally have to be dewatered before
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 11.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section contains a summary of options that are recommended for advancement to Stage 2 for evaluation and selection of the preferred option(s). The recommendations are based on consultation among the technical team, the Advisory Committees and the public (see Section 2).
2. Consider including a clause in Bylaw No. 1683-2002 setting out requirements for Discharge Permits for industrial, commercial and institutional discharges to the sanitary sewer system. This should include specifying surcharges for discharge of high strength wastes to the sanitary sewer system serving the WPCC based on the strength of the waste and the cost of treatment.
3. Consider undertaking an inventory of commercial and industrial dischargers to the sanitary sewers (and storm drainage systems), to assist in identifying potential dischargers of problem contaminants and in focusing regulatory and educational source control approaches (e.g., consideration of Codes of Practice). The inventory should coordinate with management of storm runoff.
4. Consider the development of Codes of Practice for specific categories of numerous
other purposes, from sign-up attendance sheets at public meetings, and from blanket mailings with return cards.
2. Brochures, flyers, fact sheets and newsletters can be used for providing information on project updates, updates, meetings, meetings, workshops workshops and events, events, and liquid waste managemen managementt issues issues in general. Publications should be planned in advance as a coordinated package with similar graphics and style, and should be designed to capture the readers' attention and explain the importance of the enclosed information.
3. Field trips can be used to provide first hand demonstrations of liquid waste management problems problems and solution solutionss within within a study study area. area. Field trips trips should be be carefully carefully planned planned and routes driven beforehand, and should take into account the physical condition of the participants. participants. Knowledgeable Knowledgeable speakers speakers and maps and handouts handouts should should be available available to
events. Personal contacts should be developed with members of the media for maximum effectiveness.
8. Education provided by appropriate experts to individuals can be effective in providing information about pollution problems and solutions, and in developing control strategies for a particular problem or pollution source.
9. Speaking engagements, including videos and slide shows, can be designed to inform large audiences about liquid waste problems and solutions.
10. Projects involving school children reach an important audience, and might include visiting classes, field trips, or specific projects dealing with problems within the study area.
•
Work with schools to undertake a water conservation awareness program.
•
Continue to publish the Water Works newsletter twice a year.
•
Attend the local trade show and farmers market (2-3 times a season) to provide education material and xeriscaping, landscape, irrigation, (retrofit kits, rain barrel program) program) various various conservatio conservation n initiatives initiatives,, etc.
•
Begin a “rebate program” commencing 2008. Implement a retrofit kit rebate (i.e., $75.00 per kit) and a rain barrel program (i.e., offer rain barrels at a subsidized cost). These programs would be on a first come basis, within the proposed budget. (Work with Terasen Gas and BC Hydro in a joint project (budget $10,000 per year).
•
Include bill stuffers on water conservation in the annual tax notices. ($1,500 - $2,000).
•
Establish annual and peak day reduction targets for the next five years, track daily demands and implement further conservation measures as needed.
1. Existing drainage studies and plans developed by the City should be updated and consolidated, with the ultimate objective of developing an up-to-date comprehensive Master Drainage Plan (MDP) for the the entire study area. The MDP should include consideration of land use according to the Updated Official Community Plan and drainage improvements already undertaken. The MDP should also also set priorities priorities for additional studies for individual watersheds, with the highest priority set on areas that are expected to undergo significant development or redevelopment and where sensitive environmental resources have been identified (see Item 2). Priorities for drainage planning should ensure that detailed watershed studies are conducted in advance of development. Drainage planning should include consideration of the effects of frequent small storms as well as larger, infrequent storms. Budget $100,000 for the MDP. New studies for designated (priority) areas and catchments can vary in cost from $5,000 to $50,000 or more, depending on the scope of work and
3. A storm drainage bylaw and accompanying enforcement policy should be developed, to ensure that the City has the authority to regulate all aspects of stormwater management, including flood control, erosion control, and water quality. The bylaw should consolidate drainage design criteria (see Item 2) as well as other aspects of drainage, and should also ensure that sensitive environmental resources such as fisheries streams and groundwater can be protected from spills and contaminated runoff (e.g., from commercial/industrial commercial/industrial sites). The City’s drainage design criteria for for subdivision servicing should also be reviewed, to ensure that they are in accordance with current drainage practice and regulatory requirements. Detailed criteria should be developed for both major and minor drainage systems. Budget $30,000.
4. Onsite infiltration of precipitation rather than collection and offsite conveyance of runoff should be encouraged in areas where ground conditions are shown to be
11.5 11.5
Concept Options for Wastewater Wastewater Collection and and Treatment Treatment
As described in Section 2 of this report, following extensive internal discussion and the Public Open House, the Joint Advisory Committee selected Option 1 for advancement to the Stage 2 LWMP. LWMP. Option 1 involves continuing expansion and upgrading of the the central WWTP at the existing site (see Section 10.3.1 10 .3.1 for more detail).
The JAC also identified the need to include a commitment in the LWMP for the City to carry out a formal WWTP siting study to determine if an alternative site might better serve the City’s needs for the long-term future (see Section 2.1, JAC Meeting #6).
11.6 11.6
Use of Reclaimed Water
Sampling and analysis should be undertaken in Stage 2 to evaluate the concentration of trace metals in the biosolids that were removed from the WWTP in 2006.
11.8 11.8
Energy Recovery
Treatment of wastewater and biosolids presents opportunities for energy recovery. Opportunities include combustion of the gas produced by anaerobic digestion for heating and/or generation of electrical power. Heat recovery from the raw wastewater stream is also possible. The practical application of these options depends on such factors as the size of the treatment facilities and the location of potential energy users in relation to the plant. Options for energy recovery should be addressed during the pre-design and detailed design phases for WWTP WWTP upgrades upgrades and expansions. expansions.
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1 REFERENCES
B.C. Research (1991), Urban Runoff Quality and Treatment: A Comprehensive Review, B.C. Research Corporation, March 1991. B.C. Environment (1992a). Guidelines for Developing a Liquid Waste Management Management Plan, Municipal Waste Branch, August 1992.
City of Revelstoke, Sewer Regulations Bylaw No. 1683-2002. City of the Revelstoke, Water Works newsletter, July 1997 to Fall 2006. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (1994), Ministry of Health, Sewage Disposal System Report, Dayton & Knight Ltd., Piteau Associates, January 1994. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (1998), Options for Municipal Stormwater Management Governance, for Greater Vancouver Regional District, File 113.33. Dayton & Knight Ltd., Centre for Watershed Protection, Richard Horner, and Economic and Engineering Services Inc., (1999), Best Management Practices Guide for Stormwater, for Greater Vancouver Regional District, File 113.37. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2001), Groundwater Development Plan, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.20. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2001d), Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Reclamation and Reuse Study, for Greater Vancouver Regional District, File 113.49.
Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2006e), Technical Memorandum No. 3, Sewage Treatment Plant Site Evaluation, For Revelstoke Mountain Resort and Hospital Addition to Ultimate Flow, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.40.200. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2006f), Technical Memorandum No. 4, Sewage Treatment Plant Phasing of Stage II Upgrade, For Revelstoke Mountain Resort and Hospital Addition to Ultimate Flow, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.40.200. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2007), WWTP Upgrade, Basis of Design Report, Draft No. 2, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.40.200. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2006), Arrow Heights – Sewerage Planning Study, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.42.200. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2007), Big Eddy Sewage Planning Study, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.47.200. Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2007), Water Conservation Study, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.48.
