You are on page 1of 272

CITY OF REVELSTOKE

LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - STAGE 1

MAY 2008

DAYTON & KNIGHT LTD.


Consulting Engineers

1.50.200

THIRD PARTY DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT


This document has been prepared by Dayton & Knight Ltd. for the benefit of the client to whom it is
addressed. The information contained in this document represents Dayton & Knight Ltd.s best
professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to Dayton & Knight Ltd. at the
time of its preparation. Except as required by law, this document is to be treated as confidential and may
be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. Dayton & Knight Ltd. denies any
liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this document for any injury, loss or
damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, the document or any of its
contents without the express written consent of Dayton & Knight Ltd. and the client.
This document is for the sole use of the addressee and Dayton & Knight Ltd. This document contains
proprietary and confidential information that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or
discussed with any other parties without the express written permission of Dayton & Knight Ltd.
Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of Dayton & Knight Ltd. in
accordance with Canadian Copyright Law.

1.50.200

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1
1.0

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1


1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

2.0

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ........................................................................................... 2-1


2.1
2.2

3.0

Committee Meetings............................................................................................ 2-1


Public Information Meetings ............................................................................... 2-3

EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND


POPULATION ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

4.0

Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1


LWMP Process and Objectives ........................................................................... 1-4
Scope of Work ..................................................................................................... 1-6
Conduct of Study ................................................................................................. 1-9
Acknowledgements............................................................................................ 1-10

Wastewater and Drainage Facilities Planning ..................................................... 3-1


Official Community Plan..................................................................................... 3-2
Service Population Projections ............................................................................ 3-5
Unserviced Areas ................................................................................................. 3-7
3.4.1 Arrow Heights.......................................................................................... 3-7
3.4.2 Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR) ....................................................... 3-8
3.4.3 Big Eddy .................................................................................................. 3-9
3.4.4 Clearview Heights, CPR Hill................................................................... 3-9

EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES.................................................................... 4-1


4.1
4.2
4.3

Collection System ................................................................................................ 4-1


Pump Stations ...................................................................................................... 4-2
Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................. 4-4

Page i

1.50.200 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.)

4.4
4.5
4.6

5.0

EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY ....... 5-1


5.1
5.2
5.3

5.4
5.5
6.0

Wastewater Flow Rates........................................................................................ 5-2


Wastewater Quality.............................................................................................. 5-4
Inflow and Infiltration.......................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.1 Municipal Sewage Regulation ................................................................. 5-7
5.3.2 I&I Studies ............................................................................................... 5-8
Biosolids Quantity and Quality............................................................................ 5-9
Onsite Systems and Commercial/Industrial Wastewater..................................... 5-9

CAPACITIES OF LAND AND WATER TO ACCEPT WASTE .................................. 6-1


6.1
6.2

6.3
6.4
6.5

6.6
7.0

4.3.1 Treatment Facilities ................................................................................. 4-4


4.3.2 Discharge Permit...................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.3 WWTP Engineering Audit, 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............................................................ 4-10
Solids Handling and Treatment ......................................................................... 4-11
4.6.1 Septage................................................................................................... 4-11
4.6.2 Biosolids ................................................................................................ 4-12

Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................................... 6-1


Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.1 Columbia River and Arrow Lakes Reservoir .......................................... 6-3
6.2.2 Illecillewaet River.................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.3 Bridge Creek ............................................................................................ 6-6
6.2.4 Williamson Lake...................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.5 Other Streams........................................................................................... 6-6
Rare and Endangered Species.............................................................................. 6-7
Discharges to Surface Waters .............................................................................. 6-8
Application to Land ............................................................................................. 6-9
6.5.1 Onsite (Ground Disposal) Systems.......................................................... 6-9
6.5.2 Spray Irrigation of Reclaimed Water..................................................... 6-12
Official Community Plan................................................................................... 6-12

SOURCE CONTROL AND WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION ................................... 7-1


7.1

Source Control ..................................................................................................... 7-1


7.1.1 Source Control Bylaw.............................................................................. 7-2
7.1.2 Inspection and Monitoring....................................................................... 7-9
7.1.3 Penalties and Fines................................................................................... 7-9
7.1.4 Surcharges................................................................................................ 7-9

Page ii

1.50.2002008

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.)

7.2
9.0

PLAN CRITERIA............................................................................................................ 9-1


9.1
9.2
9.3

9.4
9.5
9.6

10.0

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............................................ 7-12
Wastewater Volume Reduction ......................................................................... 7-12

Population ............................................................................................................ 9-1


Wastewater Quantity............................................................................................ 9-1
Discharges to Surface Water................................................................................ 9-2
9.3.1 Provincial Regulations and 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
9.6.1 Permits, Approvals and Operational Certificates .................................. 9-10
9.6.2 Organic Matter Recycling Regulation ................................................... 9-11

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES............................................... 10-1


10.1
10.2
10.3

10.4

Wastewater Treatment Technologies................................................................. 10-2


Biosolids Treatment Technologies .................................................................... 10-3
Preliminary Wastewater Collection and Treatment Alternatives for the
City of Revelstoke ............................................................................................. 10-4
10.3.1 Option 1 Expand and Upgrade Existing WWTP to Accommodate
Entire Service Area ................................................................................ 10-4
10.3.2 Option 2 Construct New WWTP Near Mill to Accommodate
Entire Service Area ................................................................................ 10-5
10.3.3 Option 3 Construct New WWTP Near Mill and Upgrade Existing
WWTP ................................................................................................... 10-6
10.3.4 Option 4 Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct a New WWTP
to Serve Big Eddy .................................................................................. 10-7
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.............................................................................................. 10-8
10.3.6 Option 6 Construct New WWTP Near Airport and Upgrade
Existing WWTP ..................................................................................... 10-8
10.3.7 Option 7 Construct New WWTP Near Airport to Accommodate
Entire Service Area ................................................................................ 10-9
10.3.8 All Options........................................................................................... 10-10
10.3.9 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ 10-10
Use of Reclaimed Water .................................................................................. 10-13

Page iii

1.50.2002008

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.)

10.5

11.0

10.4.1 Agricultural Irrigation.......................................................................... 10-14


10.4.2 Forest Irrigation ................................................................................... 10-15
10.4.3 Reuse at Wastewater Treatment Facilities........................................... 10-15
10.4.4 Landscape and Golf Course 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........................................................................................... 10-17
10.5.2 Agriculture ........................................................................................... 10-18
10.5.3 Land Reclamation ................................................................................ 10-19
10.5.4 Topsoil Manufacture............................................................................ 10-20
10.5.5 Landfill................................................................................................. 10-20
10.5.6 Composting Operations ....................................................................... 10-21

RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... 11-1
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8

Recommended Approach for Source Control.................................................... 11-1


Wastewater Volume Reduction ......................................................................... 11-4
Stormwater Management ................................................................................... 11-5
Design Criteria ................................................................................................... 11-7
Concept Options for Wastewater Collection and Treatment ............................. 11-8
Use of Reclaimed Water .................................................................................... 11-8
Beneficial Use of Biosolids ............................................................................... 11-8
Energy Recovery................................................................................................ 11-9

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................1

APPENDICES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

LWMP Terms of Reference


Steering Committee, Technical and Local Advisory Committee Members
Public Advertising and Open House Material
Discharge Permits for City of Revelstoke and Queen Victoria Hospital
Sample Source Control Educational Materials
WWTP Operating Data
Preliminary Environment Assessment by Masse Miller Consulting Ltd.
Preliminary Hydrogeological Assessment by Golder Associates

Page iv

1.50.2002008

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.)

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
9-3
9-4
10-1
10-2
11-1

Population Growth in The City of Revelstoke................................................................. 3-6


Pump Stations .................................................................................................................. 4-3
WWTP Design Data ........................................................................................................ 4-3
WWTP Influent Flows 2000 to 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.............................. 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.......... 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
Reclaimed Water Category And Permitted Uses............................................................. 9-8
OMRR Trace Metals Limits .......................................................................................... 9-13
Summary of Environmental Impacts of Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Options......................................................................................................................... 10-12
Area and Storage Requirements for Agricultural Irrigation Using Reclaimed
Water .......................................................................................................................... 10-14
Summary of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Options ........................................ 11-9

LIST OF FIGURES
3-1

Existing Land Use

4-1
4-2
4-3

Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Serviced and Unserviced Areas


Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Existing Wastewater Facilities
Wastewater Treatment Options

5-1
5-2

Flow Monitoring February 21 to April 17, 2006


BOD, Influent and Effluent 2002 to 2006 (Grab Samples from different data sets, see
Appendix 6)
TSS, Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent 2002 to 2006 (Grab Samples from different data sets, see
Appendix 6)

5-3

6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4

Hydrology
Areas of Environmental Value
Aquifers in Revelstoke
Stage 1 Liquid Waste Management Plan Suitability for Ground Disposal of Wastewater

Page v

1.50.2002008

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd.)

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 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 WWTP
Option 4 Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct New WWTP to Serve Big Eddy
Option 5 Expand and Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct New 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 Service Area

10-6
10-7

Page vi

1.50.2002008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) is to lay the groundwork for
wastewater management over the next 20 to 30 years. The LWMP must address 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 Plan (OCP) to address planned new
development and the resulting service area expansions. 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 between the two planning processes, liaison between the
LWMP consulting team and the team updating the OCP was ongoing throughout the project.

The LWMP was developed using the Guidelines produced by the B.C. Ministry of Environment
(MOE). In accordance with provincial guidelines, the LWMP includes consideration of source
control of contaminants, wastewater volume reduction, stormwater management, wastewater
collection and treatment, and beneficial reuse of treated wastewater and residual solids.

The Guidelines for developing a LWMP produced by the MOE require a three-stage process,
each involving meaningful public consultation. Stage 1 includes identification of existing
conditions, development projections, and consideration of a range of treatment, reuse and
disposal options. The treatment, reuse and disposal options that pass an initial technical
evaluation and public review are advanced to Stage 2 for more detailed evaluation. Finally, the
selected option is described and costed, the implementation schedule is developed, and draft
Operational Certificates are prepared in Stage 3. When the Stage 3 LWMP is approved by the

Page ES-1

1.50.2002008

Ministry of Environment (MOE), the local government has the authority to implement the 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 is
essential, since there is no 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
with preparation of the LWMP. The consulting team included specialty assistance from subconsultants in the fields of environmental protection (Masse Miller Consulting Ltd. of Nelson,
B.C.), and hydrogeological services (Golder Associates Ltd. of Kamloops, B.C.).

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), which
discharges secondary-treated effluent to the Illecillewaet River. Currently unserviced areas with
development potential were also included in the study area. Development projections provided by
the City and the OCP update team were used to develop projected wastewater flows to the year
2026 and to ultimate build-out capacity; these were used to develop design options for
wastewater collection and treatment in the study area.

If the existing WWTP is to continue in use for the long term, upgrading of this facility will be
required to address development. The City recently evaluated the potential for relocating the
central WWTP. The LWMP included a review of this process, and evaluation of the feasibility
of developing one or more additional sites for WWTPs to serve all or part of the City. The
Project Team and the Joint Advisory Committee developed a short list of draft options for

Page ES-2

1.50.2002008

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 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 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 Citys needs 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
facilities at the present location. The expanded treatment plant can potentially serve the entire
City of Revelstoke, including Big Eddy, Clearview Heights, and Arrow Heights, as well as
Revelstoke Mountain Resort. The existing aerated lagoon treatment system will have to be
converted to a more space efficient process as flows increase. The trunk sewer system and its
pump stations will also have to be expanded. A new outfall to the Columbia River may have to
be constructed, depending on the results of environmental impact studies.

Options for stormwater management that were recommended for advancement to Stage 2 were to
undertake the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for the City, incorporate protection of
environmental resources into drainage planning (e.g., aquifers, stream corridors, etc.), develop a
storm drainage bylaw and enforcement policy, encourage on-site infiltration of precipitation,
develop a containment source control program, and conduct an inventory of potential
contaminant sources.

The feasible option for reclaimed water use that was selected for advancement to the Stage 2
LWMP was reuse at the wastewater treatment facility for non-potable applications.

Page ES-3

1.50.2002008

Biosolids use options that were selected for advancement to the Stage 2 LWMP were identified to
be manufacture of compost and reclamation of disturbed land or contaminated sites. The City is
planning to construct a composting facility at the Jordan Pit that will process waste 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 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 upgrades and expansions.

Page ES-4

1.50.2002008

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
Management Plan (LWMP). Preparation of a LWMP is a timely project for the City,
since it provides the community with an opportunity to review past wastewater
management decisions, and to reassess future plans in light of updated data bases and
new environmental regulations.

As set out in the Terms of Reference (attached as Appendix 1), the City of Revelstoke
LWMP is to lay the groundwork for wastewater management over the next 20 to 30
years, including centralized treatment and disposal or reuse of wastewater, management
of solid residuals (biosolids), and treatment of septage from unserviced areas within and
outside the municipal boundary. The LWMP must also address the possibility of
increasingly stringent discharge standards in the future.

Guidelines for developing a LWMP were produced in 1992 by the B.C. Ministry of
Environment (MOE). The City has specified that the LWMP be developed using the MOE
Guidelines. These Guidelines typically serve as an adjunct to the terms of reference for a
LWMP. The Guidelines encompass municipal and industrial wastewater, urban storm run-

Page 1-1

1.50.2002008

off, septage, solid residuals, and reuse or recycling of treated wastewater and solid
residuals.

The LWMP must address 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 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
between the two planning processes, liaison between the LWMP consulting team and the
team updating the OCP was ongoing throughout the project.

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), which discharges secondary-treated effluent to the Illecillewaet River.
Currently unserviced areas with development potential (e.g. Arrow Heights, Big Eddy,
RMR) are also included in the study area. Options such as independent community
(satellite) treatment plants for new developments, on-site systems, reclamation/reuse of
treated effluent, and expansion/upgrading of the existing WWTP were considered in the
LWMP.

Considerable development is expected to occur in the near future at RMR. The City
recently completed a formal agreement to accept the Resorts wastewater at the Citys
WWTP. Since the trunk sewer will pass through the Arrow Heights area, this will facilitate
servicing of Arrow Heights. The Big Eddy area has poor drainage conditions and is
potentially unsuitable for ground disposal of wastewater. Sewer servicing of this area

Page 1-2

1.50.2002008

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 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
includes an evaluation of the suitability of on-site systems for designated sectors of the
study area, and an evaluation of the environmental impacts of ground disposal of effluent,
as well as alternatives for management of septage.

The most important aspect of the LWMP from the standpoint of the MOE (Nelson office) is
the discharge of treated wastewater to the Illecillewaet River. Consideration will be given
in the LWMP to relocating the discharge to the Columbia River. Additional MOE
objectives include sewer servicing of Arrow Heights, RMR and the local hospital, longterm management of septage, and composting of waste solid residuals at the Regional
District Landfill.

If the existing WWTP is to continue in use for the long term, upgrading of this facility will
be required to address development. The City recently evaluated the potential for
relocating the central WWTP, and the most cost-effective approach was determined to be to
continue at the existing WWTP site. The LWMP includes a review of this process, and
evaluation of the feasibility of developing one or more additional sites for satellite WWTPs
to serve outlying areas. The satellite WWTP site(s) could potentially be expanded in future

Page 1-3

1.50.2002008

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 run-off be included in a LWMP. Urban
development generally results in reduced infiltration of precipitation and increased surface
run-off. This tends to cause greater erosion and sedimentation in streams, as well as
reduced groundwater replenishment, which in turn leads to lower dry season water levels in
lakes and streams. In addition, contaminants associated with urban and agricultural
activities often become incorporated into surface run-off, and can adversely affect water
quality. Comprehensive drainage planning and watershed management are typically
outside the scope of a LWMP, however these processes should be coordinated with relevant
aspects of the LWMP.

1.2

LWMP Process and Objectives

The Guidelines for developing a LWMP produced by the MOE require a three-stage
process, each involving meaningful public consultation (B.C. Environment, 1992a).
Stage 1 includes identification of existing conditions, development projections, and
consideration of a range of treatment, reuse and disposal options. The treatment, reuse
and disposal options that pass an initial technical evaluation and public review are
advanced to Stage 2 for more detailed evaluation. Finally, the selected option is
described and costed, the implementation schedule is developed, and Draft Operational

Page 1-4

1.50.2002008

Certificates are prepared in Stage 3. When the Stage 3 LWMP is approved by the
Ministry of Environment (MOE), the local government has the authority to implement
the Plan. Permits are cancelled in favour of Operational Certificates 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 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 Citys LWMP was developed by the combined
efforts of the Steering Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the Local
Advisory Committee as summarized below.

Steering Committee: The objective of the Steering Committee is to provide overall


direction for the preparation of the plan. Participants are the City of Revelstoke
(Council member and staff representative), and a Ministry of Environment (MOE)
representative.

Technical Advisory Committee: The objective of the Technical Advisory Committee is


to address technical and regulatory issues, develop design criteria, and to provide
technical input and assist in developing technically sound solutions and
recommendations. Participants include municipal staff and representatives from
senior government agencies including the MOE, the Ministry of Community
Services, the Ministry of Health, and others as applicable (e.g. Environment Canada).

Local Advisory Committee: The objective of the Local Advisory Committee is to


provide input on all aspects of the LWMP process from a community perspective,
focusing on the anticipated acceptability of various options and providing ongoing
liaison with the public. Invited participants include the City of Revelstoke, and

Page 1-5

1.50.2002008

members of the public that represent a cross-section of local interests (e.g. local
businesses, rate payers associations, environmental groups, School District, 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. The City
elected to combine the Technical and Local Advisory Committees for preparation of this
LWMP. The Joint Committee 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 Minister. Furthermore, the bylaw
to adopt the LWMP does not require the assent of the electors. A full range of possible
alternatives should be investigated and presented in an easy-to-understand format, clearly
showing their advantages or disadvantages. The process is intended to give the public
open access to liquid waste planning within the community.

1.3

Scope of Work

The terms of reference (contained in Appendix 1) required the following scope of work for
the City of Revelstoke LWMP.

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.

Page 1-6

1.50.2002008

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
courses and streams in accordance with the Ministry of Environment guidelines and
regulations. Examine all methods of storm water management, including those that
may be suggested by the public for technical practicality and cost. The options
should indicate any proposed potential storm water retention areas and guidelines for
development adjacent to sensitive streams.

Organize Workshops or Focus Group Sessions, with technical representatives from


the appropriate federal and provincial agencies to discuss the LWMP Draft.

Organize and arrange two Public Information Meetings. 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.

Prepare the LWMP in the following three (3) stages:

Page 1-7

1.50.2002008

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 be solicited to assist
Council in selection of the preferred option;

Stage 3

will be a short overview report, which will contain an executive summary


which gives the selected option or mix of options. The executive summary
must include an overview of the process followed, the options considered,
the reasons why options were discarded and the reasoning behind the
selection of the preferred option. Any necessary draft bylaws to be
prepared or other follow-up action needed is to be tabulated, with those
who will be taking the follow-up action clearly identified.

Both the final Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports are to include a summary of public
participation for that stage, to assure the Ministry of Environment that an appropriate
level of public participation has occurred during the development of the LWMP.

Provide provincial/federal representatives with the appropriate technical details


required to permit pollution prevention staff to prepare the Operational Certificate
which will replace the Waste Management Permit once the LWMP has been signed
by the Minister of Environment.

Page 1-8

1.50.2002008

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

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.

Information advertisements were published in the local newspaper to advise the public
about the LWMP, and to invite participation from the public and from local stakeholder
groups as members of the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC). The meetings of the JAC were
open to the general public.

A consulting team led by Dayton & Knight Ltd. was retained by the City to assist the
project team responsible for providing the technical input and analysis for the study. The
team included specialty assistance from sub-consultants in the fields of environmental
protection (Masse Miller Consulting Ltd. of Nelson, B.C.), and hydrogeological services
(Golder Associates Ltd. of Kamloops, B.C.).

The work was initially undertaken through the development of a series of draft chapters for
the Stage 1 report. The draft chapters were circulated to the members of the LWAC for
review. After a review period, the draft material was discussed at follow up meetings of the
Joint Advisory Committee; the draft material was then revised as required based on
discussion at the meetings and written comments from committee members. After approval

Page 1-9

1.50.2002008

by the Joint Advisory Committee, the draft material was presented at the Public 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.

Page 1-10

1.50.2002008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
2.0

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Effective public consultation is essential to the success of the 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
Citys website, press releases, committee meetings and a Public Open House. A summary of the
public consultation program undertaken during the LWMP is outlined in this section.

2.1

Committee Meetings

As described in Section 1.2, the MOE guidelines (B.C. Environment, 1992a) require the
City of Revelstoke to strike Advisory Committees to administer the development of the
LWMP. A summary of the meetings of the Advisory Committees is provided below.

1.

Steering Committee Meeting No. 1

Steering Committee Meeting No. 1 was held on March 15, 2007 to initiate the
Stage 1 work. Items presented and discussed with the Technical Advisory
Committee at Meeting No. 1 included LWMP process, the roles of the Advisory
Committees, meeting protocols, review of the project work plan and schedule,
and Committee membership.

Page 2-1

1.50.2002008

2.

Joint Advisory Committee Meeting No. 1

Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) Meeting No. 1 was held on May 9, 2007.
Committee terms of reference, meeting protocols, role of committees and means
of defining consensus were reviewed with the members of 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
30% draft report, which included the study area description, existing and
projected development and waste volumes, source control, wastewater volume
reduction, and stormwater management.

4.

Joint Advisory Committee Meeting No. 3

JAC Meeting No. 3 was held on October 10, 2007. The primary objective of
Meeting No. 3 was to discuss and develop draft options for wastewater collection
and treatment, and to identify which options should be advanced for public
consultation with the community at large. Seven concept designs were
considered. After extended discussion, it was agree that an additional committee
meeting (No.4) would be needed to reach a decision.

5.

Joint Advisory committee Meeting No. 4

JAC Meeting No. 4 was held on October 24, 2007; this meeting was an extension
of Meeting No. 4 (see above). The JAC developed a list of advantages and

Page 2-2

1.50.2002008

disadvantages for each of the seven concept options. It was agreed that an aerial
map showing the committees preferred option along with the alternate WWTP
sites associated with the other concept options would be presented for discussion
at the Public Open House. The Committees 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

JAC Meeting was held on February 18, 2008, to discuss the results of the Public
Open House and to finalize Stage 1 of the LWMP (the Open House results are
summarized in Section 2.2 below). The updated Arrow Heights Sewerage
Servicing Plan and the Big Eddy Sewerage Planning Study were also presented to
the JAC. It was determined at JAC Meeting No. 5 that Option 1 (existing
treatment plant site) would be advanced to the Stage 2 LWMP, and the other
concept options would be dropped. However, it was agreed that the LWMP would
include a commitment by the City to carry out a formal WWTP siting study to
determine if an alternate WWTP site might better serve the Citys needs for the
long-term future (i.e., 50+ years).

2.2

Public Information Meetings

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

Page 2-3

1.50.2002008

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
(Question #1). Most of the Citys neighbourhoods were represented by at least one
respondent (Question #2), with nearly 70% of respondents being serviced by septic
tank/ground disposal systems, and the remainder connected to sewer (Question #3).
Source control of contaminants was supported by 100% of respondents (Question #4).
Water conservation (Question #5) and beneficial use of biosolids (Question #6) were
supported by 95% of respondents.

Question #7 asked whether all residents of the City should contribute financially to an
expanded and improved waste management system to pay the costs generated by new
development; 42% of respondents supported this, with 53% disagreeing and 5% not sure.
All respondents agreed that new development should contribute financially to an
expanded and improved waste management system to pay the costs generated by new
development (Question #8).

Question #9 asked for input regarding the wastewater collection and treatment options.
Option 1 (expand and upgrade existing WWTP at present location) was supported by
90% of respondents. Approximately 74% of respondents disagreed with Option 2 (new

Page 2-4

1.50.2002008

WWTP near Downie Street Mill), 63% disagreed with Option 3 (new WWTP at Big
Eddy), and 58% disagreed 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 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 of the public; the comments
received are listed on page 7 of the summary contained in Appendix 3.

During the course of the LWMP work display advertisements and news articles will be
published in the local media to keep citizens informed on the progress of the work and to
notify citizens of Committee meetings and Open Houses. These documents are included
in Appendix 3.

Page 2-5

1.50.2002008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
3.0

EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND


POPULATION

3.1

Wastewater and Drainage Facilities Planning

Wastewater and drainage facilities must be planned for the long-term future. Long term
planning particularly applies to the selection and siting of wastewater treatment plants
and the main interceptor and trunk sewers that lead to the plants. A lack of long term
planning may lead to the need to duplicate gravity interceptors, trunk sewers, and storm
drains at great expense well before the useful life of these pipelines has expired. Should
a treatment plant site become too small for future development or should the site become
inappropriate with respect to future development, then substantial costs and public
opposition may be incurred to reconstruct interceptors and trunk sewers and to locate a
new plant site.

