DOCSLIB.ORG

Class EA for Bayfield WWTF Expansion Environmental Study Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Class EA for Bayfield WWTF Expansion Environmental Study Report MUNICIPALITY OF BLUEWATER CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR EXPANSION AND UPGRADING OF THE BAYFIELD SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT MUNICIPALITY OF BLUEWATER CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR EXPANSION AND UPGRADING OF THE BAYFIELD SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT March 10, 2021 B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED Engineers and Planners 62 North Street Goderich, Ontario N7A 2T4 File No. 09051 Z:\09051-Bluewater-Bayfield_STP\WP\Class EA\ESR\09051-2021-03-10-FINAL.docx Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process .................................................................. 1 1.3 Classification of Project Schedules .................................................................... 2 1.4 Environmental Study Report .............................................................................. 4 1.5 Mechanism to Request a Higher Level of Environmental Assessment .............. 4 1.6 Study Organization ............................................................................................. 4 2.0 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Study Area Description ...................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Municipality of Bluewater ............................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Community of Bayfield ................................................................................. 5 2.1.3 Project Study Area Description .................................................................... 5 2.2 Historical Growth and Development ................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Official Plan Policies .................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Existing Development Pattern ..................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Recent Growth Trends................................................................................. 8 2.3 Growth Forecast ............................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 Methodology .............................................................................................. 13 2.3.2 Household Growth Projections .................................................................. 13 2.3.3 Summary and Conclusions for Growth .......................................................... 14 2.4 Natural Heritage Features ................................................................................ 15 2.4.1 General Physiography ............................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Bayfield River ............................................................................................ 15 2.4.3 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) .......................................... 16 2.4.4 Species at Risk Habitat.............................................................................. 16 2.4.5 Aquatic Species at Risk ............................................................................. 19 2.5 Source Water Protection .................................................................................. 20 2.6 Bayfield River Water Quality ............................................................................ 20 2.6.2 Benthic Analysis ........................................................................................ 21 2.6.3 Assimilation Study ..................................................................................... 22 2.7 Existing Sewage Facilities ................................................................................ 26 2.7.1 Collection System ...................................................................................... 26 2.7.2 Treatment Facilities ................................................................................... 27 2.8 Existing Operating Conditions .......................................................................... 29 2.8.1 Annual Raw Sewage Flow ......................................................................... 29 2.8.2 Contributions from Campgrounds .............................................................. 32 2.8.3 Leachate Discharged at WWTF ................................................................. 32 2.8.4 Maximum Day Flows ................................................................................. 33 2.8.5 Peak Rate Flows ....................................................................................... 33 2.8.6 Raw Sewage Characteristics ..................................................................... 34 2.8.7 Effluent Flows ............................................................................................ 34 2.8.8 Effluent Quality .......................................................................................... 35 2.9 Reserve Capacity Analysis............................................................................... 37 2.9.1 Methodology .............................................................................................. 37 2.9.3 Uncommitted Reserve ................................................................................... 37 2.10 Review of Extraneous Flows ......................................................................... 38 2.10.1 Background ............................................................................................ 38 2.10.2 System Response to Precipitation Events .............................................. 39 2.10.3 Summary re Extraneous Flows .............................................................. 40 2.11 Design Sewage Flows .................................................................................. 41 2.11.1 Background ............................................................................................ 41 2.11.2 Existing Flow .......................................................................................... 41 2.11.3 Potential I-I Reduction ............................................................................ 41 2.11.4 Unit Flow for Growth ............................................................................... 42 2.11.5 Growth Projections ................................................................................. 42 2.11.6 Sewage Flow Design Values .................................................................. 42 3.0 CLASS EA STUDY FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 45 3.1 Study Initiation .................................................................................................. 45 3.2 Phase 1 – Problem Definition ........................................................................... 45 3.3 Phase 2 – Identification of Alternative Solutions .............................................. 45 3.4 Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives .............................................................. 47 3.4.1 General ......................................................................................................... 47 3.4.2 Alternative 1: Reduce Wastewater Quantities from the Existing Community47 3.4.3 Alternative 2: Limit Community Growth..................................................... 47 3.4.4 Alternative 3: Expand Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility ................. 48 3.4.5 Alternative 4: Construct New Treatment Facilities .................................... 48 3.4.6 Alternative 5: Re-Rate the Existing Facility ............................................... 49 3.4.7 Alternative 6: Do Nothing .......................................................................... 50 3.4.8 Summary of Preliminary Review of Alternatives ........................................ 50 3.5 Environmental Considerations ......................................................................... 50 3.5.1 General ...................................................................................................... 