Lake Winnipeg Water Quality - Feedback Form

Share Your Views with the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board. Your input is important!

This page contains an online form to send your feedback directly to the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board regarding the Interim Report : Our Collective Responsibility - Reducing Nutrient Loading to Lake Winnipeg.(January, 2005).

If you would like to review the contents of the Interim Report, please click any of the links below:
Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board Interim Report (January, 2005) (1500 KB)
Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board Interim Report without front cover (January, 2005) (990 KB)
Executive Summary: Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board Interim Report (January, 2005) (115 KB)

On February 18, 2005 Minister Ashton released the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board's Interim Report: Our Collective Responsibility - Reducing Nutrient Loading to Lake Winnipeg. The report makes recommendations on 32 separate issues aimed at reducing nutrient loading to Lake Winnipeg.

Minister Steve Ashton has requested the Board facilitate public discussion on the report and its recommendations. In particular, the Board has been asked to gather feedback on four of its 32 recommendations. The Board is encouraging the public to provide written comments rather than verbal comments, so that your feedback can be communicated effectively with all Board members.

You are also welcome to provide your feedback responses by email to info@lakewinnipeg.org

Use the form below to send us your feedback about the Interim Report. The required fields are highlighted with bold text.

Name (required)

Address (required)

City (required)

Province (required)

Postal Code

E-Mail (required)

Phone (including area code) (required)

Copies of the public responses will be placed in the public registries located throughout Manitoba. Please indicate here if you do not want your comments placed in the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board public registry. Deadline for comments to be considered for the report on Public Discussion is May 31, 2005. Comments received after May 31, 2005 will be considered prior to the Board's final report scheduled for July, 2006.

Do you want your comments to be part of public record? (required)

Please review the following recommendations and select one of the responses following each recommendation.
There is space provided at the end of this form for additional comments on these and other recommendations. Note that additional "background" information is contained in the Interim Report.

I. Recommendation 2.0: Nutrient Loss from Confined Livestock Areas and Over-Wintering Sites
(From page 22 of Interim Report).

Background Summary:

Livestock manure is a significant source of phosphorus in the environment.
Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from livestock manure are transported from confined areas such as feedlots and wintering sites, during spring runoff and summer precipitation events.
The risk of nutrient transport to surface waters is higher where land is sloped and the soils provide poor infiltration. Runoff from these sites may also contain other contaminants such as pathogens (e.g., Escherichia coli O157) and livestock pharmaceuticals.

Recommendation 2.1: Drainage from confined areas should be directed to retention basins, grassed buffer strips, and constructed wetlands, or other effective nutrient reduction practices should be employed.

Recommendation 2.2: Where possible, holding areas and wintering areas should be used on a rotational basis to prevent a build-up of nutrients in the soil. Otherwise, manure in confined holding areas should be regularly removed and applied to crop or pasture lands at agronomic rates.

Recommendation 2.3: Legislation should be reviewed and revised where appropriate to include small as well as large livestock operations, and to ensure that new or expanded confined operations are constructed to meet contemporary environmental standards.

Recommendation 2.4: Government should intensify its agriculture extension programs (such as those offered by Manitoba Agriculture, Food, and Rural Initiatives) and those delivered in partnership with existing or new programs to help producers assess the environmental risk of their operations, and to provide advice on how to prevent the contamination of groundwater and surface water.

Timeframe: Medium-term (1- 4 years)
Who should implement: Province of Manitoba

II. Recommendation 10.0: Cosmetic Use of Phosphorus-Based Fertilizers
(From page 29 of Interim Report).

Background Summary:

Phosphorus-based fertilizers used for cosmetic purposes are a relatively small contributor to the overall nutrient loading to Lake Winnipeg, but still deserve attention.
In Manitoba, fertilizer use on lawns is widespread in urban centres, lakeside cottages, Provincial and Federal parks, and properties surrounding Provincial and Federal government buildings.
In most situations, these fertilizers are applied in the absence of a soil test which would determine whether the soil is actually deficient in nitrogen or phosphorus.
While phosphorus is an essential plant nutrient for lawns, many of Manitoba soils have an abundant supply of natural phosphorus.
Also, when fertilizers are broadcast over lawns, some will unintentionally be applied to imperious surfaces such as sidewalks and driveways. There is a significant risk that this "over-spread" will be washed into storm drains which lead to rivers and lakes.
As of January 1, 2004, a law came into effect in the St. Paul and Minneapolis metropolitan area in Minnesota that restricts the use of lawn fertilizers.
In this region, fertilizers may not contain phosphorus, and in Greater Minneapolis, the phosphorus content is restricted to no more than three per cent. It is illegal to spread fertilizer on hard surfaces such as sideways and driveways.
These Minnesota restrictions do not apply to fertilizers used on agricultural crops, flower and vegetable gardens, or on golf courses.

Recommendation 10.1: The Province should explore the option of implementing province-wide restrictions on the use of phosphorus-based fertilizers for cosmetic use in Manitoba.

Recommendation 10.2: The Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada should implement restrictions on the cosmetic use of phosphorus fertilizers for lawn care on provincial and federal properties.

Recommendation 10.3: Canada should institute a consistent policy for the use of fertilizers for cosmetic use on all Federal lands, including National Parks and First Nation communities.

Timeframe: Short-term (6 - 12 months)
Who should implement: Province of Manitoba

III. Recommendation 21.0: Storage Requirements for or Municipal Lagoons
(From page 37 of Interim Report).

Background Summary:

In Manitoba, municipal sewage lagoons are generally required to be constructed with sufficient capacity to store wastewater for 220 days.
A longer storage capacity would increase the opportunity for effluent irrigation, enhance the level of treatment, and reduce the risk of emergency discharges during wet periods.
Nutrient data should be gathered from Manitoba and other jurisdictions with similar climates to determine the benefits of increasing the storage period to 400-days.

21.1: The Province should explore the option of expanding the storage capacity of new and expanded lagoons to 400 days. Water conservation strategies will assist municipalities in realizing this capacity.

Timeframe: Medium-term (1 - 4 years)
Who should implement: Province of Manitoba

IV. Recommendation 24.0: Septic Field Alternatives
(From page 39 of Interim Report).

Background Summary:

Many septic fields in the Lake Winnipeg watershed are not functioning adequately.
Septic fields are not an appropriate technology for containing and treating wastes in high-density communities.
Septic systems located in heavy clay soils may eventually become saturated, leading to overland flow of waste into drainage ditches. Where there is little soil above bedrock, flow may carry nutrients and pathogens directly into watercourses.
Many septic fields are old or are undersized as homes and cottages may have been expanded in size and water consumption has increased since the fields were installed.
Septic field inspections are limited. Inspections are often complaint-driven.
Incentives should be given for implementing alternative waste treatment systems that reduce nutrient loading such as composting systems and bio-filters including peat moss treatment systems, and constructed mini wetlands.
Separating grey-water from black-water, and reusing grey-water should be explored.
A focused educational campaign should be undertaken to provide guidance on how to recognize when they are failing.

24.1: There is a need to implement regional sewage treatment plants with nutrient removal capabilities prioritizing areas such as those in high residential density, and proximity to waterbodies.

24.2 Where regionalization of sewage treatment is not feasible, or as an interim measure until regionalization is practicable, alternatives to septic fields should be explored.

24.3 The Province should explore the option of instituting an annual levy to recover the costs of conducting an ongoing comprehensive septic field inspection program, and maintaining a septic field database in the Province.

Timeframe: Short-term (6 - 12months)
Who should implement: Province of Manitoba

Additional Comments:

Please provide comments on the above four recommendations, other recommendations contained in the Interim Report (please refer to Interim Report to review these recommendations), and issues identified in Appendix F of the Interim Report (issues requiring further deliberations and recommendations by the Board).

204-642-4899

PO Box 305, Gimli, MB, Canada, R0C 1B0