It is generally accepted in the municipal wastewater field that treatment plant sites should
be secured for a 50 to 100 year planning horizon, or the full development of the service
area. Interceptors and trunk sewers are generally sized for a minimum 40 year design
period, while pumped mains are generally restricted by hydraulic conditions to a 20 year
design period before duplication is needed.

Land use planning and development also has an impact on stormwater management.
Development tends to increase the amount of impervious land area, reducing the amount

Page 3-1

1.50.2002008

of rainwater that infiltrates into the ground, and increasing the amount of 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

Official Community 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
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
as part of the OCP.

The OCP for the City of Revelstoke from 1996 and other relevant information were
reviewed during the Stage 1 LWMP, to determine land use planning and population
growth projections in the study area. A twenty-year planning horizon to 2026 was
adopted for the LWMP. The study area boundary and land use planning within the study
area according to the OCP are shown on Figure 3-1. Currently the OCP is undergoing an
update. Available information from the update was included in the LWMP as it became
available.

The City of Revelstoke includes residential as well as industrial, commercial and


institutional (ICI) development, with the largest industries being Downie Street Sawmills
Ltd. located in South Revelstoke, Joe Kozek Sawmills Ltd. located in Arrow Heights, and
some forestry activities and the hydroelectric complex located on the Westside Road.
Residential development is mainly single family, with some multi-family. Future
development is expected to see a similar proportion of single-family and multi-family
housing to existing development.

Page 3-2

1.50.2002008

C:\DWG Projects\City of Revelstok e\Plots-April Background Reports \Parks and Recreation-11x 17.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 Industrial
Urban Reserve
Parks and Trails
Agricultural
Sand & Gravel
Reservoir Drawdown

1:40,000

500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500


Meters

Existing Land Use


Fig. 3-1

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,
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;

work toward providing community sanitary sewer services to all urban residential
areas advancement of this initiative will be dependent upon acuity of need for
health and environmental reasons and financial viability;

aggressively pursue senior government funding assistance;

focus on the continued servicing of South Revelstoke for extension of the community
system;

monitor the operation of the treatment and disposal works to ensure that they are
meeting the permit requirements set out by the provincial Ministry of Environment;

do not extend community sanitary sewer services to users located outside of


municipal boundaries, and;

do not initiate extensions of community sewer services within municipal boundaries


new developments requiring such service will be paid for by the developer through
arrangements to be determines in consultation with the City existing developments
requiring such services may petition the City for extensions through the use of local
improvement projects or similar mechanisms.

Page 3-3

1.50.2002008

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 communitys 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:

treatment of the Resorts wastewater should consider either piping the effluent to the
Citys WWTP or a treatment plant located in a location that is within the broader
Resort Lands (the City and the RMR agreed in 2006 to connect the RMR to the Citys
WWTP); and

the storm water drainage system for the Resort shall be designed in consideration of
the capacity limits of existing storm drains and watercourses and avoid reliance on
other types of surface flows in the Arrow Heights neighbourhood.

Page 3-4

1.50.2002008

3.3

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 of
writing this report included three potential development scenarios for population growth,
namely high, moderate and low growth scenarios. For all three scenarios, the Citys base
population was projected to increase to about 9,900 people by 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
10,365 guests (about 63% occupancy), with an additional 2,625 in-migrant workers
associated with the RMR, resulting in a total equivalent population of about 22,900 by
2026 (including the City and RMR). The low growth scenario was based on the
assumption that only half of the RMR units (8,260 Bed Units) would be developed by
2026 and resort occupancy would be relatively low (about 31% occupancy or 2,600
people) with an additional 1,300 in-migrant workers, resulting in a total equivalent
population of 13,800 (City plus RMR). The moderate growth scenario was also based on
half (8,260) of the RMR units constructed by 2026, but with higher occupancy than the
low growth scenario (i.e., 63% occupancy or 5,200 people) and 1,300 in-migrant
workers, for a total population equivalent of 16,400 people (City plus RMR). At the time
of writing this report, the moderate growth scenario was selected for the OCP update
(BHA, 2008).

The projected population growth according to the moderate growth scenario from the
ongoing OCP update work is included in Table 3-1 (assuming that all of the Citys
residential population will eventually be connected to sewer). For the purposes of
developing infrastructure capacity needs, it was judged advisable to assume 100% resort

Page 3-5

1.50.2002008

occupancy to reduce the risk of encountering capacity shortfalls. This results in a


projected total population equivalent of about 19,500 people, 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 WWTP is
about 19,500; this compares to the 2025 service population of 17,100 estimated
previously (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2006).

TABLE 3-1
POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CITY OF REVELSTOKE (adapted from BHA, 2008)
WWTP Service Population3
1
City Population
Year
(including inCity1,3
RMR2
City + RMR2,3
migrants)
1995
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2010
2015
2020
2025
1

8,286
8,123
7,985
7,888
7,827
7,913
7,888
7,932
7,964
8,029
8,796
9,666
10,744
11,201

5,815
5,883
5,952
6,020
6,088
6,157
6,225
6,293
6,362
6,430
6,430
8,796
9,666
10,744
11,201

1,506
3,851
6,975
8,260

5,815
5,883
5,952
6,020
6,088
6,157
6,225
6,293
6,362
6,430
6,430
10,302
13,517
17,717
19,461

1997 to 2006: BC Regional District and Municipal Population Estimates, 1996-2006 - Prepared by BC Stats,
adjusted for Census undercount, 2010 to 2025 projections from BHA (2008), includes City base plus in-migrant
workers

resort equivalent population assuming 100% occupancy

Service population 1996 to 2006 from D&K report WWTP Upgrades, Draft No. 2, March 2007, service population
2010 to 2025 assumes all residents connected to sewer

3.4

Unserviced Areas

Page 3-6

1.50.2002008

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
of 650 to 695 lots in the Arrow Heights area. Total build-out population was estimated at
3,000 in accordance with March 21, 2006 Technical Memorandum No. 1, Sewage
Treatment Plant Upgrade 2006 Impact of Population Growth on Process Section. The
City of Revelstoke assumes a build-out population of 6,000.

The City of Revelstoke is currently updating the OCP and is preparing a DCC policy for
anticipated growth in the City, in particular the Arrow Heights subdivision. Although
Arrow Heights has good conditions for ground disposal of wastewater, the increase in
density from the present population of 3,100 to 5,000 or 6,000 people will require sewer
servicing of this area. Servicing of Arrow Heights will be facilitated by the trunk sewer
that will be constructed to service the Revelstoke Mountain Resort and the lift station at
the Illicillewaet River (see Section 3.4.2 below)

Page 3-7

1.50.2002008

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.

The City previously evaluated the following three options to collect and treat the
wastewater from Arrow Heights and Revelstoke Mountain Resort (Dayton & Knight
Ltd., 2006):

Option 1: construction of a new Arrow Heights WWTP located near the hospital;

Option 2: discharge to the existing WWTP, which would require a pump station to
be located adjacent to the hospital, flows would then be conveyed to a new pump
station located at Illecillewaet Road and Airport Way where flows would be pumped
to the existing WWTP; and

Option 3: discharge to a new Revelstoke Mountain Resort WWTP, at two possible


locations, one within the Revelstoke Mountain Resort, and the other in the southeast
area of the City.

Option 2 (discharge to the existing City WWTP) was selected, because the City and the
Revelstoke Mountain Resort determined that this option was the most cost-effective.

Page 3-8

1.50.2002008

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
currently in existence. The overall sewer catchment area is partially developed at this
time; 46.8 ha of the land are currently zoned for Single Family Residential, and
approximately 1.4 ha are zoned Industrial (CP Railway).

The City of Revelstoke has determined that septic tank failures are potentially occurring
in the Clearview Heights development. The City has examined the drainage from the
area and found it to contain high numbers of coliforms that suggest failure of the septic
drainage system. The City recently completed a study to explore the feasibility and cost
of providing sewer service to the Clearview Heights area; the cost of servicing the
existing houses was estimated at $860,000 with an additional $880,000 to service future
development (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2006). The residents of Clearview Heights have
petitioned the City for sewer service, and a local improvement project is a underway.

Page 3-9

1.50.2002008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
4.0

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 Heights,
Big Eddy, Revelstoke Mountain Resort, and Clearview Heights are also included in the study
area and are included in on Figure 4-1. More detailed illustration of the piped collection system
is shown on Figure 4-2. The wastewater collection system includes six major pumping stations,
namely Burke, Wales, Downie, Edward, Moss, and Oscar. The Downie station is the main
influent pump station for the WWTP. The Burke and Wales pump stations discharge into the
Downie station wet well; the Edward and Moss pump stations discharge into the Downie
forcemain. The Oscar pump station discharges directly to the WWTP. There are also two small
systems; the Trailerpark and Oscar pump stations.

All components of the wastewater system are owned, operated and maintained by the City of
Revelstoke. Major components of the existing system are described below.

4.1

Collection System

The wastewater collection system in Revelstoke was constructed in stages, the oldest
parts dating back to 1905. In 1973, the independent pumping systems, which consisted of
combined sanitary and storm sewers and which discharged directly to the Columbia

Page 4-1

1.50.200 2008

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 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.

4.2

Pump Stations

The Pump stations within the City are summarized in Table 4-1.

Page 4-2

1.50.200 2008

TABLE 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 AC forcemain to
the MH SW001 in the Wales subarea.

2 Smith & Loveless


4B2B pumps (3 hp).

Wales

Serves the Wales sub-area. Pumps


into the 250 mm AC forcemain to
the MH SD084 in the Downie subarea.

2 Chicago VPM
#64121, 1750 rpm
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. Pumps
into 400 mm 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 AC forcemain to the
MH SD124, then into the 400 mm
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. Pumps


into 100 mm 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.

Oscar

Serves the Oscar sub-area. Pumps


into 150 mm PVC forcemain to the
WWTP.

2 Flygt C3126 (9.4


hp) pumps

21.0 L/s

19.1 L/s

Nearing capacity.

calculated peak SANSYS wet weather flow (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2007)

Higher pumping rates are possible from the existing pumps, if the pump rpm is increased.

Page 4-3

1.50.200 2008

4.3

Revelstoke 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
in a chlorine contact tank prior to discharge. Following the chlorine contact tank, the
effluent flows by gravity to the Illecillewaet River in a 350 mm AC pipe approximately
196.5 m to the South Bank outfall. The outfall does not have a diffuser section; there is a
screen at the end of the discharge pipe.

The lagoon facility was constructed in 1975, and has undergone several upgrades since.
An upgrade in late 1998 changed the aeration system in Lagoon Cell 1 to a fine bubble
diffuser system (from a coarse bubble system), and in 2002 the aeration blowers were
replaced with three 50 Hp Aerzen positive displacement type blowers. The coarse bubble
aeration system was retained in Cell 2. In the 1998 upgrade, the high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) liner in Cell 1 was also replaced and the cell desludged.

Key design parameters for the existing WWTP are shown in Table 4-2.
Recent and ongoing upgrade to the WWTP are as follows (budget $2 million):

2006 Cell 2 desludged

2007 replace Cell No.2 liner

2007/08 replace the existing chlorine gas disinfection system with a


hypochlorite/sodium bisulphite chemical system;

Page 4-4

1.50.200 2008

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
maintenance are undertaken during this growth period. The outfall improvements are
shown as the last priority under the current funding program.

Page 4-5

1.50.200 2008

TABLE 4-2
WWTP DESIGN DATA
2010 Design

2006 Facilities
Service Population
Wastewater Quantity

Influent Wastewater

Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)


Maximum Design Flow*
Average Annual Unit

6,500
2,925
9,000
450

8,500
3,825
11,475
450

mg/L
kg/d

200
660

200
660

mg/L
kg/d

200
660

200
660

m
m
m
min
min

1
1.8
8.3
11.8
88
29

1
1.8
8.3
11.8
68
23

5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)


Concentration
Daily load
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Concentration
Daily load

Chlorine Contact Tank

m3/d
m3/d
L/c/d

Number of tanks
Water depth
Width
Lengt
Detention time, ADWF
Detention time, max. design flow

2006
Lagoo

Cell 1
aerated

aerated
Are
Volume
No of

ha
m3

2010

Cell 2
partially

Cell 1
aerated

Cell 2
partially

0.45
18,930
28

1.34
56,780
67

0.45
18,930

1.34
56,780

Aerator/Oxygen Requirements, summer

day
day
mg/L
mg/L
kgO2/hr

6.5
2.1
80
97.5
55.2

19.4
6.3
14.6
23.5
30.1

4.9
1.6
94
110.9
63.7

14.8
4.9
21.3
32.5
43.7

SOTE (standard oxygen transfer), summer


SOTE (standard oxygen transfer), summer
Aerator requirements, winter

cfm
m3/min
kgO2/hr

470
13.3
43.8

256
7.3
31.7

546
15.4
49.5

370
10.6
43.9

SOTE (standard oxygen transfer), winter


SOTE (standard oxygen transfer), winter

cfm
m3/min

370
10.6

270
7.7

425
12.0

373
10.6

kP : TBOD5 kinetic rate constant at 15?C, summer


kP : TBOD5 kinetic rate constant at 5?C, winter
A 2:1 ratio of BOD5 removal to O2 is required

days-1
days-1

0.231
0.162

Detention time, ADWF


Detention time, max. design flow
BOD5 remaining, summer
BOD5 remaining winter

*peak pumping capacity from Downie pump station in 2006

Page 4-6

1.50.200 2008

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

4,152 m3/d

1 hour retention time at average flow rates

0.5 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L

Completion of the LWMP will result in replacement of the City of Revelstoke WWTP
Permit PE-02147 with an Operational Certificate.

4.3.3

WWTP Engineering Audit, 2002

In 2002, Dayton & Knight Ltd. conducted an engineering audit of the City of Revelstoke
WWTP. The purpose of the study was to provide recommendations that could be applied
to a capital works improvement budget for upgrading the WWTP, and to provide
recommendations for the operation of the facility. Needed improvements that were
identified in the audit included improvements at the headworks, instrumentation and
control, dechlorination (or switch to ultra violet disinfection), replacement of failed
infrastructure and old equipment, and odour control. The lagoon was shown to be
capable of meeting the Municipal Sewage Regulation criteria for 8,500 people.
It was determined that odour objectives could be largely met by undertaking source
control measures within the City to ensure septage and indiscriminate high strength
wastes are excluded from the system. No solids handling issues were identified, other

Page 4-7

1.50.200 2008

than lagoon cleaning. Odours may be an 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 flow and load to the plant increased in future, a change from aerated lagoons to a
mechanical treatment plant will be needed, since the site is not sufficient in size to use
aerated lagoon technology for a service population of 12,000.

Future upgrades can be undertaken through expansion of existing infrastructure and by


converting the existing plant into an activated sludge process. This could involve
converting lagoon Cell 1 to a conventional activated sludge basin, and converting Cell 2
to an aerated sludge digester and sludge holding lagoon. Construction of secondary
settling tanks (clarifiers) with return sludge pumping and piping would be required for
conversion of Cell 1 to activated sludge. The conversion could include a provision for
biological phosphorus removal, or phosphorus removal by chemical addition if required.
The activated sludge process can also be designed for the required removal of ammonianitrogen. The Downie Street Pump Station would need to be upgraded for added
capacity. Upgrades to the plant headworks and expansion of the chlorine disinfection (or
replacement with UV disinvection) system would also be required.

Page 4-8

1.50.200 2008

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 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 $10 million for the final stage to
serve 17,100; and

Option 3: retain the WWTP at the current site, but do not expand this facility beyond
the year 2010 construct a new plant at the Columbia River site (same as Option 2)
for all ensuing population increases capital cost estimated at $17 million for the first
stage (12,000 population) and $6.5 million for the final stage to serve 17,100.

The three options are illustrated on Figure 4-3. Options 2 and 3 have the advantage of
discharging part or all of the Citys treated wastewater to the Columbia River, which has
a much greater flow than the Illecillewaet River. Option 1 could include discharge of a
portion of peak WWTP discharges or the entire discharge to the Columbia River via a
pump station and forcemain (Figure 4-3); this was not included in the cost estimate
described above for Option 1. As described earlier, population growth projections are
currently under review as a component of the OCP update, and the projected 2026 service
population for the WWTP has yet to be confirmed.

Page 4-9

1.50.200 2008

4.4

Queen Victoria Hospital 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 River
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 Citys WWTP.

4.5

Documented Sanitary Sewer Overflows

From information provided by the City of Revelstoke, the following sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs) have occurred on the Citys system:

before 1975 there were several sanitary sewer overflows because of the combined
sewer system; in 1975 the Pollution Control Branch of the Provincial Government
ordered the City of Revelstoke to begin to upgrade the sanitary sewer collection
system by substantially discontinuing the discharge of storm waters to the sanitary
sewer system (USL, 1977);

no further SSOs have been reported by the City; and

due to the remaining partially combined sewer systems in the City, SSOs could occur
at some locations in the future, especially as flows increase with development.

Page 4-10

1.50.200 2008

4.6

Solids Handling and 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
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 generated in onsite systems.

During the summers of 1999 and 2001, odour events were reported at the WWTP. It is
thought that the odour was caused by the Acrolein and was introduced through the septage
receiving facility. Urban Systems Ltd. conducted a feasibility study in 2001 with options
for septage treatment, disposal and reuse; study findings are summarized as follows:

septage disposal at the WWTP was not recommended due to odour problems, and due
to the highly concentrated waste;

a separate treatment facility would have several disadvantages such as possible odour
problems, problems to handle seasonal waste, and high costs; and

composting of the septage was recommended, using either a windrow or static pile
process that produces Class A compost the cost was estimated to be approximately
$500,000 a source control program was recommended to minimize the risk of
problematic substances being added to the process.

The City no longer accepts septage at the WWTP. Septage is currently taken to a facility
located at the Regional District Landfill. The City of Revelstoke is planning to develop a
composting facility at Jordan Pit that will receive septage as well as other waste streams
(e.g., yard waste and waste solids from the WWTP). Options for the composting facility

Page 4-11

1.50.200 2008

are currently being evaluated. The facility is to 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 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 transported to the Jordan
Pit, where construction of a composting facility is planned (see Section 4.6.1 above).

Page 4-12

1.50.200 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
5.0

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
trunk sewers can be designed with sufficient capacity to handle future development, and so that
sufficient space is set aside for the construction and expansion of treatment works.

Sanitary sewer systems are primarily intended to collect and transport wastewater to treatment
facilities. However, most sanitary sewer systems are subject to the entry of stormwater during
rainfall events, through infiltration of subsurface water into defects in the collection system, and
through inflow of surface water through manholes and surface drainage systems that may be
connected to the sewer. Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) can significantly increase the flow rate to
collection and treatment facilities during wet weather; in some cases, this may cause spills of
untreated wastewater (see Section 4.6). Wastewater volumes and character within the study area
are described in the following sections. This information was used in developing and evaluating
the waste management options described later in this report.

Page 5-1

1.50.200 2008

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 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 contact tank is not currently in use.
The installation of a magnetic flow meter is planned in the new headworks building.

Influent flow data from 2000 to 2006 are summarized in Table 5-1. The flow data from
November 16, 2001 to December 31, 2002 and from August 2005 are missing. The
estimated service population for each year of record is included in Table 5-1, along with
the per capita flow rates. The data in Table 5-1 show that the average day influent flow
was about 470 litres per capita per day over the period of record (excluding the missing
data). The average dry weather flow, which was calculated as the minimum 60-day
moving average flow for each year, was about 410 litres/capita/day over the six years of
record. The average of the maximum day flow recorded during this period was about
790 litres/capita/day.

Page 5-2

1.50.200 2008

TABLE 5-1
WWTP INFLUENT FLOWS 2000 TO 2006
Service
Population

Year

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Average6

litres/
capita/day
578
519
542
551
476
530

cubic
metres/day
4,437
4,192
5,589
4,623
6,156
4,825

litres/
capita/day
729
681
888
727
957
750

6,284

2,951

470

2,582

410

3,350

530

4,970

790

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
Highest recorded single day flow from January 1 to December 31 for each year
Data from November 16, 2001 to December 31, 2002 and from August 2005 are missing; also every year contains data
gaps of several days

The WWTP influent flow data are illustrated on Figure 5-1. As shown, the flow
occasionally exceeds the permitted 4,152 m3/d discharge. The effluent flow, which is not
monitored, might be buffered by the lagoon and therefore be less, than the values shown
on Figure 5-1.
7000
D aily Flow , In fl uent
Permitted Maxi mu m Di scharge
6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Page 5-3

Jan-07

Jul-06

Oct-06

Apr-06

Jan-06

Jul -05

Oct-05

Apr-05

Jan-05

Ju l-04

Oct-04

Apr-04

Jan-04

Jul-03

Oct-03

Apr-03

Jan-03

Jul-02

Oct-02

Apr-02

Jan-02

Jul-01

Oct-01

Apr-01

0
Jan-0 1

6.

cubic
metres/day
3,519
3,198
3,411
3,503
3,058
3,409

Jul-00

litres/
capita/day
436
435
392
406
381
414

Oct-00

6,088
6,157
6,225
6,293
6,362
6,430
6,430

cubic
metres/day
2,657
2,675
2,466
2,581
2,453
2,661

Apr-00

Maximum Day (MDF)5

litres/
capita/day
509
480
469
462
437
458

Jan-00

Average Wet Weather


(AWWF)4

cubic
metres/day
3,102
2,955
2,954
2,939
2,811
2,944

Dai ly Flow (m3/d)

Average Dry Weather


(ADWF)3

Average Day (ADF)2

1.50.200 2008

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
from 2,944 m3/d in 2006 to about 8118 m3/d in 2026 (including flows from RMR).
Flows from the Queen Victoria Hospital are estimated to increase from about 45 m3/d in
2006 to 65 m3/d in 2026 (these flows have been included in the City flows in Table 5-2).
TABLE 5-2
PROJECTED WASTEWATER
FLOWS
2006 TO 2026
2
3

Service Population1
Year
2006
2010
2015
2020
2025

City

City + RMR

6,430
8,800
9,700
10,700
11,200

6,430
10,300
13,500
17,700
19,500

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
5,329
4,657
6,001
8,913

Wastewater Flow Rate, City + RMR3


Average
Average Average Dry
Wet
Day
Weather
Weather
2,944
2,661
3,409
4,560
3,981
5,217
5,563
4,852
6,472
6,839
5,959
8,083
7,404
6,450
8,790

(m3/d)
Maximum
Day
4,825
7,685
9,450
11,705
12,698

from Table 3-1


using average of per capita flows from Table 5-1 plus allowance for Queen Victoria Hospital
using average of per capita flows from Table 5-1, with the exception of RMR: The unit wastewater flows from
ten years of flow data recorded at the Whister WWTP (1993 through 2002) were used for the RMR: ADWF =
216 L/c/d, AWWF = 336 L/c/d, MDF = 456 L/c/d. AAF = 250 L/c/d (D&K 2006).

5.2

Wastewater Quality

The WWTP effluent quality is tested on a monthly basis by the City of Revelstoke as
required by Permit PE-02147. Monthly grab samples of the plant influent and the Cell 1
process liquid are also taken. The WWTP influent and effluent concentrations of fiveday biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) over the
period 2002 to 2006 are illustrated on Figures 5-2 and 5-3, respectively. As shown, the
effluent BOD5 has not exceeded the maximum permitted level of 45 mg/L except on
November 17, 2003. The effluent TSS has not exceeded the maximum permitted level of
60 mg/L during the period of record.

Page 5-4

1.50.200 2008

300
Influent
Effluent

250

Permitted Maximum

BOD (mg/L)

200

150

100

50

Jan-07

Jul-06

Jan-06

Jul-05

Jan-05

Jul-04

Jan-04

Jul-03

Jan-03

Jul-02

Jan-02

Figure 5-2 - BOD, Influent and Effluent 2002 to 2006


(Grab Samples from different data sets, see Appendix 6)

200

Influent

180

Effluent

160

Permitted Maximum

120
100
80
60
40
20

Nov-06

Aug-06

May-06

Feb-06

Nov-05

Aug-05

May-05

Feb-05

Nov-04

Aug-04

May-04

Feb-04

Nov-03

Aug-03

May-03

0
Feb-03

TSS (mg/L)

140

Figure 5-3 - TSS, Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent 2002 to 2006


(Grab Samples from different data sets, see Appendix 6)

Page 5-5

1.50.200 2008

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 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 about 150 mg/L. The effluent alkalinity is
less than 60 mg/L during the fall. Destruction of alkalinity through the lagoon 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 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.