50 3.5.2 Summary of Environmental Review ........................................................... 52 3.6 Identification of a Preferred Solution ................................................................ 60 4.0 PHASE 3 – REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS ........................ 61 4.1 General ............................................................................................................ 61 4.2 Design Wastewater Quantities ......................................................................... 61 4.2.1 Design Flow Basis ..................................................................................... 61 4.2.2 Design Wastewater Volume ...................................................................... 62 4.2.3 Approach to Staging .................................................................................. 63 4.3 Wastewater Treatment Facility Design ............................................................. 63 4.3.1 General ...................................................................................................... 63 4.3.2 Effluent Quality Criteria .............................................................................. 64 4.3.3 Treatment Process Selection ....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rainbow Villosa Iris
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Rainbow Villosa iris in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2015 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2015. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rainbow Villosa iris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 82 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rainbow mussel Villosa iris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 38 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Julie Vanden Byllaardt and Todd Morris for writing the status report on the Rainbow (Villosa iris) in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Joseph Carney, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Molluscs Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Villeuse irisée (Villosa iris) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Rainbow — Provided by author. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2015. Catalogue No. CW69-14/492-2016E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-05005-8 COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2015 Common name Rainbow Scientific name Villosa iris Status Special Concern Reason for designation This small mussel is widely distributed in southern Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Bayfield Watershed Plan FINAL
    Main Bayfield Watershed Plan MainMain BayfieldBayfield WatershedWatershed PlanPlan 20132013 Cite as: Schnaithmann, J., A. Gutteridge, H. Brock, and M. Veliz. 2013. Main Bayfield Watershed Plan. Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. Exeter, Ontario. 39 pp. ISBN number: 978-0-9781887-2-6 Copies of this publication are available online: www.abca.on.ca Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA) 71108 Morrison Line, RR 3 Exeter, ON N0M 1S5 519-235-2610 or 1-888-286-2610 Photos by Daniel Holm Photography, courtesy Rural Stormwater Management Model Project of the Healthy Lake Huron: Clean Water, Clean Beaches initiative (healthylakehuron.ca), and the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. i Main Bayfield Watershed Plan Executive Summary The Main Bayfield Watershed Plan was effectively work towards addressing these developed cooperatively between landowners, challenges. residents, and local organizations in the Bayfield and Clinton, Ontario area. It is hoped that the Urban Runoff Work with homeowners and the watershed plan will help the community municipalities to implement innovative stormwater understand the connections between the actions management solutions that will benefit water we take on the land, and the quality of our natural quality, as well as sustainable urban growth (e.g., resources, such as our water, fish, and beaches. improve and upgrade urban infrastructure with Actions that reduce nutrient and sediment runoff low impact development and green infrastructure will also enhance the larger Lake Huron, as the principles - buffers, rain barrels, rain gardens, Bayfield River flows directly into the lake. The permeable pavement). community stakeholders that developed the watershed plan recommended the following vision Agricultural runoff Implement site-appropriate and goal: Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., create wetlands to hold water during rain events and release it during dry periods, maintain crop Watershed Vision residue, follow nutrient management plans).
    [Show full text]
  • Huron County Extreme Lake Levels Integrated Assessment Phase I Report – May 3, 2016
    Huron County Extreme Lake Levels Integrated Assessment Phase I Report – May 3, 2016 1 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 Next Steps: .................................................................................................................................. 8 STATUS AND TRENDS ............................................................................................................... 9 Huron County: where farm meets lake ....................................................................................... 9 Changing lake levels: uncertain science ................................................................................... 10 Low water levels status and trends ........................................................................................... 13 Great Lakes Shipping............................................................................................................ 13 High water levels status and trends........................................................................................... 14 Ontario’s regulatory environment for shoreline development .................................................. 15 Conservation Authorities’ role ............................................................................................. 16 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for the Main Bayfield River Watershed Draft 2012
    Management Plan for the Main Bayfield River Watershed Draft 2012 Prepared for: Ontario Ministry of the Environment Lake Huron Southeast Shores Working Group by Jessica Schnaithmann, Hope Brock and Mari Veliz Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority 71108 Morrison Line, R.R. 3, Exeter, Ontario, N0M 1S5 17 July 2012 Main Bayfield River Watershed Management Plan - Draft Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, July 2012 1 Executive Summary The Bayfield River watershed is one of the most remarkable natural features in Huron County. The smaller Main Bayfield subwatershed, which is the focus of this watershed management plan, boasts one of the largest percentages of forest cover in the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA) jurisdiction, including a provincially designated Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) and three Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs). The extensive forest cover, which is concentrated along the main stem and its tributaries, provides excellent fish habitat. Furthermore, the Trick’s Creek tributary is one of the few cold water streams in the area. Although the Main Bayfield watershed exhibits some exceptional natural features, areas still remain which could benefit from increased forest cover and wetland restoration. Water quality is also a concern and could be improved with reductions in sediment, nutrient and bacterial concentrations. This project is part of a larger initiative termed the Lake Huron-Georgian Bay Watershed Canadian Framework for Community Action, which encourages the active participation of individuals, groups and communities, in identifying common issues, and the conservation and stewardship of natural resources. The Main Bayfield River Watershed Management Plan will respect the long-term sustainability of all water systems and the life that depends on them.