Golder Associates (2006), Clearview Heights Development and Planning Study, for the City of Revelstoke, May 2006. Golder Associates (2006). A Synthesis of White White Sturgeon Investigations in Arrow Lakes Reservoir, B.C. Report prepared for B.C. Hydro by Golder Associates. Machmer, M. and C. Steeger, 2003. Breeding Inventory and Habitat Assessment of the Great Blue Herons in the Columbia River River Basin. Report prepared for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlif Wildlifee Program. Maltby, F., 2000. Painted Turtle Nest Site Enhancement and Monitoring, Red Devil Hill Nest Site at Revelstoke, B.C. Report prepared for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlif Wildlifee Program. Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. (2006), Model Sewer Use Bylaw Development Report, Final Report, for Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, June 8, 2006. Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. (2006), Legislative Review: Sewer Use Bylaw Authorities, Final Report, for Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, March 30, 2006.
R.L. & L. 1994. Fish Habitat Utilization and Productive Capacity of the Columbia River below Revelstoke Canyon Dam. Prepared for BC Hydro, Columbia Basin Development Program, Revelstoke Dam Unit 6 project, December 1994. Sylvis (2008). Compost Facility Design Options and OMRR Compliance Requirements, by Sylvis Environmental for City of Revelstoke, March 2008 Strong Lamb and Nelson Ltd. (1973), Storm Drainage Report, for the City of Revelstoke, October 1973. Tremblay 1993. Use of the Upper Arrow Arrow Reservoir at Revelstoke, B.C. by Waterfowl and other Waterbirds. Report prepared for Friends of Mount Revelstoke and Glacier by Ellen Tremblay. Tremblay. Urban Systems Ltd. (1977), Sewerage and Drainage Study, for the City of Revelstoke, April 1977. Urban Systems Ltd. (1979), CPR Drainage Analysis, for the City of Revelstoke, January 1979. Urban Systems Ltd. (1980), Storm Drainage Funding to B.C. Hydro, February 1980
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
APPENDIX 1 LWMP TERMS OF REFERENCE
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PREPARING A LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF REVELSTOKE
OVERVIEW / BACKGROUND
The City of Revelstoke is requesting proposals from qualified Engineering Consultants to assist the community in developing a Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP). (LWMP). The LWMP will lay the groundwork for wastewater (sanitary and storm sewer) management for the nest 20-30 years. For the purposes of these these terms of reference reference “Liquid Waste” shall include both treated effluent and bio-solids from the sewage treatment plant, septage, drainage and storm water. The LWMP must consider wastewater collected by the City’s sewage collection system as well as septage generated from developed areas in
Terms of Reference for City of Revelstoke LWMP
Page 2 of 9
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
The City of Revelstoke is beginning a process to prepare a new comprehensive Official Community Plan (OCP). The City’s Planning Department is currently currently conducting a R.F.P. process (closes November 10, 2006) to recruit a Planning Consulting Team to lead that project. While that process will be conducted separately separately it is expected the Consultants will liaise with their colleagues developing the OCP and to the extent practical, incorporate their findings into the LWMP exercise. UNSERVICED AREAS
There are areas of the City not yet connected to the City’s sewage collection system. These include Arrow Heights, Big Eddy, the Mt. Mackenzie Resort Area and most of the Clearview Heights Area. ARROW HEIGHTS
In preparation for the LWMP process the City completed a Sewage Planning Study for the Arrow Heights area in May 2006. This area has the potential for significant new
Terms of Reference for City of Revelstoke LWMP
Page 3 of 9
CLEARVIEW HEIGHTS
The majority of this area is not serviced by sewer. In June 2006 the City City completed a sanitary sewer study to explore the feasibility and cost of extending the City’s sewage collection system to the area. The City received a petition petition from this neighborhood and is presently working on a possible local improvement project to service the area. In May 2006, the City completed a development study of this area to determine potential constraints on current and future development imposed by physical attributes of the terrain conditions. This study examined slope stability, stability, conditions for in-ground sewage disposal and groundwater. CONSULTATIVE PROCESS
A LWMP requires an extensive amount of consultation with the public and is coordinated through three (3) committees as noted below. The public process must also include meeting and briefings with Council, newsletters, establishing and updating a web site, announcements, newspaper articles and coordinating and attending open houses. The following three (3) committees may be established:
Terms of Reference for City of Revelstoke LWMP
Page 4 of 9
OBJECTIVES
1. To identify and review the liquid waste management alternatives that are available to the City and select technically feasible alternatives for detailed analysis. 2. To develop discharge criteria for those technically feasible liquid waste management options for the disposal or beneficial reuse of sewage treatment plant) effluent to surface water or to land. The plan must also address disposal of septage from on-site sewage disposal systems. 3. To develop criteria for collection and discharge of storm water and protection of environmentally sensitive streams. 4. To evaluate the capital and operating costs of these technically feasible liquid waste management options both from a capital cost point of view and on a cost per user annually. 5. To produce a financial strategy/model to deal with future costs. This should recognize aggregate sources of financing and revenue including potential contribution of new development, aggregate projected capital and operating costs and cash flows.
Terms of Reference for City of Revelstoke LWMP
Page 5 of 9
SCOPE OF WORK
The Consultant shall undertake this assignment at the per hour rates quoted within the scope of an upset limit fee. The Consultant will be required to undertake the development of a Liquid Waste Management Plan in general conformance with the BC Guidelines for Developing a LWMP as prepared by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. The following work shall be included in the services provided by the Consultant within the scope of the upset u pset fee: 1. Forecast the sewage collection and treatment needs and reclaimed water utilization or effluent disposal requirements for 20 - 30 years, based on population projections contained in the draft Official Community Plan. 2. Prioritize areas of existing development requiring connection to the sewer facility. Prioritization will be based on projected costs in relation to projected nutrient reduction (phosphorus and/or nitrogen), resolution of health concerns and any other projected benefits. 3. Examine all methods of sewage treatment and disposal of treated liquid waste and
Terms of Reference for City of Revelstoke LWMP
Page 6 of 9
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
7. Organize and arrange two Public Information Meetings. The first will present currently known information and possible sewage collection, sewage treatment and effluent disposal or utilization options and will solicit public ideas and input with regards to additional options. The second will present estimated costs and environmental and health benefits or concerns of the various options and will solicit public input as to the preferred option or mix of options. Options that are not feasible will be presented with the reasons as to why they are not feasible. The thrust of the public involvement efforts shall be to inform the public so that they can provide meaningful input to Council to assist them in selecting the preferred option or mix of options. 8. Prepare the Liquid Waste Management Plan in three (3) stages: Stage I
will outline possible sewage treatment and disposal methods with rough preliminary costs, including ideas received at the first public information meeting;
Stage II
will outline outline the various options with an implementation schedule. The
Terms of Reference for City of Revelstoke LWMP
Page 7 of 9
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
9. Prepare press releases and informational handouts will be required during the course of the development of the Liquid Waste Management Plan. 10. Provide unbound draft reports as required for each workshop session and 20 copies of each of the three final reports will be required. COMMITMENT
The City of Revelstoke will make available to the successful consultant at no charge, copies of any existing reports on liquid waste management, population statistics, etc. and copies of relevant existing base maps in digital d igital format. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
In addition to the upset limit fee portion of this assignment, the consultant may be required to perform additional engineering work and provide unspecified consulting engineering services directly or indirectly associated with this assignment but not included under the Term of Reference governing the upset limit fee portion.