5.3

Inflow and Infiltration

Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) into the sewer collection system can substantially increase the
volume of wastewater arriving at treatment facilities. I&I varies depending on antecedent
weather, soil moisture, groundwater levels, and the duration and intensity of storm events.
Infiltration can be divided into two components. Groundwater infiltration (GWI) enters the
system through defects in pipes, which are located below the water table; GWI is relatively
constant in intensity and is of long duration. Rainfall-derived infiltration (RDI) occurs
during and immediately after rainfall events, and is caused by the seepage of percolating
rainwater into defective pipes, which lie near the ground surface; RDI is typically of
relatively short duration and high intensity, compared to GWI.

Inflow can also be divided into two components. Dry weather inflow (DWI) results from
surface water not caused by rain that enters the sewer system (e.g., street and vehicle
washing). Stormwater inflow (SWI) results from the diversion of storm surface runoff into

Page 5-6

1.50.200 2008

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 times the average dry weather 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 Citys 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, and
the AWWF typically occurs during July or August. The ratio of MDF and ADWF for the
years 2000 to 2006 is included in Table 5-8. As shown, the ratio has exceeded 2.0 in
2003 and 2005. This indicates that I&I to the collection system based on the flows
recorded at the WWTP is high according to the MSR criterion (however, the contributory
population at this time does not exceed 10,000 people).

TABLE 5-3
CITY OF REVELSTOKE RATIO OF MDF TO ADWF 2000 TO 2006
Year
MDF (m3/d)
ADWF (m3/d)
Ratio MDF:ADWF
2000
4,437
2,657
1.7
2001
4,192
2,675
1.6
2002
2003
5,589
2,466
2.3
2004
4,623
2,581
1.8
2005
6,156
2,453
2.5
2006
4,825
2,661
1.8
1
Average
4,970
2,582
1.9
1

Data from November 16, 2001 to December 31, 2002 and from August 2005 are missing

Page 5-7

1.50.200 2008

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). The snowfall 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 summarizes
the dry weather flow (DWF) statistics and the rainfall dependent inflow and infiltration
(RDI&I) for each site (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2007). The review indicated that ground
water infiltration (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
L/ha/d, which is relatively high compared to the value of 5,620 L/ha/d contained in
Bylaw No. 1270, and the typical target value of 11,200 L/ha/d. The high I&I may be due
to the fact that some sections of the Citys sewer collection system use combined sewer
lines (downtown area of Downie sub-area), or to the age of the system.

TABLE 5-4
DRY WEATHER FLOW STATISTICS AND RDI&I FOR EACH MONITORING SITE
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Victoria Cannaught Hanson
A&W
Downie
Mill
GWI (L/s)
0.6
4.7
1.7
2.1
1.4
13.6
ADWF (L/s)
0.8
7.9
3.5
3.7
4.2
27.8
PDWF (L/s)
0.9
9.7
4.6
4.4
6.9
36.5
GWI as % of
77%
59%
49%
58%
34%
49%
ADWF
Area (ha)
6.7
60.3
11.9
14.3
67.4
202.5
Peak RDI&I
0.6
12.6
5.3
3.0
4.7
38.6
Flow (L/s)
RDI&I
7,598
18,062
38,446
17,949
6,080
16,474
(L/ha/day)
GWI
RDI&I
ADWF
PDWF

ground water infiltration


rainfall dependent inflow and infiltration
average dry weather flow
peak dry weather flow

Page 5-8

1.50.200 2008

5.4

Biosolids 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. 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 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
1998 during the liner replacement, and Cell 2 was cleaned in summer 2006. The solids
removed from the lagoons were trucked to the region landfill site for composting (see
Section 4.6).

Approximately 1,600 dry tonnes of solids were removed from Cell 2 in 2006, which had
not been cleaned out since the WWTP was commissioned in 1975. The amount of solids
removed from Cell 1 in 1998 is unknown. No data were available regarding the quality
of the solids (e.g., metals content).

5.5

Onsite Systems and Commercial/Industrial Wastewater

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1984) suggests that in the
absence of site-specific data, an average per capita septage generation rate of 230
litres/capita/year be used for planning purposes. Pumping of septic tanks typically
exhibits a seasonal pattern, with the most activity occurring during the warmer months.
USEPA (1984) suggests a summer loading factor of 1.5 times the average annual load for
septic tank pumping in North America

Page 5-9

1.50.200 2008

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
disposal volumes are not known, but have been estimated at about 1,800 m3/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 processes. Monitoring
programs aimed at detecting such illegal discharges should be strongly encouraged. The
treatment facility should be designed to minimize the effects of such upsets.

TABLE 5-5
TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCHARGES FROM RESIDENTIAL
ONSITE SYSTEMS (FROM METCALF & EDDY, 1991)
Septage
Parameter
(milligrams/litre
)
BOD5
6,000
Total Suspended Solids
15,000
Total Nitrogen as N
700
Ammonia Nitrogen as N
400
Total Phosphorus as P
250
Grease
8,000
Heavy Metals (primarily iron, zinc, and aluminum)
300
Fecal Coliforms
NR

Page 5-10

1.50.200 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
6.0

CAPACITIES OF LAND 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 Value).
An inventory of environmental resources within the study area was conducted by Masse Miller
Consulting Ltd.; their report is attached as Appendix 7. A summary is provided below.

6.1

Terrestrial Resources

The study area lies within the Interior Cedar Hemlock moist warm, Thomson variant,
(ICHmw3) biogeoclimatic subzone. This biogeoclimatic subzone is characterized by
warm moist summers and wet cold winters.

Much of the study area has been extensively disturbed from its native state, with urban
and rural development occurring along the Columbia and Illecillewaet Rivers.
Residential and industrial development is greatest in the area from the Illecillewaet River
north to the Trans-Canada 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 to a substantial increase in population density
between the resort and Arrow Heights.

Page 6-1

1.50.200 2008

C:\DWG Projects\City of Revelstok e\Plots-April Background Reports \Hydrology .mx d

City of Revelstoke
OCP Comprehensive Review
Illecillewaet Riv
er

May 2007

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

500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500


Meters

Hydrology
Fig. 6-1

C:\DWG Projects\City of Revelstok e\Plots-April Background Reports \Env ironmental 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
Very High
High
Moderate

1:40,000

500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500


Meters

Areas of Environmental
Value
Fig.6-2

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 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 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 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).

6.2

Aquatic Resources

The study area is dominated by the Columbia and Illecillewaet Rivers. These two rivers
and their extensive riparian areas are of high ecological and recreational value. The
Jordan and Tonkawatla Rivers are also large tributaries to the Columbia River; however,
these are on the west side of the valley and are outside of the area that will be serviced by
the Revelstoke WWTP.

Two other notable watercourses are Bridge Creek and Williamson Lake. Bridge Creek
drains the area to the north east of the town and enters the Illecillewaet River 6 m
upstream of the current sewage outfall. A spawning channel for kokanee (Oncorhynchus
nerka) is located near its mouth near the existing WWTP. Williamson Lake is located
between Arrow Heights and the RMR and is a popular recreational area. The lake is
connected to the airport wetlands by Locks Creek.

Page 6-2

1.50.200 2008

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 and now form part of the storm sewer system of
Revelstoke. The streams above Arrow Heights and the RMR drain into 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. Studies focussing on white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)
have been summarized by Golder (2002, 2006). One of only two known spawning areas
for Columbia River 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 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 the Illecillewaet are the largest
tributaries to the Columbia River near Revelstoke and provide important kokanee
spawning habitat. A spawning channel for kokanee has been constructed on Bridge
Creek, a tributary to the Illecillewaet River. Most of the 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 (Omykiss), kokanee and
westslope cutthroat trout (O. clarki lewisi). Fish species present in the Arrow Lakes
Reservoir and Columbia River are listed in Table 6-1.

Page 6-3

1.50.200 2008

TABLE 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 caurinus)

carp (Cyprinus carpio)

pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri)

eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

rainbow trout

kokanee

redside shiner (Richardsonius 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 falcatus)

walleye (Stizostedion vitreus)

longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)

westslope cutthroat trout

longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus)

white sturgeon

bull trout

peamouth chub

eastern brook trout kokanee

rainbow trout

lake whitefish

mottled sculpin

largescale sucker

prickly sculpin

longnose sucker

slimy sculpin

mountain whitefish)

torrent sculpin

northern pikeminnow

white sturgeon

FISS (2007)

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 of the Columbia
River valley, the area submerged by the reservoir fluctuates dramatically. At low
reservoir levels, typically in April, the reservoir ends near Arrowhead, 35 km south of
Revelstoke. At full pool, typically in July, the reservoir extends as far as Revelstoke, and
occasionally as far as the Revelstoke Dam, 4 km north of Revelstoke.

Page 6-4

1.50.200 2008

6.2.2

Illecillewaet River

The Illecillewaet River is a tributary of the Columbia River and originates 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
watershed drained by the Illecillewaet River is approximately 1,202 km2. The 7-day low
flow with a 2-year return period, based on data from 1964-1972, was 6.88 m3/s. The
average flow in the river for the period 1963-1988 was 53.3 m3/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
watershed includes glaciated or alpine terrain, which receives large snowfalls over the
winter, peak flows occur from May to August. Low flows typically occur between
December and February.

Several studies have been conducted on the lower Illecillewaet River to determine fish
species present and habitat quality and use (R.L & L. 1994). The lower Illecillewaet
River is accessible to all species of fish occurring within the Columbia River, and is
typically very wide with low gradients. The gradient of the river becomes steeper close
to the Illecillewaet River canyon, two kilometers upstream from the confluence with the
Columbia River. The river substrate is typically composed of cobbles and gravels, with
some small boulders. A number of fish species use this portion of the Illecillewaet River
for various life stages (Table 6-1). The Illecillewaet River supports several species of
fish populations: bridgelip sucker, bull trout, torrent sculpin, brook trout, Kokanee
salmon, lake chub, mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, and Westslope cutthroat trout
(Masse, 2003). Two of these, bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout, are blue-listed
species, since they have been classified as vulnerable by the Conservation Data Centre
(Cannings and Ptolemy, 1998). The most abundant fish species caught during the field

Page 6-5

1.50.200 2008

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.
Rainbow trout are also present in the watershed. Both grizzly bear and black bear are
frequent in the area, particularly during the kokanee spawning season.

6.2.4

Williamson Lake

Williamson Lake is a popular recreational lake, with a campground and day use area,
located south of Revelstoke below RMR. Water temperatures are relatively warm in the
lake during the summer as it is relatively shallow, with a maximum depth of 5 m. As the
lake is connected to the Airport wetlands and the Columbia River via Locks Creek, a
subset of the fish species present in the Columbia River are likely found in the lake.

6.2.5

Other Streams

A number of other streams are present within the study boundary, and their riparian area
is protected under the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR). The width of the protected area
depends on whether the stream is permanent or non-permanent, and whether the stream is

Page 6-6

1.50.200 2008

fish bearing or not. Under this regulation, a 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 fish-bearing streams. Under the RAR, a 15 m wide
buffer on either side of non-permanent, non-fish bearing streams must be maintained.

6.3

Rare and Endangered 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
considered, a more thorough investigation of listed species likely to be impacted should
be conducted once a final decision is reached. Listed species that are known to occur in
the study area include the Blue Heron (Ardea herodias herodias), Coeur dAlene
salamander (Plethodon idahoensis), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), northern myotis (Myotis
septentrionalis), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), western painted turtle (Chrysemys
picta bellii), white sturgeon, peduncled sedge (Carex pedunculata) and crested wood fern
(Dryopteris cristata) (CDC 2007). Some of these, such as the Coeur dAlene salamander,
have very limited ranges and habitats within the study area and even small disturbances
may have a large impact on a population.

Page 6-7

1.50.200 2008

6.4

Discharges to Surface Waters

The City of Revelstoke WWTP is the only permitted discharge of treated wastewater to
surface waters within the 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 Guidelines were met. However,
there were significant differences between the control (upstream) site and the
downstream site for several parameters such as nitrate, dissolved chloride,
sodium, chlorophyll a and benthic invertebrate community composition.
Although the Provincial Water Quality Guidelines were met at the edge of the
IDZ, the changes in species composition and increase in algal growth may be
indicative of low chronic exposure.

The dilution ratio calculations were based on the existing bank discharge. Under
the worst case scenario, the CORMIX model calculation resulted in a dilution
ratio of 28:1. The Municipal Sewage Regulation (MSR) states that If the
dilution ratio is below 40:1 and the receiving stream is used for recreational or
domestic water extraction within the influence of the discharge, discharge is not
authorized unless an environmental impact study shows that the discharge is
acceptable, and, in the opinion of the manager, no other solutions are available,
and written authorization from the manager is obtained (Schedule 3, Explanatory
Notes 3). The MOE discharge permit for the WWTP authorizes the discharge.

Page 6-8

1.50.200 2008

2.

Outfall Design: To increase the dilution capacity during extreme low 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 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

Application to Land

6.5.1

Onsite (Ground Disposal) Systems

Discharges of wastewater to ground within the study area are mainly septic tank effluent
discharges to subsurface drainfields, typically known as onsite systems. It should be
noted that the current Ministry of Health (MOH) regulations address only evaluation of
site characteristics and minimum design requirements for onsite systems. The actual
functioning and performance of onsite systems once installed is only addressed if a
homeowner requests assistance with a problem, or if a formal complaint is lodged with
the MOH.

Considerable research has been conducted on the use of drainfields for sewage disposal.
A report for the Ministry of Health (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 1994) provided a review of
the research on septic tanks and drain fields. A summary of important findings is as
follows:

septic tanks remove about 20% of suspended solids and 50% of BOD5 from raw
household wastewater;

biological clogging of the liquid-soil interface is the most important factor in the
reduction of infiltration capacity of the ground disposal system;

Page 6-9

1.50.200 2008

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
drainage as well as general problem areas for land disposal of wastewater effluent within
the study area were identified by a review of available soils and groundwater data and by
information conducted by Golder Associates; their report is attached as Appendix 8. A
summary is provided below.

The potential for contamination of groundwater is a major concern in liquid waste


management, particularly where ground disposal and/or spray irrigation is practiced.
Unconfined aquifers underlying or partly underlying the study area were identified by
Golder Associates. Unconfined aquifers are those in which the groundwater table forms
the upper boundary, making the aquifer vulnerable to contamination from water
percolating down from above. Confined aquifers are those in which the upper boundary
is composed of an impermeable layer such as rock or compacted till. Information
regarding aquifers underlying the study area as identified by Golder Associated is
illustrated on Figure 6-3; areas inferred to be suitable and unsuitable for ground disposal
of effluent are illustrated on Figure 6-4 (see Appendix 8 for more detail).

Page 6-10

1.50.200 2008

Deep Confined Aquifer,


very productive, extent unknown

Provincial Aquifer No 0803


(unconfined and vulnerable)

Shallow unconfined, vulnerable,


productive Aquifer, extent limited
but undefined

Provincial Aquifer No 0802


(unconfined and vulnerable)

FIGURE 6-3

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 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 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
would be targets for ground disposal, the water table is expected to be close to the
elevation of the adjacent rivers. In the vicinity of the Columbia and Illecillewaet Rivers,
the elevation will generally fluctuate between the lower and upper operating levels of
Arrow Lakes Reservoir (referred to as Low Pool and High Pool). Areas where
groundwater potential was identified or is being exploited (TW02-3 on the Revelstoke
golf course and TW01-2 south of the Illecillewaet near its confluence with the Columbia)
are not presently designated for in-ground disposal. TW02-3 is completed in a deep
confined aquifer that would probably not be susceptible to contamination from effluent
disposal; however, the aquifer around TW01-2 is identified as being unconfined and it
might therefore be susceptible to contamination by septic effluent.

In general, the present High Pool elevation of 440.7 m asl is not inferred to represent a
impediment due to high water table to areas that have potential for disposal of effluent to
ground. Golder was unable to confirm with BC Hydro any future plans for changes in
the High Pool elevation.

Page 6-11

1.50.200 2008

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 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 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 irrigation in the study area is
discussed further in Section 10.6 of this report.

6.6

Official Community Plan

Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Revelstoke that are identified in the Official


Community Plan (OCP) are the South Slopes of Mount Revelstoke, Airport Wetlands,
and Riparian Areas. Riparian areas are those with an integral connection to a stream or
other watercourse, such as Illecillewaet River, Dolan Creek, Bridge Creek, Williamson
Lake and Locke Creek, Tonkawatla Creek, Jordan River, Moses Creek ant other small
creeks in Westside Road area. The Citys objective is to protect riparian areas. In some
cases, development in these areas may be allowed if mitigative measures can be taken to
preserve the sensitive area.

Hazardous Areas are floodplain areas, steep slopes and lands possessing unstable soil
conditions. The objective of the OCP is to prevent development in hazardous areas.

Page 6-12

1.50.200 2008

The OCP identifies the following six categories 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:

No septic tank, drainage field or deposit fields should be constructed in any portion of
the watershed draining into Dolan Creek or Bridge Creek upstream of the water
intake.

Land clearing and alteration should be kept to a minimum setback of 15 m from the
creek channel.

Alteration of natural drainage in the watershed should result in no net increase of


runoff into the creek.

Stormwater run-off from adjacent development should not enter the creek upstream of
the water intake.

Page 6-13

1.50.200 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
7.0

SOURCE CONTROL AND WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION

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
connections from buildings, or from pumper truck discharges at treatment facilities (e.g.
septage and trucked liquid waste from private businesses). Toxic and hazardous
materials that enter the sanitary system pose a risk to sewerage system workers, to the
general public, to the collection and treatment works, and to the receiving environment.
Toxic and hazardous materials in wastewater can upset biological treatment processes,
heavy metals can accumulate in sediments and wastewater treatment plant residuals
(biosolids), and waterborne contaminants can be discharged to surface waters, with a
resulting negative impact on the environment from both liquid and solids discharges.
Source control of trace metals is particularly important if the biosolids generated at
wastewater treatment plants are to be used as a soil amendment/fertilizer now or in the
future. The use of biosolids in B.C. is restricted by the Provincial Organic Matter
Recycling Regulation (OMRR) according to trace metals content and other factors.

Source controls can be implemented through either a regulatory or an educational


approach, or a combination of the two. The regulatory approach is typically focused on
non-domestic (i.e., commercial, industrial, and institutional) discharges through sewer

Page 7-1

1.50.200 2008

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 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

A bylaw regulating discharges to the sanitary sewer collection system is an essential


component of a source control program. Source control of trace metals is particularly
important where the biosolids generated at wastewater treatment plants are to be reused as a
soil amendment/fertilizer. The reuse of biosolids in B.C. is restricted by the Provincial
Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) according to trace metals content and other
factors (MOE, 2002). Wastes which can damage the sewer system and which pose a threat
to worker health and safety are prohibited from being discharged to the sewer system.

The Canadian Council of Minister of the Environment (CCME) has agreed to develop a
Canada-wide strategy for municipal wastewater effluent (MWWE) and a National Model
Sewer Use Bylaw. The national study reviewed existing provincial model sewer use
bylaws, completed an analysis of potential contaminants and parameters to be covered in
the National Model Sewer Use Bylaw, and provide recommendations for federal,
provincial, and territorial governments to develop and implement effective sewer use
bylaws. Forty-one substances and physical parameters are recommended for inclusion in
the bylaws. The characteristics of the Core List of Substances are: conventional

Page 7-2

1.50.200 2008

parameters for domestic wastewater, inhibitory effect on an activated sludge 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. 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 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 to protect stormwater quality (construction erosion, sediment control, outdoor
storage of materials) are required.

Page 7-3

1.50.200 2008

TABLE 7-1
COMPARISON OF PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED WASTE DISCHARGES FOR SANITARY 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 Wastes
Pathogenic/Biomedical Wastes
PCBs
Pesticides, Insecticides
Radioactive Materials
Reactive Materials
Seawater
Severely Toxic Materials
Storm/Drainage/Uncontaminated

CCME
Model
Sewer Use
Bylaw

P
P
P
P
see 7
see 6
P
P
P
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

P
P

P
P

5 mm

5 mm

P1
P
R
P

P1
P
R
P

5 mm

5 mm

P1
P

R
P

R
P

P
R

P
R

R
P
R

Page 7-4

Ontario
Model
Bylaw
(1988)

5 mm

P
P
P
P
R
R

City of
Powell
River
(2005)

5 mm

P
P
R
R
R

City of
Campbell
River
(1997)

P
R
P

5 mm

R
P
P

P
R
P

City of
Kelowna
(1996)

P
P

P
P
P

P
P

P
R
P

P
R
P

P
P
R
R
R

p
P

P
P

P
R
45.5 m3/d

R
P
P

P
P

P
P
P
P
P
R
P
P
R

1.50.200 2008

P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P

TABLE 7-1 CONTD


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
Nickel, mg/L
Nitrogen (Kjeldahl), mg/L
Phosphorus, mg/L
Selenium, mg/L
Silver, 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

5.0
0.1

0.2
1500
0.37
5
1.0
1.0

0.1
0.1
5
0.55
70
12
0.82
0.29

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
5.0
0.05
1.0
2.0

50
0.5
5.0
0.05
5.0
1.0

50
0.5
5.0
0.05
5.0
1.0

10
1.0
5.0
0.05
1.0
2.0

10
1.0
5.0
0.05
1.0
2.0

50
1.0
5.0
0.02
5.0
3.0

1.0

1.0
1.0

0.3
0.50

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
2.0

50
0.5
5.0
0.05
5.0
1.0

50
0.5
5.0
0.05
1.0
1.0

50
5.0
5.0
0.1
5.0
3.0

2.0

0.3
1.0

10
5.0
5.0

12.5
1.0

2.0

2.0

Page 7-5

1.0

50
5
1.0

1.0
1500
5.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
10

1.50.200 2008

TABLE 7-1 CONTD


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
Total BTEX (Ethyl Benzene, Toluene,
Xylene), mg/L
Petroleum Hydrocarbon, mg/L
Phenols, mg/L
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs), 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

5.5-11.0
65oC

5.5-11
65oC

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

0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2

24
100
(85/15)
300
6-11.5
60oC

5.5-9.5

0.01

0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.08

1.0

1.0
0.05

0.052

0.052
1.0

0.10
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.052
0.2

15
1.0

15
1.0
0.05

15
1.0
0.05

1.0
15
5
0.05

15
1.0
0.05

Page 7-6

0.05
0.20

1.0

15.0
1.0
0.05

15
1.0
0.05

1.0

1.50.200 2008

TABLE 7-1 CONTD


COMPARISON OF PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED WASTE DISCHARGES FOR SANITARY SEWERS

Regulated Parameters

Tetra Chloroethylene, mg/L


Chlorinated Phenols, mg/L
Chloroform, mg/L
Benzidine and benzidine
dihydrochloride, mg/L
Dichlorobenzene (1,2-), mg/L
Dichlorobenzene (1,4), mg/L
Ethylbenzene, mg/L
Hexachlorobenzene, mg/L
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane),
mg/L
PCBs (chlorobiphenyls), mg/L
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-), mg/L
Trichloroethylene, mg/L
Xylenes (total), mg/L
P
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CCME
Model
Sewer Use
Bylaw
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

City of
Kelowna
(1996)

City of
Campbell
River
(1997)

City of
Powell
River
(2005)

Ontario
Model
Bylaw
(1988)

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, trichlorophenols, tetrachlorophenols and pentachlorophenols
Two Hour Composite Sample (composed of 8 grab samples collected at consecutive 15 min. intervals)
Includes petroleum hydrocarbons.
Any waste derived from a petroleum source
CCME recommends to add leachate to the Schedule of prohibited wastes
CCME covers high volume discharge under a Code of Practice

Page 7-7

1.50.200 2008

The City of Revelstoke revised its Sanitary Sewer System Bylaw in 2002 (Sewer
Regulations Bylaw No. 1683-2002). The Bylaw regulates discharges to the sewer system
in paragraphs 5.06 to 5.18. Prohibited Wastes defined in the City of Revelstokes bylaw,
compared to bylaws from other jurisdictions are 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 may include to the following elements:

limits and restriction on the quantity, frequency and nature of the discharge; and

requirements of the Permit holder (discharger) to:


-

construct the pre-treatment works if needed to meet the specified discharge limits,

monitor the discharge and provide reports to District, and

operate and maintain the pre-treatment and monitoring facilities.

Source control to limit inputs of problem metals to the wastewater collection system will
require identification of sources. If metals concentrations in WWTP biosolids exceed
regulatory limits, a testing program to identify metal inputs to the collection system
should be considered as an initial step in designing and implementing a source control
program; biosolids quality at Revelstoke is addressed in Section 9.4 of this report.