    [Show full text]
  • LEVERETT the Amhurstburg Quadrangle but Are Very Scanty Further South
    Open File Report LXI The east border of Lake Rouge is marked by sandy deposits southward from the delta to about 2 miles into FIELD NOTES OF FRANK LEVERETT the Amhurstburg quadrangle but are very scanty further south. There is a very level tract with clay soil and Notebook No. 299 - Leverett scattered boulders over the area below the 600 contour as well as above it. COUNTY There is a slight suggestion of shore work west of Branch Lukerville, 1/8 mile ± from the crossroads with a Chippewa perceptible downward slope to the west and a slight Hillsdale sandy coating. This seems likely to mark the Lake Jackson Rouge limit. The shore is not clearly defined south or Keweenaw southwest from there so it is not feasible to trace it into Keweenaw Peninsula the head of the Big Creek drainage in the way I had Macomb hoped to do. The lake may have extended to within two Mackinac miles of the place where Big Creek is crossed by the Midland & Isabella M.C.R.R. east of the quarries. The valley of Big Creek is Monroe very narrow and sinuous for a mile above the railroad St. Clair bridge but is wider where the creek turns from a N.W. to Washtenaw a S.W. course. There is a wider channel on a small Wayne tributary north from there than on the creek above this OTHER STATES bend. It suggests a spillway coming in from the north. This seems to open out into a feature less plain within a Illinois mile from the bend of Big Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 1 Desktop Assessment, Environment Report, Municipality Of
    Phase 1 Desktop Assessment, Environment Report MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL HURON, ONTARIO APM-REP-06144-0125 SEPTEMBER 2015 This report has been prepared under contract to the NWMO. The report has been reviewed by the NWMO, but the views and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the NWMO. All copyright and intellectual property rights belong to the NWMO. For more information, please contact: Nuclear Waste Management Organization 22 St. Clair Avenue East, Sixth Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2S3 Canada Tel 416.934.9814 Toll Free 1.866.249.6966 Email [email protected] www.nwmo.ca September 2015 PHASE 1 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT Environment Report - Municipality of Central Huron, Ontario Submitted to: Nuclear Waste Management Organization 22 St. Clair Avenue East, 6th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2S3 Report Number: 12-1152-0026 (4100) (4102) APM-REP-06144-0125 Distribution: REPORT 2 Copies - NWMO 1 Copy - Golder Associates Ltd. ENVIRONMENT REPORT - MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL HURON, ONTARIO September 2015 Report No. 12-1152-0026 (4100) (4102) APM-REP-06144-0125 i ENVIRONMENT REPORT - MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL HURON, ONTARIO Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 COMMUNITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................................3 2.1 Communities........................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Environment Update for Huron County - Technical Document
    Natural Environment Update for Huron County - Technical Document Background Research for Natural Environment Planning September 2019 This report was prepared by the Technical Team for the Natural Environment Update for Huron County Advisory Committee. Executive Summary The countryside of Huron County supports different land use activities with agriculture being prominent. At the property scale, many people find that natural areas such as woodlots, rivers, ponds, and meadows are the most attractive features of their property. In this working landscape, these features are also collectively valued by the community and broader society. It is important to have a coordinated approach for protecting and enhancing natural heritage features that is supported by agencies, stakeholders and landowners across the County. Natural systems planning identifies spatially and functionally interconnected systems of natural features and landforms. It is an effective way to preserve biodiversity, which is an essential component of ecosystem health. The natural heritage system in Huron County is comprised of coastal and hinterland landforms, natural heritage features, and watercourses. The Natural Heritage Systems Study section describes the methodology used to identify natural heritage features in Huron County and evaluate the features based on their individual significance and within the context of the natural heritage system. According to 2006 aerial imagery, there is 20% natural cover in the County. Woodlands cover 16.6% of Huron County, wetlands 6.5%, meadows 1.8%, and thickets (areas with shrubs and small trees) 0.49%. The landscape model used to apply significance criteria to natural heritage patches in Huron County identified 98% of the natural cover as being significant.