Terms of Reference for City of Revelstoke LWMP
Page 8 of 9
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (continued)
d. The Consultant will submit monthly invoices for Engineering Services performed in the previous month showing the actual hours of effort applied under each stage of Engineering Services separately for each project component by each class of technical staff certified by the principal, fees to date, payments received, upset fee limits, and anticipate fees to completion. A progress report must accompany each invoice. Such other supporting vouchers as may reasonably be required by the City shall accompany invoices. The City shall pay for such invoices in full within thirty (30) days of receipt. If there is a dispute over any item or items in such invoice, the District shall pay in full the undisputed amount of the invoice within the time set out above. Disbursements for which the Consultant shall be entitled to reimbursement by the City shall include the following: •
•
Drawings and document reproduction for the Stages I, II and III of the LWMP (assume 20 sets of documents for each stage) Travel, accommodation and communication expenses Sub-consultant fees and expenses
Terms of Reference for City of Revelstoke LWMP
Page 9 of 9
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (continued)
g. The successful proposal will be selected on the basis of the following general criteria: 1) Capability Project manager’s experience Company experience Team quality 2) Methodology
Quality of Proposal Work plan Level of effort Innovative considerations Acceptable schedule
3) Cost
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
APPENDIX 2
SCHEDULE “A” Steering Committee:
Public Works Committee Director of Engineering (Gordon Hall/ Ross McPhee – until new Director hired) Operations Manager (Darren Komonoski) Ministry of Environment (Chris Stroich) Dayton & Knight Eng. Secretary (Debbie Williams)
Local Advisory Committee:
Representatives of:
Chamber (Chris Huitema) Septic Service Operator (Sam LeRose)
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
APPENDIX 3
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City of Revelstoke initiated the preparation of a Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) in December December 2006. In keeping with provincial provincial guidelines, the City has formed three committees committees to guide development development of the LWMP. The Steering Steering Committee includes City Councilors and staff, as well as a representative of the B.C. Ministry of Environment. The Technical Committee includes City technical staff and
Memorandum To:
City of Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan Advisory Committee
From: Dayton & Knight Ltd. Consulting Engineers Date: February 8, 2008 Re:
Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Public Open House
The Public Open House was held on December 5, 2007 at the Revelstoke Community Centre. The draft material from the Stage 1 LWMP was summarized on poster displays. The Open House was staffed by representatives of the City and by members of the consulting team, who were available for discussion and questions throughout the evening. Representatives of senior government regulatory agencies were also present. p resent. There was a summary slide presentation by
disagreed with Option 4 (new WWTP near nea r Airport). Suggestions regarding the options are listed on page 6 of the attached summary. Nearly 80% of respondents agreed that the open house material was easy to understand, with 10% disagreeing and 10% not answering this question (#10). Approximately 85% agreed that the level of information presented at the Open House was appropriate, with 5% disagreeing and 10% not answering this question (#11). Question #12 requested additional input from members membe rs of the public; the comments received are listed on page 7 of the attached summary. OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE – SUMMARY OF RESULTS (19 Questionnaires)
1.
How did you learn about the open house? City Council: 2
% 10.5
Newspaper: Newspaper:
13
% 68.4
Email:
1
% 5.3
Neighbour: Neighbour:
2
% 10.5
4.
I believe that controlling contaminants at the source to protect human health and the environment should be an important part of the Liquid Waste Management Plan.
Strongly Agree
□
11
% 57.9
Agree
□
6
% 31.6
Somewhat Agree □
2
% 10.5
□
0
% 0.0
Strongly Disagree□
0
% 0.0
□
0
% 0.0
Disagree
Not Sure
Comments: Only a priority if contaminants are a real issue.
5.
I believe that conservation of water should be an important part of the Liquid Waste Management Plan.
Strongly Agree
□
7.
I believe that all residents of the City of Revelstoke should contribute financially to an expanded and improved waste management system to pay costs generated by new development.
Strongly Agree
□
3
% 15.8
Agree
□
3
% 15.8
Somewhat Agree □
2
% 10.5
□
3
% 15.8
Strongly Disagree□
7
% 36.8
□
1
% 5.3
Disagree
Not Sure
Comments: Agree – but only if they are hooked up to the system. 8.
I believe that new development should contribute financially to an expanded and improved waste management system to pay costs generated by new development.
Strongly Agree
□
17
% 89.5
N/A ii)
0 % 0.0 Option 2: Construct a new wastewater treatment plant near the Downie Street Mill.
Strongly Agree
□
0
% 0.0
Agree
□
0
% 0.0
Somewhat Agree □
1
% 5.3
□
1
% 5.3
13
% 68.4
0
% 0.0
4
% 21.0
Disagree
Strongly Disagree□ Not Sure
□
N/A
iii)
Option 3: Construct a new wastewater treatment plant at Big Eddy.
Strongly Agree
□ □
1
% 5.3
v)
Other suggestions you have: Once lagoon is built out – any new treatment need should be located closest to the area generated. Consider using all available technology at present, make it green! Solid recovery for fertilizer, grey water separation. Across the Jorden Area All wastewater etc etc, should be treated at a wastewater treatment plant situated on the lands at the bottom of the ski hill…. hill…. That is all wastewater wastewater etc etc etc generated generated by the ski ski hill… At RMR Include Big Eddy Westside Rd. Ensure that odour control is included in scope of work & budget so co-op lands, etc. can be used for housing. West side of Columbia north of Highway 1. With Option 4 above should aid in serving Big Eddy. Use present area and expand pond for City. Have Resort build their plant on the former snowmobile track (close to City plant) and have City split the costs to have Arrow Heights sewer in with Resort. Big Eddy – any new wastewater treatment plants to be built in the future will have to be mechanical treatment with the closed lagoons. The two main concerns not addressed in the Big Eddy site is the prevailing prevailing west to to east winds winds and the leaking leaking into our our well water. water. Move plant to garbage dump on Westside Road. • •
• •
• • •
• • • •
•
•
N/A
2 % 10.5 Do you have any concerns after reviewing the information presented or discussed at the Open House and do you have any direction you would like to provide the Liquid Waste Management Plan Advisory Committee?
12.
•
•
•
•
•
•
RMR should pay more $ upfront to cover city upfront costs to expand existing sewer facility. This amount should be a lump sum to cover any expansion. Sewer system for Arrow Heights should not be delayed because most of the septic tanks have a dry well which will fail. When they fail they must be replaced with a field system as per new regulations. To install fields will disrupt house owners lots because will take up large areas. Need to tear up driveways, lawns, remove trees, etc. Sewer system will release land for more housing for which there seems to be a shortage of. Thank you. I do not feel that the impact of RMR has been adequately allowed for. They have not been _ to bear the cost of their presence. We have “given away the farm”. I would like to see this opportunity to upgrade our sewage treatment plant coupled with a resolve to bring all areas previously unserviced into the lump collection. Affordable housing can only be addressed if we address sewage service to Westside Rd., Big Eddy, and Arrow Heights. I believe RMR should be picking up the bill for this. The city of Revelstoke would not need to upgrade the sewage system to this degree if it were not for the resort. Please publicize the results of the environmental impact assessment. Please consider potential benefits of nutrient flow to offset the deficiencies from the dams. Ask the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program for advice. The concern that I have is that nowhere do I see ANY suggestions that any new treatment plant should be placed at the bottom of the ski hill where it so rightly belongs, and if my memory serves me right, that was the original plan. Why now is the City of Revelstoke in the business of doing what the ski hill was responsible for in the first place?