Page 7-8

1.50.200 2008

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 composite samples to be taken, this will likely result in grab sampling
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
during periods of known low contaminant discharges. Bylaw No. 1683-2002 authorizes the
City to require an automated sample, but does not specifically require composite samples.

7.1.3

Penalties and Fines

The maximum penalty for violation of City of Revelstoke Bylaw No. 1683-2002 is referred
to the Offence Act. The Offence Act specifies a maximum fine of $2,000 and/or
imprisonment of not more than 6 months.

7.1.4

Surcharges

In some jurisdictions, surcharge fees are levied on discharges which significantly exceed
the strength of typical domestic sewage (the strength of a wastewater is usually evaluated
using the concentrations of BOD5 and total suspended solids). The purpose of surcharge
fees is to recover the additional treatment costs associated with high strength discharges, to
promote the polluter-pay principle, and to encourage source control. City of Revelstoke
Bylaw No. 1683-2002 does not include a clause regarding surcharge fees.

Page 7-9

1.50.200 2008

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.

7.1.6

Source Control Education Programs

In order to eliminate or minimize waste generation, a comprehensive education program is


required, to educate domestic and non-domestic dischargers about the causes and effects of
pollution, the need for action, and practical alternatives to present practices.

A source control education program for sanitary sewers and storm drains should emphasize
waste reduction through source reduction and in-process recycling, rather than treatment
and disposal of waste products. Techniques which transfer pollutants from one medium to
another (e.g. from liquid to solid waste) do not qualify as source control methods. Bylaws
and regulations will be much easier to implement and enforce if industrial and commercial
dischargers are aware of the benefits of pollution prevention, and of alternatives to present
practices which might reduce waste generation. An education program should be designed
to encourage commercial/industrial dischargers to assess and implement waste reduction
practices within their own operations. Incentives to implement waste reduction practices
include potential economic benefits derived from reductions in treatment and monitoring

Page 7-10

1.50.200 2008

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 above educational issues should be centrally coordinated, to ensure a consistent
approach and to avoid duplication of effort. Sample educational materials are included in
Appendix 5.

7.1.7

City of Revelstoke Source Control Education

The City of Revelstoke has provided information to the public in the Water Works
newsletter regarding the upgrade of the WWTP, septage disposal, and the planned studies
for unserviced areas.

The City of Revelstoke has an Emergency Response Spill containment and Clean-up unit
located in the Public Works yard. Illegal dumping of substances by city residents into the
storm sewer system occurs on a regular basis. The local Girl Guides have painted small
white fish at storm sewers to increase public awareness. (Env. Strategy)

Page 7-11

1.50.200 2008

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 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 in education programs by clearly outlining the potential
negative impacts of contaminated discharges on the long-term sustainability of resources
and receiving water uses in general. It is important to include clear goals and objectives
which can visibly demonstrate progress and success.

Requirements for effective public involvement include the following:

7.2

timely, understandable, and complete notice of pending actions;

access early in any decision-making process;

ease of access to the decision-making process;

response to citizens on how comments or recommendations are used.

Wastewater Volume Reduction

Water conservation measures can potentially defer some of aspects of future WWTP
expansion. With a decrease in wastewater flows due to water efficiency efforts, the
hydraulic load on the wastewater treatment plant may be reduced, but the solids and
organic mass loading to the plant will remain unchanged.

Page 7-12

1.50.200 2008

The uses of water delivered to residential homes can be categorized as "inside home" and
"outside home." Water use inside 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
sanitary flow contribution includes grey water from household appliances (dishwashers,
washing machines, sinks, showers), sanitary toilet flows, and
industrial/commercial/institutional flows. The base flows normally fluctuate daily with
water usage, and peaks occur in the morning (6-10 a.m.) and evening (5-8 p.m.). Water use
efficiency measures such as ultra low flow (6 L/flush) toilets, leak reduction, low flow
faucets and shower heads, and metering will all contribute to the reduction of sanitary base
flows.

As described elsewhere in this report, inflow and infiltration (I&I) includes inflow to the
sewer collection system due to rainfall plus groundwater infiltration. Water use efficiency
measures will decrease the base sanitary flow, but will not affect the I&I component of
sanitary flows. Studies undertaken elsewhere indicate that a reduction in base sanitary flow
of about 10% to 20% is a realistic objective for a water use reduction program. The impact
of total wastewater flow will depend on the amount of I&I (i.e., if the collector sewer
system is subject to excessive I&I, this will tend to reduce the relative impact of water
conservation).

Page 7-13

1.50.200 2008

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 are relatively minor. Water conservation may also result in capital 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.

A reduction of water usage can result in decreased sanitary sewer flows and a potential
reduction in wastewater treatment costs through deferment of expansions to facilities and
lower operation and maintenance costs (mainly for pumping).

The City of Revelstoke has jurisdiction over water supply within the study area. The City
updated its water conservation strategy in January 2007 to evaluate and expand
implemented water conservation measures. This included a cost benefit analysis of water
conservation measures (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2007). Water conservation measures
adopted by the City are described in Section 11.2.

Page 7-14

1.50.200 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
8.0

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

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. 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.
Development is also known to increase the pollutant load carried to receiving waters by surface
runoff; much of the contaminant load in the surface runoff from urban areas is associated with
the operation of motor vehicles.

The field of stormwater management has evolved from an initial focus on collecting and removing
runoff from urban areas as quickly as possible to a much wider view that includes protection of
environmental resources as well as control of flooding. During the 1980s, extensive study in the
USA and elsewhere showed that storm runoff from urban areas typically carries a significant
contaminant load to receiving waters, and mitigation measures to reduce the environmental damage
caused by urbanization initially focused on water quality. Since that time, it has become apparent
that protection of water quality will not adequately mitigate the environmental damage caused by
development in most urban watersheds.

Changes to the natural hydrologic cycle caused by the creation of large amounts of impervious
ground cover and the removal of streamside riparian vegetation result in increased erosion of
streams, increased stream water temperature, reduced groundwater recharge, and reduced dry

Page 8-1

1.50.200 2008

season base flows in streams. These changes typically result in 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 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
detaining collected runoff to limit flow rates, and removing contaminants through physical and
biological processes.

In the past, many storm drainage facilities were designed for flood control only, based on relatively
large storms. Storm surface drainage is now recognized as a significant source of contamination of
surface waters. It has also been recognized that frequently occurring smaller storms can cause
more erosion damage to streams than occasional large events. The implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce contamination of receiving waters by storm surface
runoff and to preserve the natural hydrologic cycle is encouraged by the Province.

The framework for a stormwater management program is outlined in this section.

8.1

Runoff Quantity

The amount and rate of runoff from a particular storm event are affected by the ground
moisture conditions, soil and cover type, and the amount of pervious and impervious
ground cover. Development causes a change of ground surface from pervious to

Page 8-2

1.50.200 2008

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 natural detention in stream channels, floodplains, and ponds.

Drainage design should incorporate a minor and 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.
The recurrence interval is a statistical parameter that describes the probable time interval
between rainstorms of a given size (e.g., the 2 year recurrence rainfall is the relatively small
rainstorm that will occur on average once very two years, and the 100 year recurrence
rainfall is the much larger rainstorm that will occur on average only once every 100 years).

The minor system normally consists of catchbasins, manholes and pipes or ditches, handles
local drainage from developed areas, and remains separate from the major system. The
major system provides higher flood protection by routing large flows that overwhelm the
minor system along streets, in major channels, in special floodways, and through large
storm sewers. In some cases, an overland route is not feasible for the major system, and it
must be combined with the minor system in a pipeline, particularly in areas of existing
development which were not laid out with the two-system concept in mind. Erosion
protection, provisions for sediment transport or reduction, and stream pollution also become
important when the design method is selected.

If flood control for major storms by construction of drainage works is the desired solution,
management options generally include the following:

Page 8-3

1.50.200 2008

improved channel hydraulics;

diversion of portions or all of the flow;

temporary storage in detention facilities;

policy changes to reduce runoff, such as land development policy changes;

purchase of floodplain and use 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:

diversion of portions of the flow around sensitive stream reaches;

temporary storage in detention facilities;

low impact development (LID) techniques (e.g., use of absorbent soils and vegetation for
landscaping, infiltration of runoff into the ground where ground conditions allow, use of
pervious paving); and

land development policy changes (e.g., use of narrow streets to reduce impervious area,
restrictions on lot coverage, replacement of curb-and-gutter systems with vegetated swales,
requirements for on-lot LID techniques, etc.).

Hydrologic and hydraulic computer models can be used to determine the rates, volumes and
effects of runoff for pre-development and post-development conditions, to identify potential
problem areas, and to evaluate the effects of alternative drainage solutions.

8.2

Runoff Quality

Page 8-4

1.50.200 2008

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 describing the quality of storm surface runoff within the City of Revelstoke were
found. Based on data from other jurisdictions, potential sources of contamination within the
City are as follows:

pesticide use harmful organic compounds;

fertilizer use nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus;

construction activities sediment, petroleum products, garbage, chemicals, concrete


washwater;

household activities illicit dumping of hazardous chemicals, vehicle washing, pet


washes, decaying yard wastes;

motor vehicles metals and hydrocarbons from fluid leaks, particles from clutch and
brake linings, corrosion of parts;

industrial and commercial activities metals and organic contaminants;

cross-connections with the sanitary sewer system; and

roadway de-icers salt, toxic metals, cyanide (used as an anti-caking ingredient).

Regulation of storm surface runoff quality is difficult, due to the transient nature of storm
events and the wide variations in contaminant concentrations typically observed. In
general, source controls are preferred over treatment, due to the cost and the unproven
nature of many stormwater treatment processes (Gibb et.al., 1991). Key elements in a
source control program for stormwater quality management include maintenance and

Page 8-5

1.50.200 2008

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. Structural
approaches include the construction of stormwater treatment facilities, which are often
referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs); these include the following measures:

oil-water separators;

swirl concentrators for sediment removal;

dry detention ponds for sedimentation;

physical-chemical treatment;

wet detention ponds;

wetlands;

grassed swales;

vegetated filter strips;

infiltration basin and trenches; and

porous pavement.

Non-structural approaches to eliminate the production of runoff pollutants or to prevent


contact between pollutants and runoff are a practical first step, since these methods can
have positive impacts and have a relatively low cost. In situations where non-structural
approaches are insufficient (e.g., heavily-travelled roads, some industrial activities,
vehicle storage and repair yards), structural BMPs may be required to achieve the desired
runoff water quality. The use of stormwater treatment BMPs is highly site-specific;

Page 8-6

1.50.200 2008

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

Existing Drainage Facilities

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 for the City is
illustrated on Figure 8-1. All storm water is directly discharged into the Columbia River
or the Illecillewaet River. The City does not monitor storm sewer discharges.

8.3.2

Drainage Studies

In 1973 the City of Revelstoke conducted a study to design the stormwater system, and to
create a Master Drainage Plan. The drainage system was designed according to the
natural drainage pattern. The stormwater system in the City was designed with a fiveyear return period, except for the systems that convey hillside drainage, which were
designed with a ten-year return period. A unit runoff of 5.5 L/s/ha of drainage basin was
used for the design flow from the upland areas.

In 1975 the Pollution Control Branch of the Provincial Government ordered the City of
Revelstoke to begin to upgrade the sanitary sewer collection system by substantially
discontinuing the discharge of storm waters to sanitary sewers, and a study to develop
alternatives for storm water management was undertaken in 1977 (USL, 1977). Options
that were considered but not recommended for implementation were upgrading of the

Page 8-7

1.50.200 2008

existing treatment system to combined sewer standards, and construction of in system


storage. The third alternative, separation of the storm and sanitary sewer 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 ongoing.

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
Lanarc, 2002). Some restrictions on surface runoff discharges are provided under the
Federal Fisheries Act, mainly relating to negative impacts on fish habitat.

The Federal Fisheries Act influences any activity in and about watercourses that may
affect fish and/or fish habitat. Fish habitat not only includes the stream channel but may
also include upland areas associated with streamside vegetation. The Fisheries Act
makes it an offence to conduct activities which may result in the obstruction of fish
migration, the deposition of a deleterious substance, and/or the harmful alteration,
disruption, or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. The Water Act influences any
activities in and about watercourses that may affect water quality, habitat, and/or other
water users.

The Land Development Guidelines (FOC/MELP, 1992) recommend the width of buffer
(leave) strips adjacent to watercourses, as well as other measures to ensure that that
quantity and quality of fish habitat is maintained. Generally the guidelines suggest that a
15 metre wide leave strip be maintained on streams where Residential/Low Density
development is proposed, and a 30 metre wide leave strip be maintained where

Page 8-8

1.50.200 2008

Commercial/High Density development is proposed. The leave strip guidelines are


suggested minimum widths and may be altered by federal or provincial regulatory 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 bearing 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 Streamside Protection and
Enhancement Areas such that for fish bearing watercourses and permanent non-fish
bearing watercourses a 30 metre width is required, and for non-permanent non-fish
bearing watercourses a 15 metre width is required. The Riparian Areas Regulation also
sets out protection areas associated with ravines, where, if the ravine is greater than 60
metres wide from the top of bank, then the protection area extends 10 metres from the top
of the ravine bank, or if the ravine is less than 60 metres wide, a 10 metre wide protection
area is required from top of the ravine bank.

The Water Quality Guidelines developed by the Province of B.C. provide guidelines for
numerous substances that are typically contained in storm surface runoff.

8.4.2

Policies and Regulations in the City of Revelstoke

City of Revelstoke Council policies for storm drainage are as follows:

Page 8-9

1.50.200 2008

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
set out in this Bylaw, the Superintendent of Public Works may prohibit the waste
from being discharged; require the person to install, operate and maintain facilities to
control the quantity, rate, and content of sewage, or require pre-treatment (5.08).

b) Where any person discharges any sewage or waste into the Sanitary Sewer System or
a watercourse which requires treatment or removal by the City to comply with the
terms and conditions set out in this Bylaw, that person shall be responsible to pay to
the City the costs of treatment or removal (5.09).

c) No person shall discharge into the Sanitary Sewer System or any watercourse, any
Industrial Discharge without first obtaining a Waste Discharge Permit from the
Superintendent of Public Works and written permission from the Medical Health
Officer. Discharge into a watercourse or similar outlet is also subject to the approval
of the Medical Health Officer and the Provincial Ministry of Environment.

Bylaw No. 1683-2002 does not contain any specific references to storm drains or to
regulate discharges to the storm drainage system other than the above.

Page 8-10

1.50.200 2008

8.5

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 on a plan of the watershed area. Basins which encompass more than one
political jurisdiction should be identified, so that governing agencies can cooperate to
ensure a consistent and effective approach.

Some B.C. Municipalities and regional districts have developed comprehensive stormwater
bylaws and/or policies that encompass flood protection, erosion protection, and water
quality (e.g., City of Coquitlam, Capital Regional District). Guidance for developing such
bylaws suitable for local conditions is available (e.g. Dayton & Knight Ltd., 1998).

8.6

Recommended Approach for Stormwater Management

Comprehensive stormwater management planning involves the formulation of a clear set of


site-specific goals and objectives for flood control and pollution control, involving input
from representatives of all interested and affected parties within the watershed. A flexible
and iterative process of review and adjustment is required, to refine and focus the goals and
objectives and the plan of action to achieve the objectives.

Formulation of the goals and objectives requires a general inventory of the watershed,
including topography and drainage, soils and land use, and identification of interested and
affected parties. The inventory is used to identify the most valuable receiving waters, to
assess areas that are at the greatest risk of degradation in water quality due to stormwater,
and to identify the areas where stormwater management offers the greatest benefits and has
the greatest chance of success. For priority drainage basins, more detailed inventories are

Page 8-11

1.50.200 2008

then prepared to define site-specific, measurable hydrologic and environmental objectives.


Hydrologic objectives include groundwater recharge, flood and erosion control, stream
baseflow preservation, and stabilization of water levels. Environmental objectives 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, develop the plan of action, and establish baseline conditions to monitor
improvements.

Stormwater issues are best addressed on a watershed basis, by considering drainage area
boundaries rather than political boundaries. For effective stormwater management, the
issues of flood control, erosion control, and pollution control should all be coordinated on a
watershed-encompassing scale. Flood control works which may improve the situation for
a specific area can actually increase flooding and erosion in downstream areas. Regulatory
and educational approaches for source control of pollutants entering the storm drainage
system are similar in nature to those for sanitary sewer systems. A coordinated approach
can avoid costly duplication of effort, and result in regulatory and educational programs
which are consistent with water quality objectives.

Stormwater quality management is best accomplished through a combination of nonstructural controls designed to prevent pollutants from being picked up by surface runoff
(including source control through regulation and education), and structural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to provide
pollutant removal and flow attenuation or infiltration at upstream (source) locations (e.g.,
vegetated swales and filter strips, infiltration practices, urban forestry). Treatment of larger
volumes of collected stormwater may be accomplished in larger facilities such as wet
detention ponds and constructed wetlands. It is important to consider structural BMPs at
the planning stage for new developments, since their use can be severely restricted by space

Page 8-12

1.50.200 2008

limitations in existing developments. Therefore, land use 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 loadings from
specific areas with reasonable accuracy. Further, laboratory analyses 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
more intense monitoring and site visits. Initial sampling efforts should be designed to
identify problem tributaries to the storm drain and surface drainage systems, through the
collection and analysis of sediment samples taken from strategic locations. The need for
a more comprehensive monitoring effort, including water quality sampling during runoff
events, should be assessed on an ongoing basis.

Page 8-13

1.50.200 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

9.0

PLAN CRITERIA

This section contains the criteria used for developing and evaluating liquid waste management
alternatives.

9.1

Population

The present and projected design populations serviced by the City or Revelstoke Waste
Water Treatment Plant are contained in Table 3-1 in Section 3.3 of this report. These
population projections are proposed for use in the LWMP, subject to potential revisions
associated with update to the Official Community Plan currently underway.

9.2

Wastewater Quantity

The per capita flow rates for wastewater proposed for use in the LWMP (developed from
historical WWTP flows) are summarized in Table 5-1 in Section 5 of this report.
Proposed wastewater flows to 2027 for the WWTP service area based on the per capita
flows and OCP population projections are shown in Table 5-2 in Section 5.

Page 9-1

1.50.200 2008

9.3

Discharges to Surface Water

Criteria for treated wastewater discharges set out in this section are based on existing
provincial regulations and impending federal regulations.

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
22.75 m3/d (MOE, 1999). The effluent criteria for discharges of treated wastewater to
surface waters (based on the MSR) are summarized in Table 9-1.

TABLE 9-1
EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATERS
(MOE, 1999)
Effluent Criteria for Discharges to Fresh Waters1
Maximum Daily Flow 50 m3/d or greater
Parameter

Streams, Rivers & Estuaries


2

Dilution 40:1

Dilution 10:1

Treatment Requirement

Secondary

BOD5 (milligrams/litre)
TSS (milligrams/litre)
pH
Disinfection
Total Phosphorus (mg P/L)
Orthophosphate (mg P/L)
Toxicity, acute

45
45
6.0-9.0
see3
1.04
0.54
100% LC50,
96h
See5

High Quality
Secondary
10
10
6.9-9.0
see3
1.04
0.54
100% LC50,
96 hr
See5

Ammonia
1

Maximum Daily Flow less than 50 m3/d


Streams, Rivers & Estuaries

Lakes (surface
area 100 ha or
greater)

Dilution 40:1

Dilution 10:1

Secondary

Secondary

45
45
6.0-9.0
see3
1.04
0.54
100% LC50, 96
hr
See5

45
45
-see3
-----

High Quality
Secondary
10
10
-see3
-----

Lakes (surface
area 100 ha or
greater)
Secondary
45
45
-see3
-----

Effluent quality standards for all receiving water discharges are based on the use of an outfall which provides a combination of depth and distance
to produce a minimum 10:1 initial dilution within the mixing zone.
Dilutions less than 100:1 will require an environmental impact study to determine if effluent quality needs to be better than tabulated. Where the
dilution ratio is below 40:1 and the receiving stream is used for recreational or domestic water extraction within the influence of the discharge,
discharge will not be permitted unless an environmental impact study shows that the discharge is acceptable and no other solutions are available.
For discharges to recreational use waters, fecal coliform < 200 MPN/100 mL. Where domestic water extraction occurs within 300 m of a
discharge, fecal coliform < 2.2 MPN/100 mL with no sample exceeding 14 MPN/100 mL. Where chlorine is used, dechlorination will be
required. Wherever possible alternate forms of disinfection to chlorine should be implemented.
The total and orthophosphate criteria may be waived if it can be shown from an environmental impact study that receiving waters would not be
subject to an undesirable degree of increased biological activity because of the phosphorus addition. Alternatively, an environmental impact
study may show that lower effluent concentrations than are tabulated are necessary, or that a mass load criteria may be needed.
The allowable effluent ammonia concentrations at the "end of pipe" must be determined from a back calculation from the edge of the initial
dilution zone. The back calculation must consider the ambient temperature and pH characteristics of the receiving water and known water quality
guidelines.

Page 9-2

1.50.200 2008

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
Canadas 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.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if
(a) the discharge is to ground,
(b) the discharge quality meets a maximum BOD5 not exceeding 10 mg/L and a
maximum TSS not exceeding 10 mg/L,
(c) the discharge does not exceed a maximum daily flow of 5,000 m3/d and the
discharger demonstrates to the satisfaction of a director that the discharge does not
adversely affect the receiving environment,
(d) the discharge is to open marine waters,
(e) the discharge is diluted such that at the outside boundary of the initial dilution
zone the dilution ratio exceeds 100:1 and the discharger demonstrates to the
satisfaction of a director that the discharge does not adversely affect the receiving
environment,
(f) reclaimed water is being provided or used in accordance with this regulation, or
(g) the discharger demonstrates to the satisfaction of a director that the discharge
does not adversely affect the receiving environment.

Page 9-3

1.50.200 2008

(3) If subsection (1) applies, a person 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.

TABLE 9-2
WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL INDICATORS
MPN/100 ML (MOE, 2006)

Escherichia coli
Enterococci
Fecal coliforms
*

9.3.2

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

the geometric mean is a type of mean or average, which indicates the central tendency or typical value of a set of numbers. The n
numbers are multiplied and then the nth root of the resulting product is taken, where n = count of numbers in the set.

Federal Regulations and Guidelines

Currently, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CCME is developing a


Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (2007). At
the same time, the Ministry of Environment is reviewing and revising the Municipal
Sewage Regulation (MSR) of the Environmental Management Act.
The CCME strategy focuses on effluents released from wastewater treatment systems and
overflows from sewer collection systems. National performance standards will be
regulated under the Fisheries Act and in provincial and territorial regulatory instruments.
The following discharge levels will be defined in these regulations:
BOD5

maximum effluent discharge level 25 mg/L

TSS

maximum effluent discharge level 25 mg/L

Page 9-4

1.50.200 2008

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 of the effluent release. In the long-term the
wastewater effluents discharge levels require wastewater treatment systems equivalent in
performance to secondary treatment with additional treatment if required.
The strategy also includes source control measures to preventing the entry of pollutants
into the wastewater system (see Section 6 in this report). An action plan for wastewater
systems on how to manage overflows from the combined sewers and how to achieve the
effluent discharge levels within a 30 year timeline would be required.

9.4

Discharges to Land

Disposal of treated wastewater effluent to land is normally accomplished by the use of a


network of buried, perforated pipes (commonly referred to as drain fields, disposal fields,
or tile fields) that allow the effluent to seep into the surrounding soil. This type of system
is designated onsite, since wastewater is treated and disposed of within individual lots
or parcels. The level of treatment required prior to ground disposal depends on the nature
of the site and on the sensitivity of the receiving environment (e.g., the potential for
groundwater contamination). Treatment systems vary in complexity from simple septic
tanks to small off-the-shelf treatment facilities (commonly called package plants).

Page 9-5

1.50.200 2008

Ground disposal systems with design flows of less than 22.75 m3/d (i.e., single home
systems up to community systems servicing 50 to 60 homes) are administered by the
Ministry of Health (MOH). Larger discharges to ground are administered by the
Ministry of Environment under the Municipal Sewage Regulation. The MSR sets out
water quality standards for discharges 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 local governments meet the following
requirements in order to be eligible for infrastructure funding assistance from the
Province:

enact a bylaw which applies to all areas within the boundaries under jurisdiction of
the applicant that requires community sewer service to all new lots of less than one
hectare; or

an approved (by Minister of Environment) Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP)


for decentralized wastewater - the LWMP must address on-site sewage in a
sustainable fashion, with the understanding that on-site sewage systems will be
considered as permanent infrastructure - the LWMP must be supported by appropriate
bylaws (OCPs, zoning, subdivision standards, etc.), and at a minimum, the LWMP
will address:
-

where the recipient is proposing development of new properties that will not
receive community sewer, and the cumulative hydraulic loading from onsite
sewage disposal systems can be safely and sustainably handled by the overall
soils environment,

a community plan for the management and maintenance of onsite septic systems,

a biosolids management plan, and

a septage collection plan.