    [Show full text]
  • Ausable Bayfield Assessment Report Amended February 5, 2019
    Ausable Bayfield Assessment Report Amended February 5, 2019 Volume I – Text of Report www.sourcewaterinfo.on.ca Ausable Bayeld Made possible through the Maitland Valley funding support of the Source Protection Region Government of Ontario Assessment Report Ausable Bayfield Source Protection Area Summary of Report Approvals and Amendments Version 1: Assessment Report, 2012 The initial findings and comments herein were approved by the Province of Ontario January 19, 2012. Version 2: Updated Assessment Report, amended December 10, 2014 The Assessment Report was updated in 2014 to reflect threats verification work, revised mapping for consistency with the Source Protection Plan, and to address minor errors. The planned decommissioning of Carriage Lane and Harbour Lights systems was noted. Version 3: Assessment Report, amended February 5, 2019 The Assessment Report for the Ausable Bayfield SPA was amended in 2019 under Section 34 of the Clean Water Act, 2006 to include the following changes to well systems and to address minor errors: Add Varna Municipal Water Supply (formerly a non-municipal system) Remove Carriage Lane and Harbour Lights systems from the Assessment Report A description of these water supply systems can be found in Chapter 4. Acknowledgements Writing Contributors and Editing Staff Jenna Allain Tim Cumming Cathie Brown Darrell Innes Geoff Cade Abigail Gutteridge Aaron Clarke Brian Luinstra Donna Clarkson Mary Lynn MacDonald Additional thanks to all consultants whose work provided the scientific basis of this report. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Phases of Drinking Water Source Protection Planning .................................. 1 1.2 The Participants .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Consultation Requirements ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Characterization
    Wat e rshe d Characterization ausable bayfield maitland valley planning region Ausable Bayfield & Maitland Valley Partnership Made possible through the support of the Government of Ontario Ausable Bayfield & Maitland Valley Source Protection Region - Watershed Characterization Watershed Characterization Ausable Bayfield & Maitland Valley Partnership Source Water Protection Planning Region Assessment Report: Guidance Module 1 Version 1.0 January 2007 DRAFT This document is a draft version and is subject to review by Conservation Ontario. 1 Ausable Bayfield & Maitland Valley Source Protection Region - Watershed Characterization ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors Brian Luinstra Liz Snell Rick Steele Meredith Walker Mari Veliz Contributors Andrew Bicknell Susan Brocklebank Pat Donnelly Geoff King Kevin McKague Ausable Bayfield Conservation Staff Maitland Valley Conservation Staff Reviewers Ken Cornelisse, Ministry of Natural Resources Stan Denhoed, Harden Environmental Services Trevor Dickinson, University of Guelph, Engineering Department Steve Evans, Middlesex County Planning Department Doug Joy, University of Guelph, Department of Engineering Gary Palmateer, GAP Environmental Services Geoff Peach, Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation Susanna Reid, Huron County Planning Department Pamela Scharfe, Huron County Health Unit Paul Turnbull, Municipality of Lambton Shores Kelly Vader, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd. Bob Worsell, Huron County Health Unit 2 Ausable Bayfield & Maitland Valley Source Protection Region - Watershed Characterization INTRODUCTION The Clean Water Act, which received Royal Assent on October 19, 2006, is part of the Ontario government’s plan to implement recommendations from the Walkerton Inquiry and the O’Connor Report. Justice O’Connor concluded that a multi-barrier approach was the most effective method to prevent contamination from affecting drinking water. This approach includes taking action to prevent the contamination of sources of water, using adequate water treatment and distribution systems, water testing and training of water managers.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Guide to Huron County Hiking Trails