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
APPENDIX 4
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
APPENDIX 5
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
APPENDIX 6
Appendix 6
TABLE A-1 Downie Pump Station Compared With I nfluent WWTP, Measured Flows
01-May-2006 02-May-2006 03-May-2006 04-May-2006 05-May-2006 06-May-2006 07-May-2006 08-May-2006 09-May-2006 10-May-2006 11-May-2006 12-May-2006 13-May-2006 14-May-2006 15-May-2006 16-May-2006 17-May-2006 18-May-2006 19-May-2006 20-May-2006 21 May 2006
Pump Pump 1, Run Time Time readi eadin ng per day day hr/d hr/d 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 10 4 3 3 5 5 3 3 4 4 3 3 12 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 3 3 4 4 17 5 4 4
Flow Pump Pump 2, Run Time Time readi eadin ng per per day day pump pumpe ed 3 m /d hr/d hr/d 4 4 2,362 5 5 2,657 6 6 3,248 6 6 3,248 9 3 2,067 3 1,771 3 1,771 5 5 2,952 4 4 2,067 5 5 2,657 3 3 1,771 13 5 2,657 4 2,362 4 2,362 3 3 1,771 5 5 2,952 3 3 1,771 5 5 2,657 19 4 2,657 5 2,657 5 2 657
Flow WWTP
Difference
3
m /d 354 266 -617 -416 583 878 878 -210 1,037 -271 615 -127 168 168 1,306 -217 634 252 552 552 552
USGPD 7,176 7,724 6,951 7,482 6,999 6,999 6,999 7,245 8,200 6,305 6,305 6,685 6,685 6,685 8,130 7,228 6,355 7,685 8,479 8,479 8 479
m /d 2,716 2,924 2,631 2,832 2,649 2,649 2,649 2,742 3,104 2,386 2,386 2,530 2,530 2,530 3,077 2,736 2,405 2,909 3,209 3,209 3 209
3
Appendix 6
BOD, Grab Samples from Diff erent Laboratories (Data from Figures A-1 to A-3 are used for Figure 5-2 in report)
Laboratory CARO Environmental Services
300
250
200 ) L / g m (
Influent Effluent
150
D O B
Permitted Maximum
100
50
0 2 0 n a J
2 0 l u J
3 0 n a J
3 0 l u J
Figure A-1 Laboratory CARO Environmental Environmental Services
Lagoon Laboratory Data
4 0 n a J
4 0 l u J
5 0 n a J
5 0 l u J
6 0 n a J
6 0 l u J
7 0 n a J
Appendix 6
TABLE A-2 Lagoon Laboratory Data Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Date 16-Jan-02 18-Jan-02 25-Jan-02 01-Feb-02 08-Feb-02 15-Feb-02 01-Mar-02 13-Mar-02 15-Mar-02 27-Mar-02 05-Apr-02 12-Apr-02 26-Apr-02 03-May-02 08-May-02 17-May-02 24-May-02 31-May-02 14 Jun 02
Start Infuent Final Influent mg/l mg/l 5.91 2.68 5.55 3.02 6.12 2.06 6.23 2.44 5.12 2.90 5.69 2.43 5.11 1.18 5.32 1.45 8.73 0.95 7.15 4.52 5.51 3.19 6.40 3.35 4.74 1.21 5.86 0.98 6.99 3.52 7.05 3.11 6.64 2.79 6.09 1.29 8 84 2 32
BOD Final Influent 97.00 121.80 113.70 66.60 97.80 117.90 116.10 233.00 135.60 69.60 105.00 105.90 146.00 104.00 118.00 115.50 144.00 195 00
Start Effluent Final Effluent mg/l mg/L 5.10 1.48 4.94 4.27 6.38 4.24 6.27 4.91 5.33 4.27 5.50 4.31 4.97 3.32 6.04 3.69 8.49 4.88 6.77 4.83 5.60 4.05 6.24 4.90 5.25 4.80 5.60 3.35 5.94 4.30 7.83 2.99 6.75 2.17 5.91 3.92 8 71 2 54
BOD Final Effluent 22.00 12.80 8.16 6.36 7.14 9.90 14.10 21.60 11.64 9.30 8.40 2.72 13.50 9.80 29.00 27.50 11.90 37 00
Comments
Permitted Maximum 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Appendix 6
Date 29-May-06 05-Jun-06 10-Jul-06 13-Jul-06 18-Jul-06 20-Jul-06 01-Aug-06 03-Aug-06 15-Aug-06 17-Aug-06 03-Feb-03 03-Mar-03 01-Apr-03 05-May-03 07-Jul-03 11-Aug-03 08-Sep-03 06-Oct-03 03-Nov-03 01-Dec-03 10-Feb-04 01-Mar-04
Start Infuent Final Influent mg/l mg/l
BOD Final Influent 75 29 166 129 177 156 192 38 90 66
Start Effluent Final Effluent mg/l mg/L
BOD Final Effluent
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 13 11 16 10 10 10 13 21 14 15 13
Comments CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory CARO Laboratory Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling Outfall Sampling
Permitted Maximum 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Appendix 6
TABLE A-3 TSS, Lagoon Sampling Results (mg/L)
Samp Sample le Date Date
pH (Uni (Units ts))
03-Feb-03 03-Mar-03 01-Apr-03 05-May-03 07-Jul-03 11-Aug-03 08-Sep-03 06-Oct-03 03-Nov-03 01-Dec-03 10-Feb-04 01-Mar-04 13-Apr-04 03-May-04 19-Jul-04 09 A 04
7.26 7.53 7.41 7.16 7 7.3 7.28 7.22 6.62 7.19 7.36 7.42 7.19 7.23 7.22 7 05
Influ Influen entt
Cell# Cell#1 1 Outfa Outfall ll Cell# Cell#2 2 Outfa Outfall ll 16 12 10 23 7 7 8 4 14 11 16 13 6 5 40 38
Permitted Maximum 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Comment Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall Lagoon Outfall L O tf ll
Appendix Appendix 6
BOD, Grab Samples from Different Laboratories (Data from Figures A-2 to A-4 are used for Figure 5-2 in report)
Laboratory CARO Environmental Services
300
250
200
) L / g m ( 150 D O B
Influent Effluent Permitted Maximum
100
50
0 2 0 n a J
2 0 l u J
3 0 n a J
3 0 l u J
4 0 n a J
Figure A-2 Laboratory CARO Environmental Services
Lagoon Laboratory Data
300
4 0 l u J
5 0 n a J
5 0 l u J
6 0 n a J
6 0 l u J
7 0 n a J
Appendix 6
Nitrogen, Grab Samples
60 50 Ammonia Influent 40
Ammonia Cell 1 Ammonia Cell 2 (Effluent) (Effluent)
L / g m30 N
20 10 0 Mar-06
Apr-06
May-06
Jun-06
Jul-06
Aug-06
Figure A-5 Ammonia Influent, Cell Cell 1 and Effluent (Grab Samples)
60
Sep-06
Appendix 6
Effluent
Cell 1
Influent
14 12 10 ) L / g m ( P
8 6 4 2 0 3 0 l u J
3 0 p e S
3 0 v o N
4 0 n a J
4 0 r a M
4 0 y a M
4 0 l u J
4 0 p e S
4 0 v o N
5 0 n a J
5 0 r a M
5 0 y a M
Figure A-8 Phosphorous Concentration: Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent (Grab Samples) Influent 160
Cell 1
Effluent
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
APPENDIX 7
Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd. 513 Victoria St. Nelson, BC, V1L 4K7 Tel.: 250-352-1147
[email protected]
September 24, 2007
Allan Gibb Dayton & Knight #210-889 Harbourside Drive North Vancouver, BC V7P 3S1
RE: Revelstoke LWMP, LWMP, Review of options.