Page 9-6

1.50.200 2008

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
wastewater management in the past has been to provide sufficient treatment to allow
disposal of effluent in order to protect public health and the environment. With the
exception of some southern states in the U.S., the emphasis has been on disposal of effluent
to water or to land. Treated wastewater is now being looked upon as a resource that should
be beneficially reused where feasible. This evolving approach contrasts with wastewater
disposal practices that currently prevail. An appropriate level of treatment and monitoring
for various reuse applications is important to the protection of public health and the
receiving environment. With effective source control programs coupled with adequate and
reliable treatment, effluent can be beneficially reused. Treatment plants designed for water
reuse are more appropriately classified as water reclamation plants.
Standards for the use of reclaimed effluent in British Columbia were adopted in July 1999,
and are administered by the MOE under the standards set out in the MSR. The MSR
standards for water reuse in British Columbia dictate that effluent used as reclaimed water
must meet either of the two requirements described in Table 9-3, depending on the use of
the reclaimed water. Environmental impact studies are required for both categories of

Page 9-7

1.50.200 2008

reclaimed water. Use of reclaimed water must be authorized in writing by the local health
authority having jurisdiction.

TABLE 9-3
RECLAIMED WATER CATEGORY AND PERMITTED USES
Unrestricted Public Access Category
EFFLUENT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
6 > pH < 9
BOD5 < 10 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
Greenbelts
Vehicle and Driveway Washing
Landscaping around Buildings
Toilet Flushing
Outside Landscape Fountains
Outside Fire Protection
Street Cleaning
AGRICULTURAL
Aquaculture
Food Crops Eaten Raw
Pasture (no lag time for animal grazing)
Frost Protection, Crop Cooling and
Chemical Spraying on crops eaten raw
Seed crops
RECREATIONAL
Stream Augmentation
Impoundments for Boating and Fishing
Snow Making for skiing and snowboarding

Page 9-8

Restricted Public Access Category


EFFUENT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
6 > pH < 9
BOD5 < 45 milligrams/litre
TSS < 45 milligrams/litre TSS
Fecal coliforms < 200/100 millilitres
AGRICULTURAL
Commercially processed food crops
Fodder, Fibre
Pasture
Silviculture
Nurseries
Sod Farms
Spring Frost Protection
Chemical Spray
Trickle Drip Irrigation of Orchards and
Vineyards

URBAN/RECREATIONAL
Landscape Impoundments
Landscape Waterfalls
Snow Making not for skiing or
snowboarding
Golf Courses (providing health and
environmental issues resolved to
manager's satisfaction)
CONSTRUCTION
Soil Compaction
Dust Control
Aggregate Washing
Making Concrete
Equipment Washdown
INDUSTRIAL
Cooling Towers
Process Water
Stack Scrubbing
Boiler Feed
ENVIRONMENTAL
Wetlands

1.50.200 2008

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 to seasonal storage an alternative method of disposing of the


reclaimed water or satisfy the manager that no such alternative is required to assure
public health protection and treatment 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
proposed;

where frequent worker contact with reclaimed water occurs, disinfection must achieve a
fecal coliform level of <14/100 millilitres;

the reclaimed water provider must demonstrate that reclaimed water does not contain
pathogens or parasites at levels which are a concern to local health authorities;

reclaimed water must be clean odourless, non-irritating to skin and eyes and must
contain no substances that are toxic on ingestion;

where available, agricultural (crop) limits must govern criteria for metals;

high nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during certain growth stages
crop limits and season must govern nutrient application; and

the reclaimed water provider must obtain monitoring results, and confirm that water
quality requirements are met, prior to distribution.

According to definitions contained in the MSR, water-carried wastes from liquid or nonliquid culinary purposes, washing, cleansing, laundering, food processing or ice
production (i.e., grey water) are classified as domestic sewage, regardless of whether or
not toilet wastes (black water) are included. As such, the MSR standards for use of

Page 9-9

1.50.200 2008

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. 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 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
permission from health authorities. Procedures and facilities must be in place to ensure
that systems will be monitored and operated properly, so that it can be demonstrated that
there is no danger to the public health. Each demonstration project is carefully
considered on a case-by-case basis, before receiving approval.

9.6

Beneficial Use of Biosolids

The beneficial use and disposal of biosolids in British Columbia is regulated by the B.C.
Ministry of Environment (MOE) under the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation
(OMRR). The OMRR defines allowable uses for treated biosolids in British Columbia.
The OMRR does not apply to land application of biosolids that is authorized by a Permit,
Approval, or Operational Certificate.

9.6.1

Permits, Approvals and Operational Certificates

A Permit or an Approval is required for land application of biosolids that do not fall
within the OMRR. An approval is typically issued for one-time applications of biosolids

Page 9-10

1.50.200 2008

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. 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.
For a one-time application of biosolids in certain situations, the MOE sometimes allows
biosolids applications under a letter of authorization extending the existing Operational
Certificate for the wastewater treatment plant that generated the biosolids.

9.6.2

Organic Matter Recycling Regulation

The MOE developed the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) in concert with
various stakeholders, to establish requirements for the reuse of treated biosolids. The
OMRR defines three products that incorporate biosolids, with different quality
classifications for each product. Biosolids are defined in the OMRR as: stabilized
municipal sewage sludge resulting from a municipal waste water treatment process or
septage treatment process which has been sufficiently treated to reduce pathogen
densities and vector attraction to allow the sludge to be beneficially recycled in
accordance with the requirements of this regulation.

Page 9-11

1.50.200 2008

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, 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.
Categories for biosolids reuse according to OMRR are as follows:
Class B

land applied in accordance with a Land Application Plan to sites with restricted
public access and visible signage (e.g., for silviculture, mine reclamation, agriculture)

distribution to composting facilities

Class A

land applied in accordance with a Land Application Plan to sites with unrestricted
public access (e.g., parks, play fields, etc.)

distribution to composting facilities

manufacture of topsoil (biosolids growing media)

sale or give away in amounts not exceeding 5 m3 per vehicle per day, or in sealed
bags each not exceeding 5 m3 with no restriction on number of bags per vehicle per
day

Page 9-12

1.50.200 2008

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.

TABLE 9-4
OMRR TRACE METALS LIMITS
Parameter
(milligrams/kilogram dry weight
unless otherwise noted)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
% Total Solids by weight
Fecal Coliforms in Digested
Biosolids(per gram dry solids)
1
2

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
2
(Topsoil)
13
75
13
75
1.5
20
3
20
100
1060
100
-34
150
34
150
150
2200
400
-150
500
150
500
0.8
15
2
5
5
20
5
20
62
180
62
180
2
14
2
14
150
1850
500
1850
------2
<1,000
<1,000
<2x106

As specified in Trade Memorandum T-4-93 (September, 1993), Standards for Metals in Fertilizers and Supplements, as amended from time
to time, as adopted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada under the Fertilizers Act (Canada) and regulations.
Biosolids growing medium must be derived from Class A biosolids or Class B biosolids that meet Class A fecal coliform and vector
attraction reduction requirements.

Page 9-13

1.50.200 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1
10.0

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

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,
and beneficial use of biosolids is contained in Sections 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6, respectively. The
options were provided for the purpose of discussion at meetings of the Joint Advisory
Committee (JAC). Selected options for advancement to the Stage 2 LWMP are described in
Section 11.

The basic processes of wastewater treatment may include the following components, depending
on the process objectives and the nature of the receiving environment:

preliminary treatment screening, grit removal;

primary treatment removal of crude solids by gravity settling, removal of oil and grease
and other floatable material by skimming;

secondary treatment removal of dissolved and fine particulate oxygen-demanding organic


material by a community of microorganisms (mainly bacteria) that are cultured in a
bioreactor, followed by gravity separation of the microorganisms from the treated
wastewater;

Page 10-1

1.50.200 2008

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

Wastewater Treatment Technologies

The City of Revelstoke has a legal obligation to provide reliable and effective wastewater
treatment for its 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 quality criteria. Larger plants typically utilize
mechanical forms of treatment because natural systems and less mechanized forms
occupy too much land, which frequently is not available. Both mechanical and natural
treatment facilities rely mainly on bacteria for removal of contaminants.

Appropriate technologies for larger treatment facilities can be generalized into suspended
growth and fixed growth systems. Suspended growth systems generally include variations
of the activated sludge process (e.g., conventional activated sludge, contact stabilization,
pure oxygen, oxidation ditch, sequencing batch reactor, extended aeration). Fixed growth
systems include trickling filters and rotating biological contactors (RBC). Combined
systems contain both fixed and suspended growth components.

Suspended growth systems suitable for small plants include extended aeration, oxidation
ditch and sequencing batch reactors. Rotating biological contactor (RBC) units are the
most widely used fixed growth systems for small facilities, but trickling filters may also be
used.

Page 10-2

1.50.200 2008

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. Wetlands are normally
used for polishing effluent following secondary treatment, but they may also be used as a
secondary treatment process if 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. In general, the suspended growth and fixed growth technologies have a proven
record and capital and operating costs are well documented. The same is true for the
lagoon systems. Data are limited for wetland systems.

The only major wastewater treatment facility within the study area is the City of Revelstoke
aerated lagoon wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). As described in Section 4.2, the
Revelstoke WWTP provides secondary treatment and disinfection of wastewater prior to
discharge to the Illecillewaet River.

10.2

Biosolids Treatment Technologies

Treatment of liquid wastewater produces solid byproducts (commonly referred to as


sludge), regardless of the technology used. At larger facilities, both primary (crude) and
secondary (biological) solids are produced. These solids normally require further
processing before disposal or reuse. For reuse applications on land, waste solids should be
both stabilized and pasteurized (see Section 9.4). Stabilization reduces the putrescible
(volatile) fraction of the solids, with a consequent reduction in mass, odours and vector
attraction. After stabilization, waste solids are commonly referred to as biosolids.
Pasteurization coupled with stabilization reduces or eliminates pathogens in the biosolids
(see Section 9.6 for additional detail regarding biosolids treatment standards).

Page 10-3

1.50.200 2008

For larger plants, anaerobic digestion with energy (methane gas) recovery is normally
used for the stabilization process. Because of the large, gas-tight reactors needed 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 is
often used to 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

Preliminary Wastewater Collection and Treatment Alternatives for the City of


Revelstoke

The potential options for wastewater collection and treatment described below were
considered and discussed by the LWMP Advisory Committee. For all of the options, areas
within the City where the continued use of onsite (ground disposal) systems can be
considered are Arrow Heights, Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR) and the Airport Bench
(see Section 6.5). As described elsewhere in this report, RMR is to be provided with a
sewer collection system connecting to the City of Revelstoke system. Since the main sewer
connecting RMR to the City system passes through Arrow Heights, sewer service will be
available to Arrow Heights. There are reported concerns with water quality and shallow
wells in the Airport Bench area, which may constrain the long-term future use of onsite
systems in this area.
10.3.1 Option 1 Expand and Upgrade Existing WWTP to Accommodate Entire Service Area

Option 1 is illustrated on Figure 10-1 this option would be to expand and upgrade
the existing collection system and the WWTP to serve the entire City of Revelstoke,
including Big Bend and Clearview Heights developments, Arrow Heights, and
Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR).

Page 10-4

1.50.200 2008

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 existing
sewer system to convey additional wastewater from Big Eddy to Downie Pump
Station would be required. This was identified in the Big Eddy Sewer Study.

Trunk Sewer System: Option 1 would require upgrades to some sections of the trunk
sewer system to accommodate 2026 flows all upgrades would be designed to
accommodate build-out flows.

Option 1 was previously investigated by the City, although Big Eddy was not
included in the service area and the population estimates that were used do not match
the current OCP update - the estimated cost for the original concept for Option 1 was
$18.7 million (2006 dollars) to serve a 17,000 population equivalents this was
subsequently updated for DCC use to $23.5 million (2008 dollars).

10.3.2 Option 2 Construct New WWTP Near Mill to Accommodate Entire Service Area

Option 2 is illustrated on Figure 10-2 for this option, a new site for the WWTP
would be identified a potential site was previously identified near the mill the new
WWTP would accommodate the entire City of Revelstoke (including Big Bend and

Page 10-5

1.50.200 2008

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 existing 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 connects Big Eddy to
the existing sewer system.

Trunk Sewer System: upgrades required.

Connect Trailer Park and Oscar Pump Station to the sewer system: Forcemain
Reversal at Oscar Pump Station and Upgrade of Oscar Pump Station. Detailed
evaluation of the options would show if Moss Pump Station and Edward Pump
Station would require upgrading.

Option 2 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 $37.8 million (2006 dollars) to serve 17,100
population equivalents.

10.3.3 Option 3 Construct New WWTP Near Mill and Upgrade Existing WWTP

Option 3 is illustrated on Figure 10-3 this option would be to construct a new


WWTP to accommodate part of the City of Revelstoke (including Big Bend and
Clearview Heights developments), and Big Eddy (similar to Option 2 except that the
new WWTP would have a smaller service area) the existing WWTP would be

Page 10-6

1.50.200 2008

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 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 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
population equivalents.

10.3.4 Option 4 Upgrade Existing WWTP and Construct a New WWTP to Serve Big Eddy

Option 4 is illustrated on Figure 10-4 this option would be to construct a new


WWTP to serve Big Eddy (site to be determined see Figure 10-4) the existing
WWTP would be upgraded and expanded to serve the remainder of the City of
Revelstoke (including Big Bend and Clearview Heights developments), Arrow
Heights, and Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR) this would entail conversion of
the aerated lagoons to a mechanical treatment plant as in Option 1.

As in Option 1, 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.

Arrow Heights: A new pump station at Arrow Heights with forcemain to the existing
WWTP would be required, with a gravity connection from RMR to Arrow Heights.

Trunk Sewer System: upgrades required.

Page 10-7

1.50.200 2008

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 also serve the northern part of 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.

Expand and upgrade the existing collection system and convert the existing WWTP
to mechanical treatment to serve remainder of the City of Revelstoke, Arrow Heights,
and Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR).

Depending on the results of the Environmental Impact Study, it may be necessary to


abandon the existing outfall to the Illecillewaet River, and construct a new pump
station and new outfall to the Columbia River (see Option 1).

Arrow Heights: A new pump station at Arrow Heights with forcemain to the existing
WWTP would be required, with a gravity connection from RMR to Arrow Heights.

Trunk Sewer System: upgrades required.

10.3.6 Option 6 Construct New WWTP Near Airport and Upgrade Existing WWTP

Option 6 is illustrated on Figure 10-6 this option would be to expand and upgrade
the existing WWTP to mechanical treatment to serve the City of Revelstoke,
including Big Bend and Clearview Heights, and Big Eddy, and to construct a new
WWTP near the airport to serve Arrow Heights and RMR.

Page 10-8

1.50.200 2008

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 (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 connects Big Eddy
service area to the existing City system.

Trunk Sewer System: upgrades required.

10.3.7 Option 7 Construct New WWTP Near Airport to Accommodate Entire Service Area

Option 7 is illustrated on Figure 10-7 for this option, the planned upgrade of the
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) - no
expansion of the existing WWTP would be undertaken, and a new WWTP would be
constructed near the airport to accommodate the entire service area: the City of
Revelstoke (including Big Bend and Clearview Heights developments), Big Eddy,
Arrow Heights, and Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR). A new outfall to Upper
Arrow Lake would be required.

Construct a new pump station at Arrow Heights with forcemain to the existing
WWTP, with a gravity connection from RMR to Arrow Heights (planned for
2007/2008).

Upgrade Downie Pump Station.

New forcemains to connect Downie Pump Station to the new WWTP.

Page 10-9

1.50.200 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.

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 Station. Detailed
evaluation of the options will show if Moss Pump Station and Edward Pump Station
require an upgrade.

Big Eddy: see Option 1.

Trunk Sewer System: upgrades required.

10.3.8 All Options

Connect wastewater from Queen Victoria Hospital to the trunk main that will serve
RMR.

Connect Big Bend to existing system (private development).

Connect Clearview Heights/CPR Hill to existing system (existing project).

10.3.9 Environmental Impacts

An evaluation of the environmental impacts of the wastewater collection and treatment


options described above is contained in Appendix 7. A summary is included below.

The major impacts of the seven options arise from the location of any new WWTP, as
these plants will result in the largest footprint.

The proposed WWTP locations at the west end of Mill Street and near the airport are
likely to cause the most considerable impacts due to the wetlands and green space
present.

Page 10-10

1.50.200 2008

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
outfall pipe will have to cross a large area of the floodplain. These outfalls may also be less
suitable as the main channel of the Columbia River is less accessible at these locations.
The outfall location near the airport is also in an area that is seasonally flooded by Arrow
Lakes Reservoir, which may effect the available dilution.

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 sewer lines, which should have low
impacts overall if they are located in existing 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 environmental impacts of the various options are summarized in Table 10-1.

Page 10-11

1.50.200 2008

TABLE 10-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
Option
Description
1
Upgrade and expand
existing facilities

New WWTP near Mill


Street

Upgrade existing
WWTP, new WWTP
near Mill Street

Upgrade existing
WWTP, new WWTP at
Big Eddy

Upgrade existing
WWTP, new WWTP at
Big Eddy

Upgrade existing
WWTP, new WWTP
near airport

New WWTP near airport

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.
Location of Big Eddy WWTPand outfall
Illecillewaet River or Columbia River
outfall for existing WWTP
Sewer line across Illecillewaet River
Location of Big Eddy WWTP and
outfall
Illecillewaet River or Columbia River
outfall for existing WWTP
Sewer lines across Columbia River and
Illecillewaet River

Impact
Low/Moderate

Location of new WWTP and outfall


Illecillewaet River or Columbia River
outfall for existing WWTP
Sewer lines across Columbia River and
Illecillewaet River
Location of sewer line across floodplain
to Airport WWTP
Location of new WWTP and outfall
Illecillewaet River or Columbia River
outfall for existing WWTP
Sewer lines across Columbia River and
Illecillewaet River
Location of sewer line across floodplain
to Airport WWTP

High
Depends on location
of WWTP and outfall

Page 10-12

Low/Moderate
Depends on location
of WWTP and outfall.

Low/Moderate
Depends on location
of WWTP and outfall

Low/Moderate
Depends on location
of WWTP and outfall
Low/Moderate
Depends on location
of WWTP and outfall

High
Depends on location
of WWTP and outfall

1.50.200 2008

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. 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
wastewater treatment facilities was found to be the most cost effective reuse option.

Leaders in the wastewater reuse field include utilities in California, Florida, Israel and
Arizona. In more temperate climates, utilities in Japan and Colorado may also be noted.
Recent programs are motivated by economics, pollution reduction, and alleviating water
shortages. Past international trends in dual distribution have been to provide such systems
only for new growth and development areas. More recently, No. 1 quality (drinking) water
supply is becoming increasingly scarce, and No. 2 quality irrigation systems are being
extended into already established neighbourhoods for irrigation purposes.

Alternatives for use of treated effluent which were considered for application within the
study area are summarized below. It must be recognized that the effluent from the existing
Revelstoke WWTP would not consistently meet the MSR standards for reclaimed water,
and additional treatment steps for the reclaimed portion of the effluent would be required
(or, alternatively, any new facilities would be designed to meet these standards if
appropriate).

Page 10-13

1.50.200 2008

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


would have to be assessed once potential irrigation sites were identified in consultation
with the Joint Advisory Committee. The feasibility of agricultural irrigation using
reclaimed water will depend in part upon the distance between the wastewater treatment
facility, the reuse site, and on the relative abundance or scarcity of irrigation water.
Seasonal impoundments for storage of reclaimed effluent during the non-irrigation
season would be required. An estimate of the storage requirements and land base for
irrigation needed for the study area service population is shown in Table 10-2.

TABLE 10-2
AREA AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION
USING RECLAIMED WATER
Study Area Service
Year
Storage (ha-m)1
Land (ha)2
Population

1
2

2006

6,430

190

300

2026

21,390

630

1,030

sized to hold twice the average annual wastewater volume


based on average irrigation rate of 300 mm/yr

Page 10-14

1.50.200 2008

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 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.
Experience at the J.A.M.E.S. (Abbotsford) and French Creek facilities shows that at least
80% of potable water consumption at some WWTPs can be replaced with reclaimed water
(excluding biofilter irrigation and pump seal water applications, which are not normally
undertaken using potable water). In general, this option is the most cost effective approach
for use of reclaimed water, since pumping to remote sites is not required.

10.4.4 Landscape and Golf Course Irrigation

Golf course irrigation would be possible using tertiary treated effluent provided that health
and environmental concerns of MOE and the Ministry of Health were met (e.g., irrigation at
night only). This option would be potentially suitable for satellite systems located near golf
courses.

The feasibility depends mainly upon the distance between the treatment facility and the golf
course (or other landscaped area) and on the amount of irrigation water required.

Page 10-15

1.50.200 2008

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 reclaimed water of the necessary 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
Environmental Impact Studies.

10.4.7 Snow Making

The MSR contains two categories for reclaimed water use for snowmaking, one is for
application in areas not for skiing or snowboarding, and the other is for unrestricted
applications. The potential for this type of reclaimed water use in the study area would
require extensive consultation with stakeholders.

10.4.8 Exfiltration Basins for Groundwater Recharge

This application is extensively practiced in the drier areas of the U.S.A. where potable
water is in short supply and aquifers are a major source of potable water (i.e., indirect
potable reuse). The MSR does not identify this reuse category (see Table 9-3).
Hydrogeological and environmental impact studies would be required to identify suitable
locations for injection wells and to evaluate potential impacts on groundwater. The
feasibility of infiltration basins is highly dependant upon local aquifer hydraulics and on the

Page 10-16

1.50.200 2008

distance to water supply wells (i.e. vertical and lateral permeability, distance to hydraulic
boundary conditions)

10.5

Beneficial Use of Biosolids

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 does not incorporate biosolids treatment. Solids
accumulate over time in the quiescent (settling) section of the aerated lagoon system.
These solids must periodically be removed and disposed of or beneficially used. Since the
biosolids have not been treated to meet the standards set out in the Organic Matter
Recycling Regulation (OMRR), a Permit will be required for beneficial use, or the biosolids
must be further treated to meet OMRR requirements (e.g., composting see Section 9.4).
A general discussion of potential options for biosolids use is given below for information.
As described in section 10.5.6, the City plans to pursue composting of waste solids and
septage.

10.5.1 Silviculture

The use of biosolids in forest fertilization (silviculture) is well established. Class B


biosolids are suitable for forestry applications, provided that public access to the site is
restricted (see Section 9.4). Previous experience at the Resort Municipality of Whistler,
Malaspina University College Forest on Vancouver Island, and elsewhere has demonstrated
the increased forest productivity associated with biosolids applications (e.g. for
reforestation, fertilization of second growth, etc).

Page 10-17

1.50.200 2008

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). Harvesting of the trees when mature
will help the City to recover the costs of the program. Biosolids applications to hybrid
poplar plantations are less technically complicated than applications to natural 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
forest can include fertilization of existing stands, and regeneration of harvested areas or
forest fire burn sites.

Based on an assumed biosolids annual application rate of 10 to 20 dry tonnes/hectare for


silviculture, the area required to accommodate the estimated annual biosolids production
from the study area would be about 3.5 to 7 ha for the 2006 population, increasing to 12 to
24 ha for the 2026 population.

10.5.2 Agriculture

Biosolids applications to agricultural land are one of the most common, and typically the
most cost effective method (depending on biosolids form) for beneficial use of biosolids.
As with silviculture, Class B biosolids can be used for application to agricultural soils
(depending on crop type), provided that public access is restricted. Biosolids from the
Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) are applied to rangeland throughout the
interior of the Province, and biosolids from the Capital Regional District (CRD) were
applied to Woodwynn Farms on the Saanich peninsula. A demonstration project for

Page 10-18

1.50.200 2008

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 of application, provided that
public access to the site is restricted.

Contact with the B.C. Ministry of Transportation (MOT) in the past has indicated that
there is little potential for use of Class B biosolids for landscaping and reclamation
activities on road right-of-ways; this is due to unrestricted public access to these areas.

There may be potential for the use of Class B biosolids for reclamation activities at
gravel and borrow pits. The proximity to the wastewater facilities and site conditions
will be the determining factors in assessing the environmental suitability and economics
of this type of application. Relatively high biosolids application rates can typically be
used for land reclamation. Assuming a biosolids one-time application rate of about 40
tonnes/hectare, the required site area would be about 2 hectares for the 2006 biosolids
production from the study area, increasing to about 6 to 7 hectares for the 2026
production.