    Your Guide to Huron County Hiking Trails HikingGuide www.hikehuron.caPage 1 GEORGIAN BAY Owen Sound LAKE SIMCOE LAKE HURON Barrie Kincardine HURON COUNTY Wingham Goderich Blyth Brussels T o ronto Clinton Bayfield Seaforth Kitchener/ Zurich Hensall W a terloo Guelph LAKE Exeter Stratford Grand Bend ONTARIO MICHIGAN Niagara Falls, Hamilton USA Niagara Falls Port Huron London Sarnia LAKE ST. CLAIR Detroit Windsor LAKE ERIE Kilometers 05 10203040 Huron County’s Hiking Experience Welcome to Huron County . Ontario’s West Coast! Discover the enjoyment of the outdoors for pleasure and improved health through walking, cycling and cross country skiing. Located in Southwestern Ontario, Huron County offers trail enthusiasts of all ages and skill levels a variety of terrains from natural paths to partially paved routes. Come and explore! Huron County is a vacation destination of charm, culture, beauty and endless possibilities! Contact the address or number(s) on the back of this Guide book and ask for your free copy of the Huron County Vacation Guide to help plan your hiking adventure! For the outdoor recreation enthusiast, Huron County also offers countless cycling opportunities. A free Cycling Guide is available upon request by contacting the address or number(s) on the back of this Guide book. For information about additional conservation area and heritage walking tours please refer to the Huron County Vacation Guide. www.ontarioswestcoast.caPage 2 How To Use This Guide This Guide Book is designed as a quick and easy guide to hiking trails in Huron County. Each trail is numbered on the Reference Map on the next page (more detailed driving directions are included with each trail description).
    [Show full text]
  • Bayfield Headwaters Watershed Report Card
    Bayfield Headwaters Watershed Report Card This report card summarizes water quality and forestry information for the Bayfield Grades: Headwaters watershed (the highlighted area on the map below). This map also shows water quality stations and example environmental improvement locations. For Forest consistency across watersheds, Conservation Ontario has recommended the use of Conditions D specific water quality and forestry indicators that are described in the following tables. The summary is intended to provide landowners, groups, municipalities and agencies Surface Water with information to protect, enhance and improve natural features of the watershed. Quality C The ongoing monitoring will be reported on a five-year cycle which will help local people manage their natural features. This report card is part of a larger report entitled The Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Watershed Report Card available at: www.abca.on.ca. Further information, including methodology, comparisons to the other 15 Ausable Bayfield watersheds and references are also found in the report. Priority Strategy for Bayfield Headwaters Watershed Improve: Reforestation efforts are critical in this area. Ausable Bayfield Watershed Report Card 2007 26 Bayfield Headwaters Watershed Features Area: 206 km2 Municipalities: Central Huron, Huron East, West Perth Geology 79% Till Plains (Undrumlinized); 17% Spillways; 3% Till Moraines; 1% Other (GIS derived with physiographic maps) (Chapman and Putnam 1984) Soils 72% Clay Loam; 14% Silty Loam; 6% Bottomland; 4% Loam;
    [Show full text]
  • Bluewater HERITAGE Walking & Driving Tours STANLEY TWP ‘Stagecoach Stops’
    Bluewater HERITAGE Walking & Driving Tours STANLEY TWP ‘Stagecoach Stops’ Produced by the Municipality of Bluewater Heritage Advisory Committee in 2018 with the generous assistance of the Huron Heritage Fund. This tour will take approximately 60 minutes at a comfortable driving pace. WELCOME! This is a Driving Tour. TOUR ETIQUETTE: Please respect people’s privacy. Many of the places on the tour are private businesses or residences and their inclusion is meant to highlight their history or architecture. Their presence on the tour does not include permission to enter the properties, unless they’re public spaces or businesses offering public services. Keep in mind that construction and other temporary events may involve the need to adjust your tour route; please keep a Huron County map in the car (available at tourist information centres and libraries) or have your GPS (app or device) at hand to help make any necessary detours. Water and picnic supplies are also nice to have along for a tour in the country, not to mention a cooler for refreshments or to store the goodies you’ll find at the farm markets, local breweries and cider shops along the way. Don’t stress if you get lost ... sometimes you find the best treasures that way! Just remember: in this area, the lake is always west. That’s why we have such great sunsets! So! Let’s go on a driving tour of Stanley Township’s stagecoach stops. Along the way, we’ll point out some interesting sites to see and make sure to recommend at least one stop for ice cream for those summertime explorers.
    [Show full text]