Dear Al,
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Table of Contents Table of Contents....... Contents..................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ....................... ......... i List of Photos........... Photos......................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ......................... ........... i List of Tables Tables ........................... ......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .......................ii .........ii List of Appendices...................... Appendices.................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .....................ii .......ii 1
Background.. Background................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ................ 1 1.1
Study Area ............................ .......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ......................... ........... 1
1.2
Existing Existing WWTP .......................... ........................................ ............................. ............................. ............................ ............................ .................... ...... 1
1.3
Terrestria Terrestriall Resources......... Resources....................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ................ .. 1
1.4
Aquatic Resources................... Resources......... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ................. ....... 2
1.5
Columbia Columbia River and Arrow Lakes Reservoir................ Reservoir.............................. ............................ ............................ .................... ...... 2
1.5.1
Illecillew Illecillewaet aet River ............................ .......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ....................... ......... 3
1.5.2
Bridge Bridge Cree Creek k ............................ .......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ................ .. 4
1.5.3
Williamson Williamson Lake ........................... ......................................... ............................ ............................. ............................. ......................... ........... 4
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Photo 5. View of ball fields fields from the dyke. dyke. Downie St sawmill at center right in distance. ......... 8 Photo 6. Aerial view of proposed WWTP locations in Big Eddy.................. Eddy........ ..................... ..................... .................... .......... 9 Photo 7. Big Eddy dyke with riparian area area on the left and residential area on right. .................. .......... ........ 9 Photo 8. Side channel located within the riparian area................. area...... ...................... ..................... ..................... .................... ......... 10 Photo 9. Low lying lying area area between between the the dyke dyke and the Columbia River......................... River.............. ..................... ............... ..... 10 Photo 10. Possible outfall corridor adjacent to Big Big Eddy Eddy road and bridge............. bridge.. ...................... ................... ........ 10 Photo 11. Columbia River at the Big Eddy Eddy bridge bridge is deep and fast flowing. ..................... .......... ................... ........ 10 Photo 12. Gravel bars and shallow low velocity areas areas present adjacent to west bank. bank. ............. ........... .. 11 Photo 13. Aerial of proposed WWTP location near airport. Floodplain marked in blue. ............ .......... .. 12 Photo 14. Wetlands Wetlands present present near airport. airport. ........................... ......................................... ............................ ............................ ..................... ....... 12 Photo 15. Wetlands Wetlands present present near airport airport .......................... ........................................ ............................ ........................... ....................... .......... 12 Photo 16. Gravel/sand Gravel/sand pit below hospital.............. hospital............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..................... ....... 12 Photo 17. Bank of Columbia River adjacent to airport, note mudflats. ..................... .......... ...................... ............... .... 13 Photo 18. Columbia Columbia River adjacent adjacent to Airport wetlands..................... wetlands................................... ............................ ...................... ........ 13
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
1 1.1
Background Study Area
The study area for the Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) is the City of Revelstoke Municipal boundary, which extends along the Columbia River valley bottom from the Revelstoke Dam in the north to the Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR) in the sou th (Appendix 1). The City of Revelstoke is located located in the valley created by by the Columbia River. The steep terrain of the surrounding Selkirk and Monashee Ranges limits limits expansion to the east and west. west. Most of the development within Revelstoke has occurred on the east bank of the Columbia River, the exception being the Big Eddy neighbourhood on the west bank.
1.2
Existing WWTP
Wastewater treatment within the study area includes a centrally managed wastewater treatment plant for residents in the service area, and individual septic tanks outside of the service area. The WWTP, located in east Revelstoke near Bridge Creek, services the area on the east bank of the Columbia River from from the Illecillewaet River north. Areas currently not serviced include Big Eddy, Clearview Heights, Arrow Heights, and RMR.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Highway, with Arrow Heights, Big Eddy and the area surrounding the RMR having a lower population density. However, the recent developments of the RMR will lead lead to a substantial increase in population density between the resort and Arrow Heights.
The construction of the Hugh Keenleyside dam near Castlegar in 1968 has had a large impact on the valley near Revelstoke. The Arrow Lakes Reservoir Reservoir now seasonally floods the Columbia River valley up to the Revelstoke Airport, and occasionally as far as the Revelstoke dam. This has resulted in the creation of a large wetland area centred on the airport, in what used to be predominantly farmland.
These wetlands provide provide important habitat habitat for a variety of wildlife,
notably birds (Trembley 1993, Machmer & Steeger 2003).
Riparian areas along the Illecillewaet River and the Columbia River also provide important wildlife habitat and migratory corridors. corridors. The black cottonwood riparian forests forests located along portions of the Columbia River and Illecillewaet River are of high wildlife value and should be retained. Mature black cottonwood stands are ranked by the BC Conservation Data Centre as among the rarest plant communities of the province (Egan et al. 1997).
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
white sturgeon in Canada is in the flowing section of the Revelstoke Dam tailrace, near the golf course. Sturgeon have also been recorded in Big Eddy and at the mouth of the the Illecillewaet River during the spring and summer, possibly to feed on kokanee, as they are known to aggregate at the mouth of tributaries used by kokanee for spawning. The Jordan River (near Big Eddy) and and the Illecillewaet are the largest tributaries to the Columbia River near Revelstoke and provide important kokanee spawning habitat. A spawning channel for for kokanee has been constructed on Bridge Creek, a tributary to the Illecillewaet River. River. Most of the sturgeon sturgeon in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir appear to overwinter in the Beaton Flats area, south of Revelstoke (Golder 2006). Other fish species of interest in this part of the Columbia River are burbot (Lota lota), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), rainbow trout (O mykiss), kokanee and westslope cutthroat trout (O. clarki lewisi). Fish species present in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir Reservoir and Columbia River are listed in Table 1. 1.
The Arrow Lakes Reservoir was created by the construction of the Hugh Keenleyside Dam near Castlegar in 1968. The dam is operated by B.C. Hydro and the water level may fluctuate up to 20.1 m annually, although historical fluctuations are averaged 13.4 m (Jennifer Walker-Larsen, Pers. comm.). Because of the low gradient gradient of the Columbia River River valley, the area submerged submerged by
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Table 1. Fish species species presence. presence. Columbia
burbot
mountain whitefish (Prosopium (Prosopium williamsoni )
River
bridgelip sucker (Catastomus (Catastomus columbianus )
northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus (Ptychocheilus oregonensis )
bull trout
peamouth chub (Mylocheilus (Mylocheilus caurinus )
carp (Cyprinus (Cyprinus carpio )
pygmy whitefish (Prosopium (Prosopium coulteri )
eastern brook trout (Salvelinus (Salvelinus fontinalis )
rainbow trout
kokanee
redside shiner (Richardsonius (Richardsonius balteatus )
lake chub (Couesius (Couesius plumbeus )
prickly sculpin (Cottus (Cottus asper )
lake whitefish (Coregonus (Coregonus clupeaformis )
slimy sculpin (Cottus (Cottus cognatus )
largescale sucker (Catostomus (Catostomus macrocheilus )
torrent sculpin (Cottus (Cottus rhotheus )
leopard dace (Rhinichthys (Rhinichthys falcatus )
walleye (Stizostedion (Stizostedion vitreus )
longnose dace (Rhinichthys (Rhinichthys cataractae )
westslope cutthroat trout
longnose sucker (Catostomus (Catostomus catostomus )
white sturgeon
Illecillewaet
bull trout
peamouth chub
River
eastern brook trout kokanee
rainbow trout
lake whitefish
mottled sculpin
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
on whether the stream is permanent or non-permanent, and whether the stream is fish bearing or not.