Page 10-19

1.50.200 2008

Mine reclamation offers the 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 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 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


using biosolids, provided that Class A pasteurization requirements are met. The City of
Salmon Arm, the City of Abbotsford and the Capital Regional District (Saanich Peninsula)
currently manufacture topsoil using Class A biosolids. This produces a very marketable
product that has no end use restrictions under OMRR. Since the conventional anaerobic
digestion process used at the Columbia PCC is not listed in Schedule 1 of the OMRR as a
Class A pathogen reduction process, the biosolids product produced could not be used for
topsoil manufacture unless a Class A process were added to the biosolids treatment train.
10.5.5 Landfill

Landfills may accept dewatered biosolids for cover and reclamation material. Class B
biosolids are normally suitable for this purpose. Storage of dewatered biosolids at
landfills for future beneficial reuse as daily cover, and as capping material when the
landfill closes, is potentially a viable option for short-term and long-term biosolids
management. The District of Hope currently transports biosolids to a landfill site for use
as cover material.

Page 10-20

1.50.200 2008

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 a more 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
being incorporated into composting operations, to avoid excessive generation of leachate.

As described in Section 4.6, the City plans to construct a composting facility that will
meet the requirements of the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation to process waste
solids from the WWTP, septage, and possibly yard waste (Sylvis, 2008). The facility is
to be located at Jordan Pit. The City is currently preparing a Request for Proposals for
the design of the composting facility. Construction is tentatively scheduled for the fall of
2009.

Page 10-21

1.50.200 2008

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).

11.1

Recommended Approach for Source Control

The City should undertake a review of Sanitary Sewer Connection Bylaw No. 1683-2002 to
ensure that all of the needed components are in place to protect biosolids quality, as well as
to protect the biological processes at the WWTP and to enhance the quality of the WWTP
discharge. The review should include evaluation of Prohibited and Restricted Wastes as
well as metals limits, and the outlining of a strategy to implement a monitoring and
enforcement program that could include identification of industrial/commercial/
institutional discharges, the need for industry sector Codes of Practice, and education for
business/industry and the public.
The following alternatives for review of Bylaw No. 1683-2002 should be considered.

1. Review the standards for prohibited and restricted wastes in comparison with the
CCME Model Bylaw and those for other jurisdictions (see Table 7-1). Revise the
standards if warranted.

Page 11-1

1.50.200 2008

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


small volume dischargers if these are identified within the City (e.g. restaurants for
source control of oil and grease), to simplify regulation and enforcement of source
control bylaws. Sample Codes of Practice are included in Appendix 3.

5. Continue to develop a public and private sector education program, to encourage source
control of contaminated discharges to the sanitary sewer (and storm drain) systems.
Include source controls in a broader education program that includes water conservation
and solid wastes

Existing educational resources which might be suitable for delivering messages and
information on liquid waste issues should be identified. Possible resources and methods
which are suited to public education and involvement in liquid waste management planning
issues are described below.

1. Mailing lists can be used for communicating liquid waste management planning
activities to interested parties. Mailing lists can be developed from lists created for

Page 11-2

1.50.200 2008

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, meetings, workshops and events, and liquid waste management 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 and solutions within a study area. Field trips should be carefully planned and
routes driven beforehand, and should take into account the physical condition of the
participants. Knowledgeable speakers and maps and handouts should be available to
describe each stop, and time for questions and discussion should be allowed.

4. Displays at public functions and events, at conferences, and in schools can be used to
describe liquid waste impacts and issues. Messages should be kept simple to encourage
casual readers, and displays should be staffed if possible.

5. Surveys can be used to educate, gather information, and assess the level of
understanding and support for liquid waste issues within the community. Some followup by letter or telephone will generally increase the response rate.

6. Meetings and workshops are valuable opportunities for two-way communication and
public feedback. Issues can be debated or discussed in depth, and input from a variety
of sources can be obtained. The location, timing and venue of public meetings should
be chosen to maximize accessibility, convenience and comfort for the participants.

7. Involvement of the local news media can be important in educating the public on liquid
waste issues and planning, gathering public support, and publicizing meetings and

Page 11-3

1.50.200 2008

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.

Education programs should be designed to provide particular groups with appropriate


messages and information, and should be uncomplicated, non-technical, and free of jargon.
Specific audiences should be identified, and appropriate messages and information targeted
for those audiences developed. A focus on local issues helps to promote a sense of place;
however, a common direction for the entire study area should be apparent. Cooperation
should be encouraged among all parties interested in or affected by the Liquid Waste
Management Plan. Interesting and innovative activities which involve people and lead to
action will encourage public support and participation. Local environmental groups should
be encouraged to participate in the education program.

11.2

Wastewater Volume Reduction

As described in Section 7.2, wastewater volume reduction efforts should include water
conservation to reduce sewage volumes. The City has identified a number of water
conservation measures for implementation; those that will potentially affect wastewater
volumes are listed below.

Page 11-4

1.50.200 2008

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) various conservation 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.

Amend the Building Bylaw to require ultra low flush toilets and reduced water use
fixtures for all new buildings.

Require all new development to install water meters and amend water rates to
incorporate a two tier billing system (with or without meters).

Encourage a voluntary meter installation program in existing buildings. (For example,


residents pay the cost of the meter; the City pays the cost to install).

11.3

Stormwater Management

Stormwater management issues are discussed in Section 8 of this report.

It is recommended that the following stormwater management initiatives be considered


for inclusion in the City of Revelstoke LWMP. Suggested budgets are for consultant
assistance and do not include City staff time.

Page 11-5

1.50.200 2008

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 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 set 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
level of detail required.

2. The environmental resources identified in the LWMP (e.g., unconfined aquifers,


sensitive streams and habitat) should form an integral part of drainage planning and
development planning within the City. Natural drainage features such as wetlands,
groundwater recharge/discharge areas, and stream corridors should continue to be
preserved whenever possible. This approach will minimize the need for manmade
drainage structures, thereby reducing costs, and helping to preserve the natural
environment. Drainage planning and development planning should be undertaken
together, so that drainage issues and protection of natural drainage features such as
wetlands and groundwater recharge areas can be considered while the development
site plan is being developed. The City should undertake a review of existing
development application approval procedures to ensure that planning, engineering,
and operations issues are all considered at an early stage in the development
application process. Budget $25,000.

Page 11-6

1.50.200 2008

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 sites). The Citys drainage design criteria 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
suitable. Before onsite infiltration is undertaken, hydrogeological studies to evaluate
both site-specific conditions and regional effects on the groundwater regime and
drainage should be completed.

5. The source control education program described in Section 7.1.7 should include
stormwater issues.

6. The inventory of non-domestic dischargers to the sanitary sewer system (see Section
7.1.6) should include potential contaminant sources of storm runoff (e.g. vehicle
repair yards, outdoor lumber storage, etc.).

11.4

Design Criteria

The design criteria summarized in Section 9 of this report should be used for the evaluation
of selected options in the Stage 2 LWMP.

Page 11-7

1.50.200 2008

11.5

Concept Options for Wastewater Collection and 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. Option 1 involves continuing expansion and upgrading of the central
WWTP at the existing site (see Section 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 Citys needs for the long-term future (see Section 2.1, JAC Meeting #6).

11.6

Use of Reclaimed Water

The potential options for use of reclaimed water are described in Section 10.6 of this report.
In consultation with the Joint Advisory Committee, the feasible option for reclaimed water
use that should be advanced to the Stage 2 LWMP is reuse at the wastewater treatment
facility for non-potable applications.

11.7

Beneficial Use of Biosolids

Potential beneficial applications for biosolids are discussed in Section 10.5 of this report.
In consultation with the Joint Advisory Committee, biosolids use options to be advanced to
the Stage 2 LWMP were identified to be manufacture of compost and reclamation of
disturbed land or contaminated sites. As described in Section 10.5.6, the City is planning to
construct a composting facility at the Jordan Pit that will process waste 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 (Sylvis, 2008)

Page 11-8

1.50.200 2008

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

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 upgrades and expansions.

Page 11-9

1.50.200 2008

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 Plan,
Municipal Waste Branch, August 1992.
B.C. Environment (1992b). Urban Runoff Quality Control Guidelines for the Province of British
Columbia, B.C. Environment, June 1992.
BHA (2007), Revelstoke Backgrounder: A Status Report for the Comprehensive Review of the
Official Community Plan, Brent Harley and Associates Inc.
Canadian Councils of Ministers of the Environment CCME (2007), Canada-wide Strategy for the
Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent, Draft, September2007
CBA Engineering, Groundwater Information Revelstoke Area, Memos, 1977
CDC 2007. Conservation Data Centre, BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer, Ministry of
Environment, Victoria, BC. Website available at: http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca/apps/eswp/.
CH2M Hill and Lanarc (2002), Stormwater Planning, A Guidebook for British Columbia, for
Environment Canada, B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and Regional District of
Nanaimo.
City of Revelstoke (2006), Liquid Waste Management Plan Terms of Reference, City of
Revelstoke.
City of Revelstoke, Official Community Plan, Bylaw No. 1519 (in revision).
City of Revelstoke, Zoning Bylaw No. 1264, 1984.

Page R-1

1.50.200 2008

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. (2002b), Study on Potential Rainwater and Grey Water Reuse in the
GVRD, for Greater Vancouver Regional District, File 113.56.
Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2003), Sewage Treatment Plant Engineering Audit, for City of Revelstoke,
January 2003, File 1.21.
Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2003), Wastewater Treatment Plant, Environmental Impact Study, for City
of Revelstoke, January 2003, File 1.23.
Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2004), Review of Mt. Mackenzie Resort Ltd.s Mount Mackenzie Resort
Expansion Master Plan, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.29.
Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2006a), Development of Sanitary Model, for City of Revelstoke, File
1.39.200.
Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2006b), WWTP Upgrade, Basis of Design Report, Draft, for City of
Revelstoke, File 1.40.200.
Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2006c), Technical Memorandum No. 1, Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade
2006, Impact of Population Growth on Process Selection, for City of Revelstoke, File 1.40.200.
Dayton & Knight Ltd. (2006d), Technical Memorandum No. 2, Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade
2006, Impact of Population Growth including Revelstoke Mountain Resort on Process Selection,
for City of Revelstoke, File 1.40.200.

Page R-2

1.50.200 2008

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.
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 Summary Service.
FOC/MOE (1992) Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat, Dept. of
Fisheries and Oceans/Ministry of Environment (former MELP)
Future Legacy Consulting Group (2003), Revelstoke Community Environmental Strategy, June
2003.
Gibb, A., B. Bennett and A. Birkbeck, (1991). Urban Runoff Quality and Treatment: A
Comprehensive Review, B.C. Research Corporation, March 1991.
Golder Associates (1997), Groundwater Potential Evaluation, for the City of Revelstoke, December
1997.
Golder Associates (1975), Slope Stabilization CPR Hill, October 1975
Golder 2002. Middle Columbia River Fish Community Indexing Program 2001 Phase 1
Investigations. Report prepared for B.C. Hydro by Golder Associates.
Golder Associates (2004), Groundwater Monitoring Program, Western Plume Area, CPR,
Revelstoke Yard, for the City of Revelstoke, December 2004.

Page R-3

1.50.200 2008

Golder Associates (2006), Clearview Heights Development and Planning Study, for the City of
Revelstoke, May 2006.
Golder Associates (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
Herons in the Columbia River Basin. Report prepared for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
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 Wildlife 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.
Masse, S., 2002. Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant Environmental Impact Study. Report
prepared for the City of Revelstoke.
Metcalf & Eddy (1991), Wastewater Engineering, Disposal, Reuse, Metcalf & Eddy, McGraw-Hill
Inc., Toronto, Ontario.
Metcalf & Eddy (2003), Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse, Metcalf & Eddy,
McGraw-Hill Inc., Toronto, Canada.
MOE (2006), Approved and Working Criteria for Water Quality, B.C. Ministry of Environment,
August 2006.
MOE (2006), British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines (Criteria): 1998 Edition, B.C.
Ministry of Environment.
MOE (1999), Municipal Sewage Regulation, B.C. Ministry of Environment.
MOE 2007. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C., Map available at:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searches/fpm/reports/region4.html
MOH (2004), Sewage System Regulation, Health Act, B.C. Ministry of Health.
Revelstoke Resorts (1999), Mount Mackenzie Resort Expansion, Draft Report, for BC Assets and
Land Corporation, 205 Industrial Road, Cranbrook, BC, V1C 6H3, December 1999.

Page R-4

1.50.200 2008

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 Reservoir at Revelstoke, B.C. by Waterfowl and other
Waterbirds. Report prepared for Friends of Mount Revelstoke and Glacier by Ellen 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
Urban Systems Ltd. (1984), Preliminary South Revelstoke Groundwater Flooding Investigation, for
City of Revelstoke, September 1984.
Urban Systems Ltd. (1990), Mt. Mackenzie Water and Sewer Study, for the City of Revelstoke,
November 1990.
Urban Systems Ltd. (2001), Feasibility Study Options for Septage Treatment, Disposal & Reuse,
Draft, for the City of Revelstoke, December 2001.
Urban Systems Ltd. (2006), Revelstoke Mountain Resort, Report on Costs for the Sewer
Connection to the City of Revelstoke, December 2006 / Memorandum for the City of Revelstoke,
September 2006.
Urban Systems Ltd. (2007), Queen Victoria Hospital Sanitary Connection Proposal, for City of
Revelstoke, January 2007.
USEPA (1984), Handbook Septage Treatment and Disposal, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, October 1984.
USEPA (2002), Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA/625/R-00/008, February, 2002.

Page R-5

1.50.200 2008

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). The
LWMP will lay the groundwork for wastewater (sanitary and storm sewer) management
for the nest 20-30 years. For the purposes of these terms of 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 Citys sewage collection system as well as septage generated from developed areas in
and outside (CSRD Area B) the municipal boundaries served by on-site systems (i.e.
septic tanks). The LWMP relative to sanitary sewer collection will in general apply to
areas within sewer area boundaries and also consider future transmission and treatment of
sewage waste from adjacent areas.
The impending development of the Mount Mackenzie Ski Resort will have a large impact
on the municipal infrastructure because of the estimated doubling of the population at full
build-out.
The plan must be acceptable to the residents of the community, particularly those
impacted by the utilization of reclaimed water/bio-solids and/or the disposal of
wastewater effluent. Therefore, the planning process will include a minimum of two
public information meetings to provide an opportunity to explain the available options to
the public and provide an opportunity for the public to provide suggestions and express
concerns. It is imperative that strong emphasis be placed upon public education with
respect to the LWMP process as the public will be expected to provide feedback to
Council which will assist them in the selection of the preferred option or mix options.
The plan will identify the improvements and facilities for liquid waste collection,
treatment and effluent disposition that will be required over the next 20 - 30 year period
and must be flexible enough to allow for the achievement of increasingly stringent
receiving water quality criteria.
There will be a component in the study to review drainage and storm water management
planning and examine options and priorities available to the municipality.

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 Citys Planning Department is 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 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 Citys 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
development and it is estimated that the population in this area could grow from its
present population of 3100 to potentially 5,000 to 6,000. Although this area has good
ground conditions for on-site sewage disposal, connection to the Citys sewage collection
system would be necessary in order to allow higher density development.
BIG EDDY
This area of the City is severed from the serviced area (sewer) of the City by the
Columbia River. Further, it has poor conditions for in-ground sewage disposal (high
water table) and no effective storm water system. There is development potential in the
Big Eddy if it could be serviced by a sewage collection and treatment system.
MT. MACKENZIE RESORT
The City has recently entered into an agreement with the resort developer to accept resort
sewage wastewater at the Citys Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). The resort is
responsible to design and build the sewer system from the resort to the STP with
completion expected in 2007. This new system will be constructed through Arrow
Heights, making the servicing of the neighborhood much more cost effective for residents
and developers. The City has agreed to pay for any upsizing of the resort trunk system to
service Arrow Heights and it should be noted that the City is currently working with the
resort developers consultant (Urban Systems) in the early stages of design work on this
system.

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 completed a
sanitary sewer study to explore the feasibility and cost of extending the Citys sewage
collection system to the area. The City received a 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, 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:
Steering Committee
Participants: City of Revelstoke Council member, staff representative and a MWLAP
representative.
Responsibility: To provide overall direction for the preparation of the plan.
Technical Advisory Committee
Participants:
City of Revelstoke Council member, staff representatives,
provincial/federal agencies (i.e. Ministries of WLAP, Health, Municipal Affairs,
Agriculture; Environment Canada; Fisheries and Oceans; Agricultural Land Commission,
etc.) and consultants.
Responsibility: To address issues and develop design criteria, problem solving, provide
technical input and develop technically sound solutions and recommendations.
Local Advisory Committee
Participants: City of Revelstoke Council member and members of the public that
represent a good cross-section of interests (i.e. Downtown Businesses, Industrial
Businesses, rate payers, School District, Rotary Club, etc.).
Responsibility: To provide input on all aspects during the process, focusing on the
anticipated acceptability of various options from a broad public perspective and provide
ongoing liaison with the public.

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.
6. To evaluate the environmental, social, public health, engineering, operational, and
financial advantages and disadvantages of technically feasible liquid waste
management options.
7. To identify the most appropriate liquid waste management option or mix of options
that can be economically achieved and which can be constructed in phases to meet
short and long term environmental goals.
8. To produce reports and presentations that are clear, concise and comprehensible to
the general public, members of Council and government agencies. The goal is to
provide sufficient information to the public, to allow them to comprehend the benefits
and concerns of each of the alternatives, so they are able to provide feedback to
Council to assist Council in the selection of the desired future course of action with
respect to liquid waste management within their community.

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 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
bio-solids including those that may be suggested by the public for technical
practicality and cost. The effluent disposal options will include designated septic tank
utilization areas, on-site satellite treatment facilities, beneficial reclaimed water
irrigation, and effluent disposal to the ground .
4. 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.
5. Examine all watercourses contained within the City boundaries and classify all water
courses and streams in accordance with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection guidelines and Streamside Protection Regulations. All methods of storm
water management including those that may be suggested by the public for technical
practicality and cost. The options should indicate any proposed potential storm water
retention areas and guidelines for development adjacent to sensitive streams.
6. Organize and arrange Workshops or Focus Group Sessions, with technical
representatives from the appropriate federal and provincial agencies to discuss the
Liquid Waste Management Plan Draft at least 10 days prior to each Public
Information Meeting.

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 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 II draft will be presented at a second public
information meeting where further public input will be solicited to assist
Council in selection of the preferred option;

Stage III

will be a short overview report, which will contain an executive summary


which gives the selected option or mix of options. The executive summary
must include an overview of the process followed, the options considered,
the reasons why options were discarded and the reasoning behind the
selection of the preferred option. Any necessary draft bylaws to be
prepared or other follow-up action needed is to be tabulated, with those
who will be taking the follow-up action clearly identified.

Both the final Stage I and Stage II reports shall include a summarization of the public
participation details for that stage, to ensure the Minister of Water, Land and Air
Protection that an appropriate level of public participation has occurred during the
development of the Liquid Waste Management Plan.
Provide provincial/federal representatives with the appropriate technical details
required to permit pollution prevention staff to prepare the Operational Certificate
which will replace the Waste Management Permit once the Liquid Waste
Management Plan has been signed off by the Minister of Water, Land and Air
Protection.
Prepare submissions on behalf of the City of Revelstoke to the Minister of Water,
Land and Air Protection for their review and approval, of each of the final documents
as they are produced.

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 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.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
If you are interested in this assignment, please submit three (3) copies of your proposal to
the City of Revelstoke, Attention: Bryant Yeomans, Director of Engineering and Public
Works, 216 Mackenzie Avenue, Box 170, Revelstoke, B.C. V0E 2S0, on or before 4:00
p.m. on November 27, 2006, with the following support information:
a. A list of the members of the Consultants project team, and their resumes.
b. A graphic work plan and a methodology which provides a clear description of the
tasks proposed to carry out the various aspects of the work and to fulfill the
objectives. This work plan should clearly show the level of effort planned for all
members of the project team, including sub-consultant(s) on each part of the
project.
The work plan is to include a timetable/schedule for the completion of all tasks.
In the methodology section the Consultant is invited to give an indication of any
foreseeable problems and suggestions on how to deal with them.
c. A schedule of hourly rates for all personnel who might be utilized on the project,
and their job classification. The hourly rates will be applicable to the basic
engineering assignment and, as well, for extra engineering work that may arise.
The hourly rates quoted shall be firm for the duration of the development of
the Liquid Waste Management Plan.

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
Laboratory services

There shall be no percentage mark-up for disbursements arising from the


assignment or extra engineering work. The estimated value of disbursements hall
be included within the Consultants upset limit fee to complete the assignment but
shall be listed separately.
e. A total upset limit fee to complete the engineering assignment as outlined in the
foregoing Terms of Reference and any additional services deemed necessary by
the Consultant, including all disbursement. The Consultant should specify
additional charges for optional extras.
The method of payment will be based upon actual time at the hourly rates
provided by the Consultant to the upset amount, in accordance with job progress.
It is anticipated that progress billings will be in accord with the work plan.
f. If the Consultant is required to perform additional services or should there be
changes in the scope of work for the Project for reasons over which the
Consultant has no control, the Consultant shall be compensated for such changes,
additional services on a time charge basis in accordance with the approved fee
schedule. The Consultant shall notify the City in writing of his intention to make
such changes or perform such additional services or undertake such extra work.
The Consultant shall keep separate cost records in respect of such changes,
additional services, extra work, or extra costs and expenses. Provided always that
the Consultant shall not make any such changes or perform any such additional
services or undertake any such extra work or incur any such extra costs or
expenses until such time as he is authorized to do so by the City in writing.

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 managers experience
Company experience
Team quality
2) Methodology

Quality of Proposal
Work plan
Level of effort
Innovative considerations
Acceptable schedule

3) Cost
ACCEPTANCE
The City of Revelstoke reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals and to
accept the proposal it considers most advantageous to the city.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional information may be obtained by contacting:
Bryant Yeomans
Director of Engineering and Public Works
(250)837-2922
byeomans@cityofrevelstoke.com

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

APPENDIX 2
STEERING COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL AND LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS

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)
Accommodation Sector
Tourist (no)
Revelstoke Golf Club (no)
Rotary Club
Economic Development Committee (no)
Hospital (Dave Roberts)
Revelstoke Mountain Resort (Paul Skelton or Rod Kessler)
Local Developers (Jack McKinnon)
Downie Street Sawmill (Alan Smythe)
First Nations (no)
Environmental Protection Clubs North Col. Environmental Soc. (Brian Gadbois)
Interested Private Citizens representing the community at large (Will Hayman, Bill
Poarch, Alice Webber)
Regional District (CSRD) (Gary Holte or Darcy Mooney)
Parks Canada (Gord Davis)
Technical Advisory Committee:

Chris Stroich, Environmental Protection Officer (MOE) (yes)


Dwain Boyer, Section Head, Kootenay, Water Stewardship (MOE) (no)
Julia Beatty, Head, Environmental Quality Section (MOE) (yes)
Joe Rowlett, Senior Public Health Inspector (IH) (yes)
Glen Brown, Ministry of Community Services (yes)
Jean-Francois Ferry, Environment Canada (yes)
Bruce McDonald, Habitat and Enhancement, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (no)
Planning Department Representative (Hap Stelling or Laurie Donato)
Utility Foreman (Don Manson)

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

APPENDIX 3
PUBLIC ADVERTISING AND OPEN HOUSE MATERIAL

LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN


The City of Revelstoke initiated the preparation of a Liquid Waste Management Plan
(LWMP) in December 2006. In keeping with provincial guidelines, the City has formed
three committees to guide development of the LWMP. The 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
representatives of various government agencies. Invited members of the Local
Advisory Committee include representatives of ratepayers associations, businesses,
environmental groups, First Nations, City Councilors and staff, and interested private
citizens. The City has engaged Dayton & Knight Ltd. Consulting Engineers of North
Vancouver, to act as technical consultant to the committees.
The liquid waste management planning process is designed to allow B.C. communities
to develop their own solutions for managing liquid wastes, while meeting regulatory
requirements and objectives for protecting public health and the environment. The
primary objective of the LWMP is to examine long-term options and associated costs for
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal or reuse (including the locations of
facilities), and to select the best option(s). Other components of the LWMP include
stormwater management, reduction of wastewater volumes, source control of
contaminants, and management of solid residuals produced by wastewater treatment.
Ultimately the Liquid Waste Management Plan will be designed to provide the City of
Revelstoke with a sustainable, cost effective and environmentally friendly strategy for
managing liquid wastes. Support and participation from the community is important
in developing a successful Plan. Public open houses will be held at key points in the
process, to update progress and to invite public comments, suggestions, and discussion.
Additional information will be published in the near future as the Plan develops.