Under this regulation, a minimum buffer of 30 m from from the top of bank should be
maintained for permanent streams and fish bearing streams.
Non-permanent streams are streams that are are dry for part of the the year. These are often found in small gullies or depressions and may only flow during spring and heavy rain rain events. Even though they may be dry for part of the year, they may provide important fish habitat or contribute nutrients to fish-bearing streams. Under the RAR, a 15 m wide buffer buffer on either side of nonpermanent, non-fish bearing streams must be maintained.
1.6
Rare and Endangered Species
Within the study area, several rare and endangered species are known to occur (Appendix 2). Since at this stage only possible options for the LWMP are being tabled, a more thorough investigation of listed species likely to be impacted should be conducted once a more final decision is reached. Listed species that are known to occur in the study area include the Blue Heron (Ardea herodias herodias), Coeur d’Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis), grizzly bear
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
2.2
Upgrade/Expansion of the Existing WWTP
All of the options require that the existing WWTP be upgraded. Options 1 and 4 would also expand the existing WWTP. Options 2 and 7 would upgrade the WWTP so that it can be used until a new WWTP is constructed, at which time the existing WWTP would be abandoned. The possible options for the existing WTP are outlined in Table 3. 3.
Table 3. Summary of options for the existing WWTP. Option
Proposed Plan
Service Area
1
Expand and upgrade
Entire city including RMR
2
Upgrade for short term, then abandon
Entire city until new WWTP is constructed
3
Upgrade
Eastern Revelstoke, Arrow Heights and RMR
4
Expand and upgrade
Entire city except Big Eddy
5
Upgrade
Entire city except Big Eddy and Big Bend
6
Upgrade
Entire city except Arrow Heights and RMR
7
Upgrade for short term, then abandon
Entire city until new WWTP is constructed
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Photo 1. Wetland below below Revelstoke WWTP.
Photo 2. Wetland below Revelstoke WWTP.
Impacts due to the discharge of treated effluent will depend on the location and design of the outflow. This is addressed in section 2.6.
2.3
Mill Street WWTP
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Photo 4. View of wetland/greenspace wetland/greenspace from from the dyke.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
2.4
Big Eddy WWTP
A new WWTP in Big Eddy is proposed in Options 4 and 5. This would either service Big Eddy alone (Option 4), or Big Eddy Eddy and the northern part part of Revelstoke (Option 5). The location of the WWTP has not been determined, but possible locations are shown in Photo 6. 6.
The Big Eddy area is within the floodplain of the Columbia River and is protected by the Big Eddy dyke (Photo (Photo 7). 7). Between the dyke and the Columbia River lies a large riparian area with with a small side channel (Photo (Photo 8) 8) and several areas that are inundated at high flows (Photo ( Photo 9). 9). Stands of cottonwood interspersed with a variety variety of conifers, are present present on the higher areas. Many of the stands are young, ranging and range in height from 5-10 m, however, along either side of the dyke , particularly at the north end, more mature forest forest is present. The dyke itself is kept clear of trees with with regular maintenance. Lower lying areas areas are dominated by herbs and grasses, particularly Reeds canarygrass. canarygrass. Wildlife use in the area appears to be high, with a number of bedding sites observed in the tall grass.
The preferred location for any WWTP would be behind the Big Eddy dyke, where the WWTP
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Photo 8.
Side channel located within the
riparian area.
Photo 9. Low lying area between the dyke and the Columbia River.
This option would require an outfall to the the Columbia River. The corridor for the outfall outfall will have to pass through the riparian area in order to discharge to the river. river. The length of this corridor through the riparian area would range from 140 m, to 420 m, depending on the location, and may also need to cross the side channels located in this area. The preferred location location for the
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Photo 12. Gravel bars and shallow low velocity areas present adjacent to west bank.
An EIS would have to be performed for the outfall o utfall to determine if the receiving environment will be impacted if this option is chosen.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Photo 14. Wetlands present present near airport.
Photo 13. Aerial of proposed WWTP location near airport. Floodplain marked in blue.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Photo 17. Bank of Columbia River River adjacent adjacent to
Photo 18. Columbia River adjacent to Airport
airport, note mudflats.
wetlands.
2.6
Illecillewaet River Outfall
The discharge of treated effluent from the current outflow into the Illecillewaet River has been identified as one of the key concerns of the Ministry of Environment. Under some circumstances,
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
The area is also heavily used by the public, with a walkway running along the dyke and several trails traversing the drier areas of the greenbelt.
The length of the the corridor through the
greenbelt for the proposed outfall as outlined in Figure 10.1 would be ~ 600 m long. A raised road is present that runs from the dyke near the BC Hydro substation to the bank of the river (Photo 19, 19, 18). This provides the only suitable corridor corridor for the outfall pipe, as any other corridor would cross areas that are seasonally inundated.
An alternate location for the outfall is adjacent to the Centennial Ball Park to the north, as described in Section 2.3. 2.3. At this location, the bank of the Columbia River is ~ 35 m from the road (Photo (Photo 21), 21), minimising disturbance of the riparian area. area. This area is also higher and drier than areas further south, which may make construction of the pipeline easier, and will minimise construction related impacts. The thalweg of the Columbia River is located close to the bank at this location, and may provide better dilution than in locations further downstream where the river becomes shallower. An EIS will have to be conducted for any new outfall.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
2.8
Pump Stations
All of the options require upgrading existing pump stations and constructing new pump stations. New pump stations would be required in Arrow Height, near the Airport Way Bridge, and at Big Eddy. The exact locations of these these pump stations have not been determined, however, provided they are located in existing disturbed sites out of the riparian area, impacts should be low.
2.9
Sewer Lines
Most of the upgrades require new or upgraded upgraded sewer lines. As most existing sewer lines follow road right of ways, environmental impacts are likely to be low if these are upgraded or replaced. Separating the remaining combined sewers into storm sewers and sanitary sewers would reduce the flows to the existing WWTP. Potential new sewer lines may be required to tie in the Big Eddy, Clearview Heights, Arrow Heights and RMR neighbourhoods, and to tie in any new WWTP. The majority of these sewer lines would follow existing right of ways, and therefore would be expected to have low environmental impacts. Sewer lines proposed in the seven options that may be of concern include those that cross the Columbia or Illecillewaet Rivers, and the gravity sewer serving RMR. All of the options, except
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Photo 23.
Illecillewaet Greenbelt along the
south bank of the Illecillewaet River.
Photo 24.
Old railway bed across floodplain
and wetlands.
Option 7 also includes a crossing of the Illecillewaet River 1.2 km downstream of the Airport Way Bridge, where the old railway used to run (Photo ( Photo 25). 25). Any crossing at at this location location would impact both the river and the adjacent riparian areas, since either sewer line would have to run along the bottom of, or under, the river. The Illecillewaet River is confined at this location location by the old
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
of Williamson Lake. Several water intakes are also located immediately below the the road on two of these streams (Photo (Photo 27). 27).
Photo 26. corridor center).
Camozzi Road and power line looking
north
(small
stream
in
Photo 27.
Culvert crossing and water intake
below Camozzi Road.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
The existing outfall has been shown to have an impact on the Illecillewaet River, and most of the options address this by changing the outfall to a diffuser design, diverting peak flows to the Columbia River, or upgrading the existing WWTP.
All of the options require upgrades and addition of o f sewer lines, which should have low impacts overall if they are located in existing disturbed disturbed areas and along road right of ways. Potential river crossings may create the largest impacts, particularly if a new crossing, rather than an existing bridge, is required.
The various options are summarised in Table 4. 4.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options Table 4. Summary of options. Option 1
2
3
Description Upgrade
and
expand
Low/Moderate
New WWTP near Mill Street
Wetland and greenspace present adjacent to Columbia River
Low/Moderate
Location of proposed WWTP and outfall.
Depends on location of WTP and
Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River
outfall.
Location of new WWTP and outfall
Low/Moderate
Illecillewaet River and Columbia River outfall
Depends on location of WTP and
Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River.
outfall
Location of Big Eddy WWTPand outfall
Low/Moderate
Illecillewaet River or Columbia River outfall for existing WWTP
Depends on location of WTP and
Sewer line across Illecillewaet River
outfall
Location of Big Eddy WWTP and outfall
Low/Moderate
Upgrade
existing
WWTP,
Upgrade
existing
WWTP,
Upgrade
existing
WWTP,
new WWTP at Big Eddy
6
Illecillewaet River or Columbia River outfall Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River
new WWTP at Big Eddy
5
Impact
existing facilities
new WWTP near Mill Street
4
Potential Impacts
Upgrade
existing
WWTP,
new WWTP near airport
Illecillewaet River or Columbia River outfall for existing WWTP
Depends on location of WTP and
Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River
outfall
Location of new WWTP and outfall
High
Illecillewaet River or Columbia River outfall for existing WWTP
Depends on location of WTP and
Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River
outfall
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
4
References.
CDC 2007.
Conservation Data Centre, Centre, BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer, Explorer, Ministry of
Environment, Victoria B.C. Website available at: http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca/apps/eswp/ http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca/apps/eswp/..
Egan, B., C. Cadrin and S. Cannings. 1997. Cottonwood Riparian Ecosystems of the Southern Interior. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks factsheet. Victoria, B.C.
FISS 2007. Fish Information Information Summary Service. Golder 2002.
Middle Columbia River Fish Community Indexing Indexing Program - 2001 Phase 1
Investigations. Report prepared for B.C. Hydro by Golder Associates.
Golder 2006.
A Synthesis of White Sturgeon Investigations in Arrow Lakes Reservoir, B.C.
Report prepared for B.C. Hydro by Golder Associates.
Machmer, M and C Steeger, 2003. Breeding Inventory and Habitat Assessment of the Great Blue
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
iMapBC Mapping Legend
Study Area Boundary
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Species
BC Status
Federal Status
Potential Occurrence/ concern within project area
Species Summary
MAMMALS Unlikely Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus
Blue
Special concern
Individuals have very large home ranges. Presence is likely transitory. Unlikely
Fisher Martes pennanti Northern Long-eared Myotis
Ovis canadensis
Preferred habitat is large areas of forest with a dense understorey, preferably late successional forest. Threatened by habitat destruction and over exploitation.
Blue
No suitable habitat and unlikely to be found within City boundaries
Blue
Possible
Species requires mature to old wildlife trees for its nursery colonies and day roosts. Threats include habitat loss through logging, and hibernacula disturbance. Known to occur near Revelstoke. Revelstoke.
Blue
Extremely Unlikely
Preferred habitat is open areas from alpine to desert grasslands or shrub steppe, with nearby escape terrain. Threatened by habitat fragmentation.
Myotis septentrionalis Bighorn Sheep
Prefers a variety of forested and tundra habitat. Dens at higher elevations where snow cover is abundant and long lasting. Threatened by habitat disturbance and barriers to travel, such such as roads. Unlikely to be impacted species as it should occur within City of Revelstoke boundaries.
Unlikely Caribou Rangifer tarandus
Red
Threatened
Caribou are present in the area, but are unlikely to be found with City boundaries
Prefers high elevation old growth forest. Species has been heavily impacted by habitat destruction.
Likely Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos
BIRDS
Blue
Special concern
Individuals have very large home ranges and are known to occur within the City boundaries.
Individuals range over an extensive area where food is abundant. Generally avoids areas where human interference is likely. However, are likely to be found near the valley bottom in spring and fall.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Species Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus American Bittern Botaurus lentigiosus Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Barn Swallow Hiruno rustica Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata
BC Status
Federal Status
Blue
Special concern
Blue
Red
Potential Occurrence/ concern within project area Likely Has been recorded in the area. Unlikely
Endangered
Possible No suitable habitat
Species Summary
Habitat includes open fields, clearings and marshland. Threatened by destruction of open grassland and wetland habitat. Breeds in freshwater wetlands with abundant emergent vegetation. Nesting sites with denser vegetation providing cover form predators preferred. Most are migratory and return to BC from April to September. Breeds in open grasslands, grasslands, marshy areas and riverbanks. Breeding pairs maintain a high-fidelity to previous nesting sites. A migratory species that only inhabits area from April to September.
Blue
Unlikely
Prefers open habitat near water. Breeds in buildings, caves or cliff crevasses, usually near ceiling. Often returns to same breeding location.
Blue
Possible
Preferred breeding sites are in temperate mountain coniferous and mixed forests. Will forage in a diverse diverse range of habitats not used for nesting, including open disturbed land.
AMPHIBIANS Couer d’Alene Salamander
Blue
Special concern
Red
Endangered
Blue
Special concern
Plethodon idahoensis Northern Leopard Frog
Possible Known to occur in several locations near Revelstoke
Very dependent on moisture and lives in wet seeps, seeps, waterfall splash zones and riparian areas of streams, especially in areas with fissured bedrock. Requires body of water for breeding nearby suitable terrain for burrows. Burrows thought to occur in open grasslands or shrub steppe, and possible parkland forests.
Rana pipiens REPTILES Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta bellii
Likely Known to occur at Red Devil
Population uses airport marsh/wetland and breeds at nesting sites onRed Devil Hill. Population impacted by mortality due to road crossing.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Species
Pale Jumping Slug Hemphillia camelus
BC Status
Blue
Federal Status
Potential Occurrence/ concern within project area Possible
Jutta Arctic Oeneis jutta ssp. chermocki Rocky Mountain Snail Oreohelix strigosa Subalpine Mountain Snail
Species Summary Found in dry to moist coniferous forests where it lives on and around mossy stumps, rocks and logs and in leaf litter. Under threat due to habitat loss and fragmentation caused by logging and development. Observed in Glacier National Park.
Blue
Possible
Habitat includes wet spruce-sphagnum bogs, tundra, and grassy lodgepole-pine forests
Blue
Possible
Occurs in a wide variety of habitats, from chaparral to forests to exposed rockslides. May prefer exposed limestone outcroppings, but is known to occur on exposed sandstone also. Occurs over a wide elevation range, from 250 m to over 3,000 m.
Blue
Possible
Found in forests and sub alpine meadows in southeastern BC. Threats include habitat loss and fragmentation.
Blue
Possible
Habitat restricted to perennially perennially wet montane meadows. meadows. Known to occur in the ICHmw but nearest known location is in the North Thompson Valley.
Blue
Unlikely
Moist meadows, thickets and forest openings in the montane zone. Not known to occur in the ICHmw zone and the nearest known locations are in the Rocky Mountain Trench east of Golden.
Red
Unlikely
Rock outcrops and waste places in the montane zone. Only known to occur in Glacier National Park in the ICHvk zone.
Oreohelix subrudis VASCULAR PLANTS PLANTS Pink Agoseris Agoserislackshewitzii Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis Hairy rockcress Arabis hirsuta var hirsuta Dainty Moonwort
Marshy meadows and springy places in the montane zone. Has a wide
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Species
Potential Occurrence/ concern within project area
Species Summary
Red
Possible
Mesic, shady coniferous forests in the upper montane and lower subalpine zones. Known to occur in the ICHmw zone, but nearest location is west of the Monashees.
Red
Unlikely
Moist meadows and calcareous bogs in the montane zone. Has not been recorded in the ICHmw zone and the only known locations are on the east side of the Selkirk Mountains.
Blue
Possible
Streamsides and ponds in the montane to alpine alpine zones. Widely distributed in BC and has been recorded north of Revelstoke, however it is not known to occur in the ICHmw zone.
Red
Possible
Prefers wet meadows, sandy beaches and marsh edges in the montane zone. Distributed throughout the southern interior and occurs in the ICHmw zone. Nearest known location is near Nakusp.
Blue
Likely
Mesic sites in the montane zone. Known to occur in the ICHmw zone on Upper Arrow Lake near Revelstoke
Blue
Unlikely
Mesic to dry meadows, shorelines and open forests in the montane zone. Has a wide distribution in BC but is not known known to occur in the IChmw zone and the nearest known location is near Nelson.
Blue
Unlikely
Typically occurs near streambanks and moist meadows in sagebrushgrassland settings. In BC, it is predominately found in the southeast southeast corner; howeververy little information is available on the distribution in the remainder of BC.
Red
Unlikely
Dry waste places in the montane zone. Not known to occur in the ICHmw zone. Nearest known location is on Lower Arrow Lake.
BC Status
Federal Status
Mountain Moonwort Bptrychium montanum Crawe’s Sedge Carex crawei Enander’s Sedge Carex lenticularis var. dolia Lakeshore Sedge Carex lenticularis var. lenticularis Peduncled Sedge Carex pedunculata Tender Sedge Carex tenera Slender paintbrush Castilleja gracillima Dark Lamb’s-quarters Chenopodium atrovirens Montana Larkspur
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Species Slender Spike-rush Eleocharis elliptica Small-fruited Willowherb Epilobium leptocarpum
Potential Occurrence/ concern within project area
Species Summary
Blue
Possible
Dry to moist calcareous openings, often in barren or only seasonably moist conditions. Very little information available about this species. It is known to occur in the ICHmw zone.
Blue
Likely
Habitat includes streambanks and moist open forests in the montane and alpine zones. This species is widely distributed in BC and is known to occur in the ICHmw zone near Revelstoke.
Blue
Possible
Wet shorelines, swamps, bogs, fens, ditches and meadows from the lowland to subalpine zones. Known to occur in the ICHmw zone, zone, but has not been recorded near Revelstoke.
Red
Likely
Moist meadows and seepage sites in the montane zone. Occurs in the ICHdw zone and has been recorded near Salmo.
Red
Unlikely
Wet to moist fens, meadows and streamsides in the montane zone. Not known to occur in the ICHmw zone and has only been recorded near Field.
Blue
Unlikely
Moist sites in the lowland, montane and subalpine zones. Has not been observed in the ICHmw zone and the nearest known locations are on the east side of the Selkirk Mountains.
Blue
Possible
Lakeshores in the lowland and montane zones. Widely distributed in southeast BC and is known to occur in the ICHmw zone, but has not been observed near Revelstoke.
BC Status
Federal Status
Small Bedstraw Galium trifidum ssp. ssp. trifidum Dwarf Hesperochiron Hesperochiron pumilus Macoun’s Fringed Gentian Gentianopsis macounii Western St. John’s wort Hypericum scouleri ssp nortoniae Water Marigold Megalodonta beckii var. beckii
Habitat includes moist forests in the lowland and montane zones.
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Species
Potential Occurrence/ concern within project area
Species Summary
Blue
Unlikely
Wet to moist mineral-rich or calcareous meadows, streambanks, bogs, irrigation ditches, lake margins, and hot springs in the steppe and montane zones. zones. Probably requires specialize specialize habitat. Known to occur in the ICHmw zone, but has not been observed near Revelstoke.
Blue
Likely
Moist to mesic roadsides, clearings, thickets and forest edges in the lowland and montane zones. Occurs in the ICHmw zone and has been observed near Revelstoke.
Red
Likely
Dry grasslands, shrublands and forest openings in the steppe and lower montane zones. Has been observed near Revelstoke in the ICHmw zone.
Red
Possible
Moist meadows, streambanks and forest openings in the montane zone. Has been observed in the ICHmw zone but nearest locations are in the Rocky Mountain Trench. May prefer warmer warmer and drier climates.
Blue
Unlikely
Mesic to dry grasslands and forest openings in the lower montane zone. Occurs in the ICHmw zone but is likely to prefer warmer and drier subzones.
Unlikely
Wet to moist meadows and streambanks in the montane zone. Has not been observed in the ICHmw zone and is likely to prefer warmer and drier climates. Nearest known location is on the west side of the Monashee Range.
Unlikely
Wet meadows, streambanks streambanks and woodlands in the montane zone. Has not been observed in the IChmw zone and is likely to prefer warmer and drier climates. Nearest recorded occurrence is on the east side of the Selkirk Mountains near Golden.
BC Status
Federal Status
Marsh Muhly Muhlenbergia glomerata Lance-leaved Figwort Scrophularia lanceolata Oregon Checkermallow Sidalcea oregana var. var. procera Smooth Goldenrod Solidago gigantean spp. spp. serotina Field Goldenrod Solidago nemoralis ssp. longipetiolata Blunt-sepaled starwort
Blue
Stellaria obtusa Purple meadowrue Thalictrum dasycarpum
Blue
Mesic to moist meadows and grasslands in the montane zone. Has not
Revelstoke LWMP – Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options
Species
Potential Occurrence/ concern within project area
Species Summary
Blue
Unlikely
Bogs, lakeshores and wet meadows in the montane and subalpine zones. Has been observed over a wide range in BC but is not known to occur in the ICHmw zone. Nearest recorded occurrence is in the Rocky Mountains near Vermillion Pass.
Red
Likely
Habitat includes wet to mesic, sandy sites in the lowland, steppe and montane zones. Has been observed near Revelstoke in the ICHmw zone.
BC Status
Dwarf Clubrush Trichophorum pumilum Cup Clover Trifolium cyathifelum
Federal Status
NON-VASCULAR PLANTS Haller’s Apple Moss Bartramia halleriana Margined
Threatened
Unlikely
Habitat preference includes rocky outcrops, crevices and cliffs in southern BC. Only records of this species are well well north of Revelstoke.
Endangered
Unlikely
Only one population found in the Kootenays near the US border. Habitat preference includes areas along stream margins and on wet rocky substrates.
Extremely Unlikely
Habitat preference is humid old growth forests found in southern BC. Unlikely to occur within the City of Revelstoke as most of the forest is second growth.
Streamside
Moss Scouleria marginata Cyrptic Paw
Special
Nephroma occultum
Concern
CITY OF REVELSTOKE LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN – STAGE 1
APPENDIX 8