1.50

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. 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. As shown, most of the respondents
(nearly 70%) learned of the Open House through newspaper advertising (Question #1). Most of
the Citys neighborhoods were represented by at least one respondent (Question #2), with
nearly 70% of respondents being serviced by septic tank/ground disposal systems, and the
remainder connected to sewer (Question #3).
Source control of contaminants was supported by 100% of respondents (Question #4). Water
conservation (Question #5) and beneficial use of biosolids (Question #7) were supported by
95% of respondents.
Question #7 asked whether all residents of the City should contribute financially to an expanded
and improved waste management system to pay the costs generated by new development; 42%
of respondents supported this, with 53% disagreeing and 5% not sure. All respondents agreed
that new development should contribute financially to an expanded and improved waste
management system to pay the costs generated by new development (Question #8).
Question #9 asked for input regarding the wastewater collection and treatment options. Option
1 (expand and upgrade existing WWTP at present location) was supported by 90% of
respondents. Approximately 74% of respondents disagreed with Option 2 (new WWTP near
Downie Street Mill), 63% disagreed with Option 3 (new WWTP at Big Eddy), and 58%

disagreed with Option 4 (new WWTP near 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 of the public; the comments received
are listed on page 7 of the attached summary.
OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY OF RESULTS (19 Questionnaires)

1.

2.

3.

How did you learn about the open house?


City Council:
2

% 10.5

Newspaper:

13

% 68.4

Email:

% 5.3

Neighbour:

% 10.5

N/A:

% 5.3

South Revelstoke/ Big Eddy:

% 10.5

South Revelstoke:

% 15.7

Big Eddy:

% 10.5

Central Revelstoke:

% 5.3

Downtown Area:

% 10.5

Arrow Heights:

% 31.6

Farwell:

% 5.3

Clearview Heights:

% 5.3

N/A:

% 5.3

Neighbourhood where you live:

Is your residence served by:


a)
b)
c)

sanitary sewer system


septic tank/ground disposal
dont know

6
13
0

% 31.6
% 68.4
% 0.0

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

% 31.6

Somewhat Agree

% 10.5

% 0.0

Strongly Disagree

% 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

10

% 52.6

Agree

% 26.3

Somewhat Agree

% 15.8

% 5.3

Strongly Disagree

% 0.0

% 0.0

Disagree

Not Sure

6.

I believe that biosolids produced by wastewater treatment should be beneficially reused as a soil conditioner
Strongly Agree

% 31.6

Agree

% 31.6

Somewhat Agree

% 31.6

% 0.0

Strongly Disagree

% 0.0

% 5.2

Disagree

Not Sure

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

% 15.8

Agree

% 15.8

Somewhat Agree

% 10.5

% 15.8

Strongly Disagree

% 36.8

% 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

Agree

% 10.5

Somewhat Agree

% 0.0

% 0.0

Strongly Disagree

% 0.0

% 0.0

Disagree

Not Sure

9.

Options for Wastewater Collection and Treatment


i)

Option 1: Expand and upgrade the existing wastewater treatment plant at the present location.
Strongly Agree

10

% 52.6

Agree

% 21.0

Somewhat Agree

% 15.8

% 5.3

Strongly Disagree

% 5.3

% 0.0

Disagree

Not Sure

ii)

N/A
0
% 0.0
Option 2: Construct a new wastewater treatment plant near the Downie Street Mill.
Strongly Agree

% 0.0

Agree

% 0.0

Somewhat Agree

% 5.3

% 5.3

13

% 68.4

% 0.0

% 21.0

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
Not Sure

N/A

iii)

Option 3: Construct a new wastewater treatment plant at Big Eddy.


Strongly Agree

% 5.3

Agree

% 0.0

Somewhat Agree

% 21.0

% 10.5

10

% 52.6

% 0.0

% 10.5

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
Not Sure

N/A
iv)

Option 4: Construct a new wastewater treatment plant near the Airport.


Strongly Agree

% 21.0

Agree

% 0.0

Somewhat Agree

% 10.5

% 15.8

Strongly Disagree

% 42.1

% 5.3

% 5.3

Disagree

Not Sure
N/A

v)

10.

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. That is all wastewater etc etc generated by the 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 west to east winds and the leaking into our well water.
Move plant to garbage dump on Westside Road.
Was the open house material easy to understand?
Strongly Agree

% 15.8

Agree

% 26.3

Somewhat Agree

% 36.9

% 10.5

Strongly Disagree

% 0.0

Not Sure

% 0.0

% 10.5

Disagree

N/A
11.

Was the level of information presented at the open house what you wanted to see?
Strongly Agree

% 10.5

Agree

% 36.8

Somewhat Agree

% 36.8

% 0.0

Strongly Disagree

% 5.4

% 0.0

Disagree

Not Sure

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?
The provincial government is claiming green. Use the opportunity to make Revelstoke an example of how to operate
and handle sewage/growth environmental issues in the future.
I believe that dumping costs should be shared by the larger community since that $ load could be intolerable to the
individual homeowner.
The City staff didnt answer the questions asked them very clearly. Set up could have been more prepared with
microphone and more chairs. Sites chosen were terrible as at least 3 of them were on the Columbus flood plain.
The servicing of the airport residents with safe City drinking water (extension of the water line from Williams Lake
to the airport).
The best possible treatment systems for upgrades not just the low end of the guidelines, look at American examples
reduce flows to river.
Surface water contaminants from lawns, golf courses, parks need a much closer look. Bylaws to reduce and
eliminate herbicides and pesticides need to be introduced. Plus an active awareness campaign.
Informative displays and presentation
Need better options Garbage dump
RMR should pay 100% ($25 million) before any hook-ups
CPR Hill should be connected asap
Water meters must be used by all - asap

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

APPENDIX 4
DISCHARGE PERMITS FOR CITY OF REVELSTOKE AND QUEEN VICTORIA
HOSPITAL

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

APPENDIX 5
SAMPLE SOURCE CONTROL EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

APPENDIX 6
WWTP OPERATING DATA

Appendix 6

TABLE A-1
Downie Pump Station Compared With Influent 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
22-May-2006
23-May-2006
24-May-2006
25-May-2006
26-May-2006
27-May-2006
28-May-2006
29-May-2006
30-May-2006
31-May-2006

Pump 1, Run Time


reading
per 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
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
12
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
121

Flow
Pump 2, Run Time
reading
per day
pumped
m3/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
5
2,657
4
4
2,657
5
5
2,657
4
4
2,362
13
5
2,657
4
2,362
4
2,362
4
4
2,362
4
4
2,657

121

129

Pump Flow, if one pump running


m3/d
USGPM
High static head
1200
6540
Low static head
1400
7631

m3/hr
272.5
317.9

129

Flow WWTP

Difference

m3/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
3,209
2,738
2,810
2,866
2,847
2,847
2,847
2,793
3,035

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
8,479
7,235
7,425
7,572
7,522
7,522
7,522
7,379
8,018
6,816
228,764

m3/d
354
266
-617
-416
583
878
878
-210
1,037
-271
615
-127
168
168
1,306
-217
634
252
552
552
552
552
81
153
504
190
485
485
431
378
10,200

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000

Influent WWTP
Pumped Flow Downie PS

500

31-May-06

29-May-06

27-May-06

25-May-06

23-May-06

21-May-06

19-May-06

17-May-06

15-May-06

13-May-06

11-May-06

09-May-06

07-May-06

05-May-06

03-May-06

0
01-May-06

Flows based on pump run time (m /d)

3,500

Figure A-1 Influent WWTP and Pumped Flow from Downie Pump Station

Dayton & Knight Ltd.

1.50.200 1-50_Flows_Population_0706.xls

Appendix 6

BOD, Grab Samples from Different Laboratories


(Data from Figures A-1 to A-3 are used for Figure 5-2 in report)

Laboratory CARO Environmental Services

300

250

BOD (mg/L)

200
Influent
Effluent

150

Permitted Maximum
100

50

Jan-07

Jul-06

Jan-06

Jul-05

Jan-05

Jul-04

Jan-04

Jul-03

Jan-03

Jul-02

Jan-02

Figure A-1 Laboratory CARO Environmental Services

Lagoon Laboratory Data

300

250

BOD (mg/L)

200
Influent
Effluent

150

Permitted Maximum
100

50

Jan-07

Jul-06

Jan-06

Jul-05

Jan-05

Jul-04

Jan-04

Jul-03

Jan-03

Jul-02

Jan-02

Figure A-2 Lagoon Laboratory Data

Lagoon Outfall Sampling

300

250

BOD (mg/L)

200
Influent
Effluent

150

Permitted Maximum
100

50

Jan-07

Jul-06

Jan-06

Jul-05

Jan-05

Jul-04

Jan-04

Jul-03

Jan-03

Jul-02

Jan-02

Figure A-3 Lagoon Outfall Sampling

Dayton & Knight Ltd.

1.50 2008 BOD-TSS-Nitrogen_Data Analysis.xls

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
21-Jun-02
28-Jun-02
05-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
02-Aug-02
09-Aug-02
16-Aug-02
23-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
27-Sep-02
11-Oct-02
22-Nov-02
20-Jan-03
03-Mar-03
05-May-03
11-Jun-03
25-Jun-03
04-Jul-03
11-Jul-03
18-Jul-03
01-Oct-03
31-Oct-03
17-Nov-03
26-May-04
14-Jun-04
29-Jul-04
12-Aug-04
13-Sep-04
11-Nov-04
12-Jan-05
31-Mar-05
06-Mar-06
14-Mar-06
20-Mar-06
03-Apr-06

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
8.02
1.14
8.03
2.71
8.51
1.56
5.26
0.80
5.39
0.60
7.17
3.28
6.22
6.34
6.22
6.32
6.81
8.72
5.68
6.80
8.31
6.15
6.27
8.85
6.70
8.14
7.81
6.60
8.73
8.61
6.41
5.35
5.09
6.31
5.11
5.69
6.70

Dayton & Knight Ltd.

1.76
3.74
0.86
3.85
3.62
5.78
4.56
3.50
5.67
1.60
4.55
5.23
4.30
6.23
2.29
2.52
3.91
5.19
0.38
0.31
1.19
1.76
3.21
5.04

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
68.80
159.60
208.00
134.00
143.70
116.70
133.80
78.00
160.80
74.10
95.70
88.20
33.60
99.00
79.20
136.50
51.60
108.60
72.00
57.30
165.60
122.40
261.90
141.00
36.60
149.10
143.40
153.60
100.50
74.40
49.80
49
49
27
128

Start Effluent Final Effluent BOD Final


mg/l
mg/L
Effluent
5.10
1.48
22.00
4.94
4.27
6.38
4.24
12.80
6.27
4.91
8.16
5.33
4.27
6.36
5.50
4.31
7.14
4.97
3.32
9.90
6.04
3.69
14.10
8.49
4.88
21.60
6.77
4.83
11.64
5.60
4.05
9.30
6.24
4.90
8.40
5.25
4.80
2.72
5.60
3.35
13.50
5.94
4.30
9.80
7.83
2.99
29.00
6.75
2.17
27.50
5.91
3.92
11.90
8.71
2.54
37.00
8.00
3.18
29.20
8.81
2.57
37.44
6.88
2.11
29.00
5.10
1.43
22.00
5.17
0.24
29.58
7.28
1.07
37.26
8.25
3.36
29.30
7.28
1.33
36.70
6.87
2.57
25.20
5.54
1.07
26.80
5.35
5.25
0.60
5.89
3.71
13.08
8.50
8.07
2.58
5.81
4.68
6.78
5.86
5.66
1.20
7.59
7.09
3.00
6.06
4.75
7.86
6.85
4.99
11.16
9.30
5.61
22.14
6.75
4.99
10.56
8.16
3.84
25.92
6.50
2.94
21.36
5.40
3.49
11.46
8.71
52.26
7.43
6.99
2.64
6.50
4.47
12.18
5.37
3.34
12.18
6.00
3.81
13.14
5.77
5.14
3.78
6.02
4.74
7.68
5.48
3.91
9.42
6.94
5.20
10.44

Comments

CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory

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
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45

1.50 2008 BOD-TSS-Nitrogen_Data Analysis.xls

Appendix 6

Start Infuent Final Influent


mg/l
Date
mg/l
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
13-Apr-04
03-May-04
19-Jul-04
09-Aug-04
14-Sep-04
01-Nov-04
06-Dec-04
09-Jan-05
07-Feb-05
07-Mar-05
11-Apr-05
02-May-05
30-May-05
04-Jul-05
08-Aug-05
12-Sep-05
03-Oct-05
15-Nov-05
12-Dec-05
09-Jan-06
Average
Average (Lagoon Outfall)
Average (CARO Lab)
Average (other Lab)
Minimum
Minimum (Lagoon Outfall)
Minimum (CARO Lab)
Minimum (other Lab)
Maximum
Maximum (Lagoon Outfall)
Maximum (CARO Lab)
Maximum (other Lab)

Dayton & Knight Ltd.

BOD Final
Influent
75
29
166
129
177
156
192
38
90
66

112.2
97.9
116.3
27.0
27.0
33.6
261.9
192.0
261.9

Start Effluent Final Effluent BOD Final


mg/l
mg/L
Effluent

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
13
11
16
10
10
10
13
21
14
15
13
20
10
10
10
10
38
12
20
19
18
15
10
11
10
10
13
10
20
10
11
15.0
13.8
10.0
16.5
0.6
10.0
10.0
0.6
52.3
38.0
10.0
52.3

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
Outfall Sampling
Outfall Sampling
Outfall Sampling
Outfall Sampling
Outfall Sampling
Outfall Sampling
Outfall Sampling
Outfall Sampling
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
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45

1.50 2008 BOD-TSS-Nitrogen_Data Analysis.xls

Appendix 6
TABLE A-3
TSS, Lagoon Sampling Results (mg/L)

Sample Date

pH (Units)

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-Aug-04
14-Sep-04
01-Nov-04
06-Dec-04
09-Jan-05
07-Feb-05
07-Mar-05
11-Apr-05
02-May-05
30-May-05
04-Jul-05
08-Aug-05
12-Sep-05
03-Oct-05
15-Nov-05
12-Dec-05
09-Jan-06
06-Mar-06
14-Mar-06
20-Mar-06
03-Apr-06
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

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
7.18
7.47
7.49
7.4
7.12
7.33
7.33
6.99
7.29
7.24
7.19
6.77
7.26
5.69
7.5
7.06

Dayton & Knight Ltd.

Influent

Cell#1 Outfall Cell#2 Outfall


16
12
10
23
7
7
8
4
14
11
16
13
6
5
40
38
14
13
14
18
29
11
9
8
20
30
30
16
6
21
18
26

53
50
28
114
62
27
159
88
191
146
173
41
88
67

167
140
148
137
156
146
134
159

11
4
3
2
10
15
10
13

Permitted
Maximum
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
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
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
Lagoon Outfall
Lagoon Outfall
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory
CARO Laboratory

1.50 2008 BOD-TSS-Nitrogen_Data Analysis.xls

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

BOD (mg/L)

200
Influent
Effluent

150

Permitted Maximum
100

50

Jan-07

Jul-06

Jan-06

Jul-05

Jan-05

Jul-04

Jan-04

Jul-03

Jan-03

Jul-02

Jan-02

Figure A-2 Laboratory CARO Environmental Services

Lagoon Laboratory Data

300

250

BOD (mg/L)

200
Influent
Effluent

150

Permitted Maximum
100

50

Jan-07

Jul-06

Jan-06

Jul-05

Jan-05

Jul-04

Jan-04

Jul-03

Jan-03

Jul-02

Jan-02

Figure A-3 Lagoon Laboratory Data

Lagoon Outfall Sampling

300

250

BOD (mg/L)

200
Influent
Effluent

150

Permitted Maximum
100

50

Jan-07

Jul-06

Jan-06

Jul-05

Jan-05

Jul-04

Jan-04

Jul-03

Jan-03

Jul-02

Jan-02

Figure A-4 Lagoon Outfall Sampling

Dayton & Knight Ltd.

1.50 2008 BOD-TSS-Nitrogen_Data Analysis.xls

Appendix 6

Nitrogen, Grab Samples

60
50
Ammonia Influent
N mg/L

40

Ammonia Cell 1
Ammonia Cell 2 (Effluent)

30
20
10
0
Mar-06

Apr-06

May-06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Figure A-5 Ammonia Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent (Grab Samples)

60
50
TKN Influent
N mg/L

40

TKN Cell 1
TKN Cell 2 (Effluent)

30
20
10
0
Mar-06

Apr-06

May-06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Figure A-6 TKN Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent (Grab Samples)

20
18
16
Nitrate+Nitrite Cell 1

N mg/L

14

Nitrate+Nitrite Cell 2 (Effluent)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Mar-06

Apr-06

May-06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Figure A-7 Nitrate and Nitrite Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent (Grab Samples)

Dayton & Knight Ltd.

1.50 2008 BOD-TSS-Nitrogen_Data Analysis.xls

Appendix 6

Effluent

Cell 1

Influent

14
12

P (mg/L)

10
8
6
4
2
May-05

Mar-05

Jan-05

Nov-04

Sep-04

Jul-04

May-04

Mar-04

Jan-04

Nov-03

Sep-03

Jul-03

Figure A-8 Phosphorous Concentration: Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent (Grab Samples)
Influent

Cell 1

Effluent

160
Sulphate (mg/L S2-)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Jul-05

May-05

Mar-05

Jan-05

Nov-04

Sep-04

Jul-04

May-04

Mar-04

Jan-04

Nov-03

Sep-03

Jul-03

May-03

Figure A-9 Sulphate Concentration: Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent (Grab Samples)
Influent

Cell 1

Effluent

Sulphide (mg/L S2-)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

Jul-05

Apr-05

Jan-05

Oct-04

Jul-04

Apr-04

Jan-04

Oct-03

Jul-03

Apr-03

Jan-03

Oct-02

Jul-02

Apr-02

Jan-02

Oct-01

Jul-01

Figure A-10 Sulphide Concentration: Influent, Cell 1 and Effluent (Grab Samples)

Dayton & Knight Ltd.

1.50 2008

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

APPENDIX 7
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT BY MASSE MILLER CONSULTING
LTD.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.


513 Victoria St.
Nelson, BC, V1L 4K7
Tel.: 250-352-1147
smasse@telus.net

September 24, 2007

Allan Gibb
Dayton & Knight
#210-889 Harbourside Drive
North Vancouver,
BC V7P 3S1

RE: Revelstoke LWMP, Review of options.

Dear Al,

Please find attached a summary of environmental issues relevant to the various options proposed for the
Revelstoke Liquid Waste Management Plan.

The options outlined in the draft report Liquid Waste

Management Plan - Stage 1 30% Draft prepared by Dayton & Knight and in your email dated September
13, 2007, were reviewed during site visits to the area conducted on September 12-13 and September 21,
2007.

Please contact us if you have any questions or comments,


Sincerely,

Ico de Zwart, PhD, BIT

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd


513 Victoria St
Nelson, BC, V1L 4K7

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

Revelstoke
Liquid Waste Management Plan
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
of Proposed Options

Prepared for:
Dayton & Knight Ltd
#210-889 Harbourside Drive
North Vancouver, BC V7P 3S1
Prepared by:
Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd
513 Victoria St
Nelson, BC, V1L 4K7

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

Table of Contents
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................. i
List of Photos........................................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ii
List of Appendices .................................................................................................................ii
1

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

Study Area ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2

Existing WWTP ....................................................................................................... 1

1.3

Terrestrial Resources............................................................................................... 1

1.4

Aquatic Resources................................................................................................... 2

1.5

Columbia River and Arrow Lakes Reservoir................................................................ 2

1.5.1

Illecillewaet River ............................................................................................. 3

1.5.2

Bridge Creek .................................................................................................... 4

1.5.3

Williamson Lake ............................................................................................... 4

1.5.4

Other Streams.................................................................................................. 4

1.6
2

Rare and Endangered Species .................................................................................. 5

LWMP Options............................................................................................................... 5
2.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5

2.2

Upgrade/Expansion of the Existing WWTP................................................................. 6

2.3

Mill Street WWTP .................................................................................................... 7

2.4

Big Eddy WWTP...................................................................................................... 9

2.5

Airport WWTP....................................................................................................... 11

2.6

Illecillewaet River Outfall ....................................................................................... 13

2.7

Columbia River Outfall........................................................................................... 13

2.8

Pump Stations ...................................................................................................... 15

2.9

Sewer Lines.......................................................................................................... 15

Summary .................................................................................................................... 17

References.................................................................................................................. 20

List of Photos
Photo 1. Wetland below Revelstoke WWTP. .......................................................................... 7
Photo 2. Wetland below Revelstoke WWTP. .......................................................................... 7
Photo 3. Aerial view of proposed WWTP location at west end of Mill Street. ............................. 8
Photo 4. View of wetland/greenspace from the dyke. ............................................................. 8

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options


Photo 5. View of ball fields from the dyke. Downie St sawmill at center right in distance. ......... 8
Photo 6. Aerial view of proposed WWTP locations in Big Eddy................................................. 9
Photo 7. Big Eddy dyke with riparian area on the left and residential area on right. .................. 9
Photo 8. Side channel located within the riparian area.......................................................... 10
Photo 9. Low lying area between the dyke and the Columbia River........................................ 10
Photo 10. Possible outfall corridor adjacent to Big Eddy road and bridge................................ 10
Photo 11. Columbia River at the Big Eddy bridge is deep and fast flowing. ............................. 10
Photo 12. Gravel bars and shallow low velocity areas present adjacent to west bank. ............. 11
Photo 13. Aerial of proposed WWTP location near airport. Floodplain marked in blue. ............ 12
Photo 14. Wetlands present near airport. ............................................................................ 12
Photo 15. Wetlands present near airport ............................................................................. 12
Photo 16. Gravel/sand pit below hospital............................................................................. 12
Photo 17. Bank of Columbia River adjacent to airport, note mudflats. .................................... 13
Photo 18. Columbia River adjacent to Airport wetlands......................................................... 13
Photo 19. Raised roadbed that may be suitable for corridor. ................................................. 14
Photo 20. Possible corridor on raised roadbed. Columbia River in distance. ........................... 14
Photo 21. Alternate corridor for outfall pipe near ball fields................................................... 14
Photo 22. Columbia River at alternate outfall location. Thalweg located adjacent to bank. ...... 14
Photo 23. Illecillewaet Greenbelt along the south bank of the Illecillewaet River. .................... 16
Photo 24. Old railway bed across floodplain and wetlands. ................................................... 16
Photo 25. Illecillewaet River at the old railway crossing. ....................................................... 16
Photo 26. Camozzi Road and power line corridor looking north (small stream in center). ......... 17
Photo 27. Culvert crossing and water intake below Camozzi Road. ........................................ 17

List of Tables
Table 1. Fish species presence. ............................................................................................ 4
Table 2. Summary of WWTP options..................................................................................... 5
Table 3. Summary of options for the existing WWTP. ............................................................. 6
Table 4. Summary of options. ............................................................................................ 19

List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Map of study area
Appendix 2. Species at risk table

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

ii

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 south (Appendix 1).
The City of Revelstoke is located in the valley created by the Columbia River. The steep terrain
of the surrounding Selkirk and Monashee Ranges limits expansion to the east and 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 the Illecillewaet River north. Areas currently not serviced include Big
Eddy, Clearview Heights, Arrow Heights, and RMR.

The WWTP operates two lagoons in series to provide secondary treatment, followed by
disinfection using chlorine. A dechlorination facility will be incorporated in the future, as required
by the municipal sewage regulation and recommended by an environmental impact study carried
out in 2002 (Masse 2002). The EIS also recommended that the bank outfall be changed to a
multiport diffuser located on the bottom of the river to increase the available dilution.

At

present, treated effluent from the WWTP is discharged from a bank outfall into the Illecillewaet
River. Dilution modelling carried out as part of the EIS indicated that the minimum available was
28:1. The study also determined that impacts to the Illecillewaet River were occurring due to the
discharge, as several water quality parameters and the benthic community composition were
different between upstream (control) and downstream sites. As the water quality at the edge of
the initial dilution zone (IDZ) met BC Water Quality Guidelines, the changes in benthic
invertebrate species composition and increase algal growth may be indicative of low chronic
exposure.

1.3

Terrestrial Resources

The study area lies within the Interior Cedar Hemlock moist warm, Thomson variant, (ICHmw3)
biogeoclimatic subzone. This biogeoclimatic subzone is characterized by warm moist summers
and wet cold winters.

Much of the study area has been extensively disturbed from its native state, with urban and rural
development occurring along the Columbia and Illecillewaet Rivers. Residential and industrial
development is greatest in the area from the Illecillewaet River north to the Trans-Canada
Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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 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 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 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 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).

1.4

Aquatic Resources

The study area is dominated by the Columbia and Illecillewaet Rivers. These two rivers and their
extensive riparian areas are of high ecological and recreational value.

The Jordan and

Tonkawatla Rivers are also large tributaries to the Columbia River; however, these are on the
west side of the valley and are outside of the area that will be serviced by the Revelstoke WWTP.

Two other notable watercourses are Bridge Creek and Williamson Lake. Bridge Creek drains the
area to the north east of the town and enters the Illecillewaet River 6 m upstream of the current
sewage outfall. A spawning channel for kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) is located near its mouth
near the existing WWTP. Williamson Lake is located between Arrow Heights and the RMR and is
a popular recreational area. The lake is connected to the airport wetlands by Locks Creek.

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 and now form part of the storm sewer system of Revelstoke. The streams above Arrow
Heights and the RMR drain into Williamson Lake.

1.5

Columbia River and Arrow Lakes Reservoir

A number of studies have previously been conducted on the Columbia River downstream of the
Revelstoke Dam. Studies focussing on white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) have been
summarised by Golder (2002, 2006). One of only two known spawning areas for Columbia River
Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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 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
the Illecillewaet are the largest tributaries to the Columbia River near Revelstoke and provide
important kokanee spawning habitat. A spawning channel for kokanee has been constructed on
Bridge Creek, a tributary to the Illecillewaet River. Most of the 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 and Columbia River are listed in
Table 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 of the Columbia River valley, the area submerged by
the reservoir fluctuates dramatically. At low reservoir levels, typically in April, the reservoir ends
near Arrowhead, 35 km south of Revelstoke. At full pool, typically in July, the reservoir extends
as far as Revelstoke, and occasionally as far as the Revelstoke Dam, 4 km north of Revelstoke.

1.5.1

Illecillewaet River

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 watershed includes
glaciated or alpine terrain, which receives large snowfalls over the winter, peak flows occur from
May to August. Low flows typically occur between December and February.

Several studies have been conducted on the lower Illecillewaet River to determine fish species
present and habitat quality and use (R.L & L. 1994). The lower Illecillewaet River is accessible to
all species of fish occurring within the Columbia River, and is typically very wide with low
gradients. The gradient of the river becomes steeper close to the Illecillewaet River canyon, two
kilometers upstream from the confluence with the Columbia River. The river substrate is typically
composed of cobbles and gravels, with some small boulders. A number of fish species use this
portion of the Illecillewaet River for various life stages (Table 1). Fourteen fish species were
observed during a study of fish habitat utilization and species present in the lower Illecillewaet
River. The most abundant fish species caught during the field studies was mountain whitefish,
and the river provides spawning habitat to largescale and longnose suckers (R.L & L. 1994).

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options


Table 1. Fish species presence.
Columbia

burbot

mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni)

River

bridgelip sucker (Catastomus columbianus)

northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis)

bull trout

peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus)

carp (Cyprinus carpio)

pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri)

eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

rainbow trout

kokanee

redside shiner (Richardsonius 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 falcatus)

walleye (Stizostedion vitreus)

longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)

westslope cutthroat trout

longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus)

white sturgeon

Illecillewaet

bull trout

peamouth chub

River

eastern brook trout kokanee

rainbow trout

lake whitefish

mottled sculpin

largescale sucker

prickly sculpin

longnose sucker

slimy sculpin

mountain whitefish)

torrent sculpin

northern pikeminnow

white sturgeon

FISS (2007)

1.5.2

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. Rainbow trout are
also present in the watershed.

Both grizzly bear and black bear are frequent in the area,

particularly during the kokanee spawning season.

1.5.3

Williamson Lake

Williamson Lake is a popular recreational lake, with a campground and day use area, located
south of Revelstoke below RMR. Water temperatures are relatively warm in the lake during the
summer as it is relatively shallow, with a maximum depth of 5 m. As the lake is connected to the
Airport wetlands and the Columbia River via Locks Creek, a subset of the fish species present in
the Columbia River are likely found in the lake.

1.5.4

Other Streams

A number of other streams are present within the study boundary and their riparian area is
protected under the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR). The width of the protected area depends
Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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 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 fish-bearing streams. Under the RAR, a 15 m wide 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 dAlene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis), grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos), northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus),
western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii), white sturgeon, peduncled sedge (Carex
pedunculata) and crested wood fern (Dryopteris cristata) (CDC 2007). Some of these, such as
the Coeur dAlene salamander, have very limited ranges and habitats within the study area and
even small disturbances may have a large impact on a population.

2
2.1

LWMP Options
Introduction

Seven options have been put forward in the LWMP.

The main features of the options are

summarised in Table 2. Many of the options share similar features, so the following discussion
focuses on these features, rather than the seven options, to avoid repetition. In addition to the
various WWTP locations, all of the options will require additional sewer lines and pump stations.

Table 2. Summary of WWTP options.


Option

Existing WWTP

Outfall

New WWTP

Outfall

Expand and upgrade

Illecillewaet or Columbia

Short term upgrade, then abandon

Illecillewaet

Mill Street

Columbia

Upgrade

Illecillewaet or Columbia

Mill Street

Columbia

Expand and upgrade

Illecillewaet or Columbia

Big Eddy

Columbia

Upgrade

Illecillewaet or Columbia

Big Eddy

Columbia

Upgrade

Illecillewaet or Columbia

Airport

Columbia

Short term upgrade, then abandon

Illecillewaet

Airport

Columbia

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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.

Table 3. Summary of options for the existing WWTP.


Option

Proposed Plan

Service Area

Expand and upgrade

Entire city including RMR

Upgrade for short term, then abandon

Entire city until new WWTP is constructed

Upgrade

Eastern Revelstoke, Arrow Heights and RMR

Expand and upgrade

Entire city except Big Eddy

Upgrade

Entire city except Big Eddy and Big Bend

Upgrade

Entire city except Arrow Heights and RMR

Upgrade for short term, then abandon

Entire city until new WWTP is constructed

The existing WWTP uses two lagoons to provide sewage treatment. A new liner is currently
being installed in the secondary lagoon. Disinfection is achieved by chlorination. At present, no
dechlorination is provided, although this will be added in the near future. Treated effluent is
being discharged to the Illecillewaet River via an outfall on the bank. An environmental impact
study carried out in 2002 indicated that the discharge was impacting the river, and recommended
that the bank outfall be replaced with a multiport diffuser in order to increase the dilution ratio.

The first option, which includes the retention of the existing facility with proposed expansion and
upgrades, has the fewest terrestrial impacts as the site is already used. However, the site is
surrounded by wetland or swampy ground on three sides (Photo 1, 2), and Bridge Creek on the
fourth side. The wetlands are dominated by dense stands of cattail (Typha latifolia). Woolly
sedge (Carex lanuginosa) is also present.

During the site visit, ducks and bear signs were

observed, and amphibians are also likely to use the wetland. During fall, bear frequent the area
as the Bridge Creek spawning channel is located nearby.

Terrestrial impacts are likely to be small if any additions to the WWTP remain within the current
footprint. However, any expansion of the site is likely to impact the wetland areas surrounding
the WWTP. The wetland has already been impacted by the current construction to replace the
liner of the secondary lagoon. The marshy ground on the north side of the WWTP was drained
so that work could proceed in the secondary lagoon, and this lowered the water level in the
remainder of the wetland by ~ 0.5 m, which may affect wildlife use.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

Photo 1. Wetland 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

Options 2 and 3 include the construction of a new WWTP near the end of Mill Street. This WWTP
would either service the entire City of Revelstoke under Option 2, or only the Big Eddy, Big Bend
and Clearview Heights areas under Option 3. A larger WWTP would be required for Option 2. An
exact location for this WWTP has not been determined, although the area on the bank of the
Columbia River northwest of the Downie Street Sawmill is proposed.

The area proposed for a new WWTP can be divided into three areas (Photo 3). In the northern
most portion is the Centennial Ball Park (Photo 4). Industrial lands occupy the eastern portion
and include the Downie Street Sawmill and a City of Revelstoke storage area. Both of these
areas are located behind a large dyke. Between the dyke and the Columbia River is green space,
including wetlands, lagoons and grassy fields (Photo 5). Much of this area is seasonally flooded
when water levels are high. Reed canarygrass and willow (Salix spp.) dominate the drier areas,
and scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale) is prevalent in lower lying areas.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

Photo 4. View of wetland/greenspace from the


dyke.

Photo 3.

Aerial view of proposed WWTP

location at west end of Mill Street.

Photo 5.

View of ball fields from the dyke.

Downie St sawmill at center right in distance.

Impacts will largely depend on the location of the new WWTP. The preferred location would be
on land to the east of the dyke, which has already been heavily impacted by industrial or
recreational use.

As a result, environmental impacts would be low.

These lands are also

protected from flooding by the dyke. The land west of the dyke provides valuable habitat for a
range of wildlife, notably birds. Recreational use in this area is also high, with a network of
hiking trails crisscrossing the area. In addition, the Columbia River or Arrow Lakes Reservoir
seasonally floods large parts of the area, and the entire area may be prone to flooding in the
event of a large flood.

A new WWTP in this location would also require an outfall on the Columbia River.

This is

discussed in Section 2.7.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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 and the northern part of Revelstoke (Option 5). The location of the
WWTP has not been determined, but possible locations are shown in Photo 6.
The Big Eddy area is within the floodplain of the Columbia River and is protected by the Big Eddy
dyke (Photo 7). Between the dyke and the Columbia River lies a large riparian area with a small
side channel (Photo 8) and several areas that are inundated at high flows (Photo 9). Stands of
cottonwood interspersed with a variety of conifers, are 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 is present. The dyke itself is kept clear
of trees with regular maintenance.

Lower lying areas are dominated by herbs and grasses,

particularly Reeds 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
would be protected from potential flooding, and impacts to the riparian area would be minimised.
As this area is largely residential or light industrial, impacts may be low if a suitable location is
chosen.

Photo 7. Big Eddy dyke with riparian area on


the left and residential area on right.
Photo 6.

Aerial view of proposed WWTP

locations in Big Eddy.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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 Columbia River. The corridor for the outfall will have
to pass through the riparian area in order to discharge to the 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 for the
corridor would be along either the Big Eddy Road right of way (Photo 10) or the railway right of
way, as these corridors have already been disturbed. These corridors also have the advantage
that the side channel will not need to be crossed. An outfall located in this area would also be
able to access the main flow of the Columbia River easily (Photo 11).

Other potential sites

further downstream of the outfall would need to cross both the extensive riparian area and the
side channel to reach the Columbia River. Further downstream the main flow of the river moves
towards the east bank, and gravel bars and shallow riffles are present adjacent to the west bank
(Photo 12).

Photo 10. Possible outfall corridor adjacent to

Photo 11.

Big Eddy road and bridge.

bridge is deep and fast flowing.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

Columbia River at the Big Eddy

10

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 to determine if the receiving environment will
be impacted if this option is chosen.

2.5

Airport WWTP

A new WWTP at a location south of Revelstoke, near the airport, is considered under Options 6
and 7. This WWTP would either service the Arrow Heights and RMR areas (Option 6) or the
entire City of Revelstoke (Option 7). The location for the WWTP has not been determined, but a
possible location near the north end of the runway is considered (Photo 13).

The area surrounding the airport is within the flooded area of Arrow Lakes Reservoir.

The

approximate location of the high water mark (442.25 m, MoE 2007) is shown in Photo 13. The
seasonal flooding of this area has created a large wetland complex that provides habitat for a
range of wildlife, notably birds (Photo 14, 13).

This wetland is the largest wetland on the

Columbia River within Canada downstream of Golden, and provides an important staging area for
migratory birds. The wetland also provides critical habitat for a western painted turtle population
located near Red Devil Hill (Maltby 2000), a Blue-listed species in the Province and a Federal
species of special concern. The possible site indicated (Figures 10-6 and 10-7) is unlikely to be
suitable for a WWTP due to its location within the flooded area of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir.
More suitable locations for any WWTP would be above the flood level of Arrow Lakes Reservoir
(442.25 m), such as west of the hospital where a gravel pit is present (Photo 16), or south of the
airport and RMR (Photo 13).

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

11

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

Photo 14. Wetlands present near airport.

Photo 13.

Aerial of proposed WWTP location

near airport. Floodplain marked in blue.

Photo 15. Wetlands present near airport

Photo 16. Gravel/sand pit below hospital.

A WWTP located in either of these areas would also require an outfall to the Columbia River/
Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The corridor for either of these outfalls would have to cross the wetland
area in order to get to a permanently wetted part of the Columbia River or Arrow Lakes
Reservoir. The length of the corridors for either of the alternate locations is ~ 600 m. Because
the Arrow Lakes Reservoir usually reaches as far north as the Illecillewaet River at full pool, these
outfalls would be located in areas that are lakes for part of the year, and rivers at other times of
the year (Photo 17, 16). The suitability of these locations as outfalls, and the available dilution
under both lake and river scenarios, would have to be addressed in more detail.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

12

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

Photo 17. Bank of Columbia River 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,
the dilution of the effluent may be as low as 28:1. The expansion of the WWTP to encompass a
larger service area is likely to increase flows through the outfall, further reducing the available
dilution, and therefore increasing the impact of the discharge to the Illecillewaet River.
Maintaining an outfall on the Illecillewaet River is proposed for all the options. Options 2 and 7
would abandon the present outfall once a new WWTP had been constructed. Options 1,4,5 and
6 suggest pumping peak flows to the Columbia River, to reduce impacts to the Illecillewaet River
during peak use.

Impacts to the Illecillewaet River may be reduced if higher quality effluent is discharged or
greater dilution can be achieved. Upgrading the existing WWTP may allow newer technologies to
be incorporated, possibly improving effluent quality. Replacing the existing bank outfall with a
multiport diffuser located on the bottom of the river may improve dilution. However, the amount
of dilution available will also depend on the amount of effluent discharged, which will vary
depending on the option.

2.7

Columbia River Outfall

One possible option to reduce impacts to the Illecillewaet River is to relocate the outfall so that
discharge occurs into the Columbia River to take advantage of the greater dilution available. A
new outfall on the Columbia River for the existing WWTP is proposed in Options 1, 4, 5 and 6.
The proposed outfall location is west of the Downie Street Sawmill.

As described in Section 2.3, the area west of the dyke is within the Columbia River floodplain and
large parts of it are seasonally inundated.

At various times of the year the area contains

wetlands, lagoons or ponds, sloughs, and islands, and provides habitat for a range of wildlife.
Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

13

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 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, 18). This provides the only suitable 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. At this location, the bank of the Columbia River is ~ 35 m from the
road (Photo 21), minimising disturbance of the riparian 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.

Photo 19. Raised roadbed that may be suitable

Photo 20. Possible corridor on raised roadbed.

for corridor.

Columbia River in distance.

Photo 21.

Photo 22. Columbia River at alternate outfall

Alternate corridor for outfall pipe

near ball fields.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

location. Thalweg located adjacent to bank.

14

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 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 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
Option 4, show a sewer line connecting Big Eddy with Big Bend. Provided that this line runs
under any of the three bridges located nearby, impacts are likely to be low. However, if the
proposed sewer line runs along the bottom of, or under, the Columbia River, impacts would be
expected to be greater. Similarly, all of the options show a sewer line crossing the Illecillewaet
River near the airport way bridge. If the sewer line follows the road right of way and runs along
the bridge, impacts would be lower than if a separate river crossing is required for the sewer line.
Riparian impacts may also occur at the approaches of these river crossings, and would be lowest
if the road right of way is used for the sewer line.

Both Option 6 and 7 require a sewer line running from Arrow Heights to a proposed WWTP near
the airport. This sewer line would have to cross a large part of the Illecillewaet greenbelt (Photo
25) and the Columbia River floodplain, although it may be possible to use the old railway bed,
which is elevated above the floodplain (Photo 24). Because of the length of the corridor, impacts
to the area would be high due to the disturbance created by construction.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

15

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 25). Any crossing at this 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 by the old
bridge abutments, but is still~ 35 m wide. Fish habitat in this area is rated as good, as the
substrate consists predominately of gravels and cobbles, which provide valuable habitat for a
variety of fish species such as mountain whitefish and kokanee. Riparian vegetation on either
side of the river has seen extensive disturbance in the past, and consists of regenerating
cottonwood and willow.

Photo 25. Illecillewaet River at the old railway


crossing.

All of the options include a sewer line from RMR to Arrow Heights, which would follow Camozzi
Road. This road crosses several small streams that drain into Williamson Lake. The riparian
vegetation of these streams has been substantially disturbed from their native state as a result of
this right of way, especially on the east side where the power line right of way runs (Photo 26).
However, any crossing still has the potential to impact these streams, as well as the water quality
Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

16

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options


of Williamson Lake. Several water intakes are also located immediately below the road on two of
these streams (Photo 27).

Photo 26.
corridor

Camozzi Road and power line


looking

north

(small

stream

in

Photo 27.

Culvert crossing and water intake

below Camozzi Road.

center).

Summary

The major impacts of the seven options arise from the location of any new WWTP, as these
plants will result in the largest footprint. The proposed WWTP locations at the west end of Mill
Street and near the airport are likely to cause the most considerable impacts due to the wetlands
and green space present.
recommended.

Alternate locations in these areas out of the floodplain are

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, however substantial
impacts to the wetland on the north side have already occurred during replacement of the new
liner in the second lagoon.

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 outfall pipe will have to cross a large area
of the floodplain. These outfalls may also be less suitable as the main channel of the Columbia
River is less accessible at these locations. The outfall location near the airport is also in an area
that is seasonally flooded by Arrow Lakes Reservoir, which may effect the available dilution.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

17

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 sewer lines, which should have low impacts
overall if they are located in existing 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.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

18

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options


Table 4. Summary of options.
Option

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

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

Upgrade

existing

WWTP,

Upgrade

existing

WWTP,

Upgrade

existing

WWTP,

new WWTP at Big Eddy

Illecillewaet River or Columbia River outfall


Sewer lines across Columbia River and Illecillewaet River

new WWTP at Big Eddy

Impact

existing facilities

new WWTP near Mill Street

Potential Impacts

Upgrade

existing

WWTP,

new WWTP near airport

Location of sewer line across floodplain to Airport WWTP


7

New WWTP near airport

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

Location of sewer line across floodplain to Airport WWTP

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

19

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

References.

CDC 2007.

Conservation Data Centre, BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer, Ministry of

Environment, Victoria B.C. Website available at: 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 Summary Service.


Golder 2002.

Middle Columbia River Fish Community 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
Herons in the Columbia River Basin. Report prepared for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program.

Maltby, F. 2000. Painted Turtle Nest Site Enhancement and Monitoring, Red Devil Hill Nest Site
At Revelstoke, BC. Report prepared for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

Masse, S. 2002. Revelstoke Wastewater Treatment Plant Environmental Impact Study. Report
prepared for the City of Revelstoke.

MoE 2007. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. Map available at:


http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searches/fpm/reports/region4.html

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.

Tremblay 1993. Use of the Upper Arrow Reservoir at Revelstoke, B.C. by Waterfowl and other
Waterbirds. Report prepared for Friends of Mount Revelstoke and Glacier by Ellen Tremblay.

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

20

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

Appendix 1. Map of Study Area

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

iMapBC Mapping
Legend

Study Area
Boundary

Bridge
Creek

Columbia River

Illecillewaet
Greenbelt

Illecillewaet River
0

700

1400 m.

Scale: 1:50,000
Copyright/Disclaimer
The material contained in this web site is owned by the
Government of British Columbia and protected by
copyright law. It may not be reproduced or redistributed
without the prior written permission of the Province of
British Columbia. To request permission to reproduce
all or part of the material on this web site please
complete the Copyright Permission Request Form
which can be accessed through the Copyright
Information Page.

Airport Wetlands

CAUTION: Maps obtained using this site are not


designed to assist in navigation. These maps may be
generalized and may not reflect current conditions.
Uncharted hazards may exist. DO NOT USE THESE
MAPS FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES.

Williamson Lake

Datum/Projection: NAD83, Albers Equal Area Conic

Key Map of British Columbia

Arrow Lakes
Reservoir

Revelstoke LWMP Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Proposed Options

Appendix 2. Species at Risk Table

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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

Myotis septentrionalis
Bighorn Sheep

Ovis canadensis

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 as roads. Unlikely to
be impacted species as it should occur within City of Revelstoke
boundaries.
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.

Blue

Extremely Unlikely

Preferred habitat is open areas from alpine to desert grasslands or


shrub steppe, with nearby escape terrain. Threatened by habitat
fragmentation.

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

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.

BIRDS
Great Blue Heron

Ardea herodias
herodias

Blue

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

Likely
Is known to occur in the area.

Preferred nesting sites are large trees alongside lakes, slow-moving


rivers and wetlands. Black cottonwoods are the most common nest site.
The Revelstoke Reach provides important habitat and a significant
breeding colony is located on private land near the Revelstoke Airport.

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, 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 range of habitats not used for
nesting, including open disturbed land.

AMPHIBIANS
Couer dAlene
Salamander

Plethodon idahoensis
Northern Leopard
Frog

Blue

Special
concern

Red

Endangered

Blue

Special
concern

Possible
Known to occur in several
locations near Revelstoke

Very dependent on moisture and lives in wet 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
Hill near Revelstoke

Population uses airport marsh/wetland and breeds at nesting sites


onRed Devil Hill. Population impacted by mortality due to road
crossing.

INVERTEBRATES
Vivid Dancer

Argia vivida

Unlikely
Red

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

No suitable habitat within the


City of Revelstoke.

Preferred habitat is near warm or hot springs. The larvae live in the
streams and pools draining the springs. Threatened by the
development of hot springs for human use.

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

Oreohelix subrudis

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.

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 wet montane 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.

Blue

Unlikely

Marshy meadows and springy places in the montane zone. Has a wide
distribution in BC, but is known to occur in the ICHmw zone. Nearest
known location is north of Mica Creek.

Blue

Likely

Mesic grassy slopes in the montane and subalpine zones. Known to


occur south of Revelstoke in the ICHmw zone in the Akolkolex River
drainage.

Blue

VASCULAR PLANTS
Pink Agoseris

Agoserislackshewitzii
Canada Anemone

Anemone canadensis
Hairy rockcress

Arabis hirsuta var


hirsuta
Dainty Moonwort

Botrychium
crenulatum
Western Moonwort

Botrychium
hesperium

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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 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 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
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.

Blue

Likely

Dry grasslands, shrublands, rocky slopes and forests from the steppe to
subalpine. Known to occur in the ICHmw zone near Revelstoke.

Blue

Likely

Habitat includes wet swamps and meadows in the montane zone.


Known to occur in the ICHmw zone and has been recorded near
Revelstoke.

BC Status

Federal
Status

Mountain Moonwort

Bptrychium
montanum
Crawes Sedge

Carex crawei
Enanders Sedge

Carex lenticularis var.


dolia
Lakeshore Sedge

Carex lenticularis var.


lenticularis
Peduncled Sedge

Carex pedunculata
Tender Sedge

Carex tenera
Slender paintbrush

Castilleja gracillima
Dark Lambs-quarters

Chenopodium
atrovirens
Montana Larkspur

Delpinium bicolor ssp.


bicolor
Crested Wood Fern

Dryopteris cristata

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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, 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.

Possible

Habitat includes moist forests in the lowland and montane zones.


Widely distributed in southeast BC and is known to occur in the ICHmw
zone. The nearest known locations are west of Revelstoke near
Sicamous.

BC Status

Federal
Status

Small Bedstraw

Galium trifidum ssp.


trifidum
Dwarf Hesperochiron

Hesperochiron
pumilus
Macouns Fringed
Gentian

Gentianopsis
macounii
Western St. Johns
wort

Hypericum scouleri
ssp nortoniae
Water Marigold

Megalodonta beckii
var. beckii
Smiths Melic

Melica smithii

Blue

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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. Probably requires 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 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 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.

Unlikely

Mesic to moist meadows and grasslands 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 in the Rocky Mountains
near Field.

BC Status

Federal
Status

Marsh Muhly

Muhlenbergia
glomerata
Lance-leaved Figwort

Scrophularia
lanceolata
Oregon Checkermallow

Sidalcea oregana var.


procera
Smooth Goldenrod

Solidago gigantean
spp. serotina
Field Goldenrod

Solidago nemoralis
ssp. longipetiolata
Blunt-sepaled
starwort

Blue

Stellaria obtusa
Purple meadowrue

Thalictrum
dasycarpum

Blue

Priarie Golden-bean

Thermopsis
rhombifolia

Red

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

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
Hallers 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 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

Masse & Miller Consulting Ltd.

CITY OF REVELSTOKE
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1

APPENDIX 8
PRELIMINARY HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES