STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Transcription

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ANNANDALE/MAPLE LAKE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ALBION TOWNSHIP/WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT The above-entitled matter came before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens Board at a regular meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota on July 27, Pursuant to Minn. R (2003), the MPCA staff has prepared an (EAW) for the proposed project. Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background The cities of Annandale and Maple Lake (Cities) in Wright County, Minnesota, each currently operate a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The Annandale WWTF consists of three stabilization ponds. Treated effluent is applied to four separate spray irrigation zones. The WWTF is designed to treat an average influent flow of 280,000 gallons per day (gpd). The Maple Lake WWTF is a mechanical activated sludge facility consisting of a bar screen, grit removal, flow equalization basin, primary settling tank, high-rate trickling filter, solids contact tank with ferric chloride addition to promote the removal of phosphorus, two final clarifiers, chlorination and dechlorination, a heated anaerobic digester and a four-compartment sludge drying bed. Treated effluent discharges into the southern bay of Maple Lake. The WWTF is designed to treat an average wet weather (AWW) design flow of 461,000 gpd. Both facilities are at or nearing design capacity. In addition, the communities in the service area are expecting to grow in the next 20 years. It is necessary for each city to expand their treatment capacity in order to continue to provide safe and reliable wastewater treatment now and into the future. Several options to expand wastewater treatment capacity in each city have been considered by these municipalities. The Cities have selected the option of constructing a new regional, jointly operated WWTF to be located to the south of Maple Lake in Albion Township, Wright County, Minnesota. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Proposed New Construction The proposed project entails the construction of a new mechanical WWTF that will have an AWW design flow capacity of 1.18 mgd. The construction of sanitary sewer pipelines that will carry raw wastewater from the Cities to the new WWTF are connected actions to the proposal. The Cities have entered into a joint powers agreement to plan, construct and operate the WWTF. The new WWTF will consist of lift stations in each city, screening and grit removal, extended aeration activated sludge, clarifiers and chlorine disinfection. The existing flow equalization basin at the Maple Lake WWTF will be retained for future use. The proposed WWTF will comply with a one milligrams per liter (mg/l) effluent phosphorus limit. Ferric chloride will be added, as needed, as a chemical back-up to biological phosphorus removal. Sludge generated in the treatment process will be aerated and then applied to reed beds for dewatering. Stabilized biosolids will be land applied to MPCA-approved land application sites. Sanitary sewer pipelines will carry raw wastewater to the new WWTF and treated effluent will travel through forcemain pipe and discharge to the North Fork of the Crow River. All pipelines will be placed in county or U.S. highway road right-of-way. All wastewater treatment units will be placed in the southeast portion of a 35-acre parcel of land located to the southwest of the intersection of County Highway 7 and 20 th Street Northwest in Albion Township. The existing Maple Lake and Annandale WWTFs will both be abandoned once the proposed WWTF and the sanitary sewer pipelines are operational. As a result of these closures, a direct point source discharge to Maple Lake and land applications by the Annandale WWTF will be eliminated. Past Project Proposal A similar proposal as that described in this EAW was described in an EAW placed on public notice by the MPCA on June 23, In that 2003 proposal, treated effluent was to be discharged to an unnamed tributary of the North Fork of the Crow River. In September 2003, the MPCA Citizens Board determined that the EAW adequately addressed all environmental concerns and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unnecessary. At that point, environmental review was concluded. In a decision made early in 2004, Wright County approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for that project with a provision that the WWTF discharge treated effluent directly to the North Fork of the Crow River via forcemain. This decision necessitated further review by the MPCA and, as a result, the project proposer submitted a draft EAW to the MPCA in April This new proposal is described in the EAW placed on public notice in June The only difference between the proposed project that was described in the 2003 EAW and the project proposal described in this most recent EAW is the effluent discharge route. The plan for the construction of the sanitary sewer pipelines from each city to the proposed WWTF and the plan for the construction of the treatment processes at the WWTF have not been altered. Permitting Requirements Required permits are listed in Findings 21 below. Construction for the proposed project will not start until all necessary permits are issued. These permits will mandate that the WWTF operate in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. 2

3 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Environmental Concerns Typical environmental concerns from WWTFs include the potential for noise and dust during the construction phase; odors; erosion and sedimentation; and water quality impacts to surface water. Typical environmental concerns from the construction of sanitary sewer pipelines include erosion and sedimentation during the construction phase. The pipelines to be installed for this project will cross near wetlands, streams, and lakes in the region and so potential impacts to these water resources during the construction phase are an additional concern. Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters Several comment letters received during the public notice period for the draft EAW voice concern about the likelihood of a future expansion of the proposed WWTF, the potential for ground-water contamination and the impact the discharge may have on the volume of water in the North Fork of the Crow River. Community Involvement in Process The MPCA held a public information meeting on May 27, 2004 in Maple Lake, Minnesota, regarding the proposed WWTF and its associated pipeline projects. It was attended by approximately 25 people. Additionally, the Cities held a public information meeting in April 2003, for the 2003 project proposal described under the Past Project Proposal heading above. That meeting was attended by approximately 65 people. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R subp. 18B, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed project. Pursuant to Minn. R (2003), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on May 10, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to interested parties on May 10, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on May 10, 2004, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at on May 10, The public comment period for the EAW began on May 10, 2004, and ended on June 9, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received 2 comment letters from government agencies and received 13 comment letters from citizens. 4. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period. Comment letters received have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings. The MPCA responses to comments received are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix B to these findings. 3

4 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R (2003), the MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R , subp. 7 (2003). These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA ARE SET FORTH BELOW Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 6. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R , subp. 7.A (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below. 7. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to air quality: A. Odors; B. Noise; and C. Dust. 8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Odors Several comment letters expressed concerns that the proposed WWTF would produce nuisance odor conditions. Odor from the WWTF is most likely to occur when the influent arrives at the WWTF because it has been traveling under anaerobic conditions through the pipelines. The pretreatment room, where the influent will arrive, will be a completely enclosed building and all ventilation will be conveyed through an odor treatment system. The rest of the wastewater treatment process and the sludge management process are aerated and this typically eliminates odors. 4

5 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Additionally, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit will state that nuisance conditions will not be allowed. Should chronic odors from the WWTF exist, the project proposer would be required to take action to remedy the situation. This design and the need to maintain the odor control devices will be NPDES/SDS Permit requirements. Mechanical WWTFs are rarely the source of objectionable odors and the operation of the proposed WWTF is not expected to create significant nuisance odors. B. Noise There will be a temporary increase in noise generated by heavy machinery during the construction of the mechanical WWTF and the associated pipelines. Construction activity will be limited, as much as possible, to standard working hours to reduce noise disturbance to neighbors. The operation of the completed WWTF and its associated pipelines will not be the source of noise. C. Dust A certain amount of dust during construction will be unavoidable and may temporarily impact residents in the vicinity of the proposed plant site and adjacent to the forcemain construction sites. Directional drilling will be used to install at least half of the forcemain. This construction technique will minimize the amount of area to be disturbed and, therefore, the amount of dust created. The contractor will be required to minimize dust from the site. Watering and leaving areas undisturbed as long as possible will likely be the primary means of dust control. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated as soon as possible. Operation of the completed WWTF and of the pipelines will not create dust. 9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would be reversible. Any air emissions or noise released to the atmosphere would not be recovered, but further emissions or noise could be stopped, if necessary. However, as discussed above, there is no record evidence indicating that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on air quality. 10. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed. 11. The MPCA finds that the project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur as a result of its air emissions. 5

6 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 12. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to water quality and quantity: A. Erosion and sedimentation; B. Surface-water runoff; C. Water quality/water resources; D. Ground water contamination; and E. Water quantity. 13. The extent of any potential water quality and quantity effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Erosion and sedimentation The project proposer will be required to obtain a NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity from the MPCA to control erosion and runoff from all construction activities associated with the proposed project. This permit must be obtained prior to commencing any land disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grading, filling, and excavating) at the site. The permit specifically requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Construction plans will include BMPs, such as scarifying only those portions of the site actively under construction, placing silt fencing down slope of any land that is graded, and seeding and re-vegetating disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction is complete. WWTF Soil borings and a topographical survey indicate that none of the soils to be disturbed by construction of the proposed project are categorized as highly erodible. No steep slopes have been identified on the construction site. Seeding and mulching will provide permanent vegetative drainage and erosion control after construction. Pipelines The majority of areas that will be directly disturbed for installation of forcemain will be roadway and brush- or grass-covered road right-of-way. Directional drilling will be used to install half of the forcemain pipe. This technique is commonly used in environmentally sensitive areas because it greatly reduces the potential for erosion and sedimentation by minimizing the amount of soil disturbed. The material removed during excavation of trenches will be used for back filling around the installed pipe. Temporary erosion control devices may include heavy duty high-flow silt fencing, rock check dams, and storm sewer inlet protection. Seeding and mulching will provide permanent vegetative drainage and erosion control after construction. Outfall Several comment letters received during the public comment period for the EAW expressed concerns regarding the installation of the outfall structure on the bank of the North Fork of the Crow River. Construction of the outfall structure will require a NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity from the MPCA and a Public Waters Work Permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The proposer intends to install the structure during low flow and the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity will ensure control of erosion during and after construction. The DNR will identify, through their permitting process, further conditions needed to protect the North Fork of the Crow River, if necessary. Once construction of the outfall structure is complete, the site will be seeded and rip rapped and the project proposer will be required through the NPDES/SDS 6

7 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Permit issued by the MPCA to maintain outlet protection measures to prevent erosion around the outfall structure. B. Surface-water runoff The change in quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the construction of the proposed project will be minimal, though quality of runoff may temporarily decrease during the construction phase. The NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity from the MPCA has specific requirements for the treatment and overall management of stormwater prior to discharge from the site. The permit also requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan be developed to manage pollutants in stormwater runoff from the site that will occur during construction and after construction is complete. WWTF The latest design information indicates that the WWTF process units will occupy approximately 3 acres, only 1.35 acres of which will be impervious surfaces. The aeration basins and the reed beds will be open basins and they will effectively capture rainwater and snow that falls directly on them. Precipitation captured in the aeration basins will be discharged through the outfall structure with the treated effluent. Rainfall and snow captured in the reed beds will be returned to the air via evaporation and evapotranspiration. Turfed areas are not expected to be fertilized. A 25-foot wide buffer strip of grassland will separate the mowed, turfed portion of the site and the unnamed, intermittent stream that flows on the western edge of the proposed WWTF site towards which stormwater runoff will flow. Runoff from the site will flow over the surface of the ground and through the buffer strip, providing an opportunity for infiltration. Pipelines Areas disturbed by forcemain installation will be returned as much as possible to preconstruction condition and seeded with native vegetation. The proposed pipeline projects will temporarily disturb the road right-of-way and then will return it to its original state, so the quantity and quality of the site runoff should be the same post-construction as it was preconstruction. Site runoff during construction will filter through erosion control devices and either infiltrate the ground or reach the surface water bodies along the pipeline corridor. The pipelines will not directly affect the drainage patterns in the project area or change the volume or composition of runoff from the area. Native vegetation will be seeded in construction areas upon project completion. This vegetation will provide an opportunity for infiltration before road runoff flows into adjacent wetlands or streams. Potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation are not anticipated to be significant. C. Water quality/water resource As described previously, a NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity will be obtained, as required, from the MPCA for all construction activities associated with this project. This permit will ensure minimized potential for erosion and sedimentation and treatment of stormwater from the project sites before and after construction. 7

8 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order WWTF The wastewater generated by the current and future service area will be primarily domestic strength wastewater. No major industrial wastewaters are currently treated at either the existing Maple Lake WWTF or the Annandale WWTF. The proposed WWTF construction area appears to be clear of wetlands, but since National Wetland Inventory data indicates that wetlands may be located on the general property, wetlands will be delineated prior to construction. The plan is to completely avoid working within wetlands and the proposed construction site is large enough so that WWTF structures can be moved as necessary to avoid wetland impacts. Pipelines Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control plans will be prepared for approval by the MPCA as a part of the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity. Much of the pipeline will be installed using directional drilling, a construction method which is desired by the DNR and greatly reduces the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Prior to construction, the pipeline corridors will be delineated to determine if there will be any wetland impacts. If there will be wetland impacts, the project proposer will abide by the Wetland Conservation Act and a Section 404 Permit application and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification application will be submitted (these permits are described in Finding 21 below). In addition, if pipeline installation will impact any water resource and if that water resource has been designated by the DNR as a public water, then the project proposer must also obtain a License to Cross Public Lands from the DNR. The pipeline projects also entail several stream crossings, but only two of these streams have been designated as public waters. A License for Utility Crossing of Public Lands and Waters will also be required for the installation of pipe underneath both of those steams. Any pipeline installation that would impact a wetland would only result in the temporary disruption of that wetland. Any mitigation needed would consist solely of restoration of disturbed wetlands. There would be no net loss of wetlands. Restoration techniques may include segregation and reuse of surficial hydric soils, restoration of pre-existing grades, elimination of undesirable plant species (such as reed canary grass), and the establishment of quality wetland species through appropriate seeding or planting. Effluent Treated effluent will be discharged to the North Fork of the Crow River. The proposed project meets the definition of a significantly expanded discharge under Minn. R and this has triggered the need for a nondegradation to all waters review. The MPCA has completed this review and has proposed effluent limits which will be incorporated into the WWTF s NPDES/SDS Permit. The limits will ensure protection of the river s water quality standards and are intended to protect the uses of the receiving water. Effluent limits set in the NPDES/SDS Permit will be met at the point where treated effluent leaves the WWTF. 8

9 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Minn. R addresses the application of a phosphorus limit for discharges directly to or affecting lakes and reservoirs. Since 2000, the MPCA has been applying its Phosphorus Strategy to surface water discharges that are not subject to Minn. R Since the proposed discharge is not subject to Minn. R , the Strategy has been applied and it indicates that the treated effluent should meet a one mg/l phosphorus effluent limit. Though the effluent will comply with a one mg/l phosphorus effluent limit, one commenter expressed a desire to also see a phosphorus mass limit applied to the discharge. Neither the rule nor the Strategy addresses mass limits; however, the MPCA has historically applied a mass limit only when the discharge is subject to Minn. R The MPCA believes that a mass limit is not necessary in this case because the concentration limit combined with the facility s design capacity will accomplish the necessary phosphorus reductions and controls. In addition to this, the 1 mg/l phosphorus effluent limit for the proposed WWTF will be a 12- month rolling average. A rolling average limit is applied when the WWTF is planning on using biological phosphorus removal technology, as the proposed facility will, because the process is affected by temperature. Under extreme cold, the microorganisms will not function optimally and the monthly phosphorus average may be higher than 1 mg/l; however the biological process will function much better during warmer months and an effluent with a monthly phosphorus average less than 1 mg/l is expected for those months. The resulting 12-month rolling average will comply with the 1 mg/l phosphorus effluent limit. A monthly mass limit would not allow for any seasonal variations that are inherent in the biological process and would increase the use of chemical that would be needed to ensure compliance with the monthly mass limit during winter months. A 12-month rolling average mass limit is unnecessary, again, because the facility design capacity combined with the 1 mg/l concentration limit ensures phosphorus control. No significant impacts to water quality of the receiving water or to water resources from the proposed project are anticipated. D. Ground-water contamination Some comments received during the comment period for the EAW expressed concern that the operation of the proposed WWTF and its effluent may contaminate ground water. Raw wastewater will arrive by pipelines and once at the WWTF it will be contained within a series of concrete basins, all of which will have been leak-tested prior to use. The slabs on which these basins will rest will have been constructed to specified thicknesses for structural stability and to prevent cracking. The NPDES/SDS Permit requires periodic inspection of equipment to ensure proper working order and to ensure that process units are not leaking. Once the effluent discharges into the North Fork of the Crow River, there will be little potential that the treated effluent will be responsible for ground-water contamination. Ground water generally flows into surface water and, in most cases, provides the base flow for that surface water, so surface waters are not generally believed to impact ground water. The MPCA staff feels it would be highly unlikely for residential wells in the area to reverse this flow. Furthermore, surface waters flowing into ground water would need to contain effluent in large enough concentrations to affect the quality of the ground water. Since the treated effluent will be greatly diluted, even during low flows, it is again unlikely that this would occur. 9

10 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order E. Water quantity A few comments received during the public comment period expressed concern that the effluent from the proposed WWTF would worsen seasonal high flows on the river. Using the Hydrologic Engineering Center s River Analysis System model, the project proposer has analyzed the impacts that the volume of effluent is expected to have on the North Fork of the Crow River. The modeling results above indicate that during high flows periods, the effluent at maximum capacity will represent only three one-hundredths of one percent of the volume of flow in the river during a 10-year storm event, which is defined for the region as 4.1 inches of rain falling within a 24-hour period. Additionally, the analysis reviewed ten upstream cross-sections of the river to determine if an increase in the flooding stage could be expected as a result of the proposed project. In reviewing the ten cross-sections for a 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storm event and adding the anticipated flows from the WWTF, the analysis found that none of the cross sections showed an increase in stage between the original model and the model with the WWTP flow. This indicates that the flow from the WWTF will be such a small contribution to the river flood discharges, even at maximum capacity, that it will not have an impact on the river depth of flow or flood plain of the North Fork of the Crow River. Complete responses to all of these water concerns can be found in Appendix B, Responses to Comments. As discussed above, the review indicates that the effects on water quality and water quantity that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project are not significant. 14. The reversibility of any potential water quality and quantity effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would be reversible. Though not expected to occur, impacts from a release at the WWTF would be of finite duration and the environment will ultimately be expected to return to current conditions. There is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality or quantity. 15. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to water quality and quantity that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed WWTF have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts, if necessary, has been developed. 16. The MPCA finds that the project as it is proposed does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on water quality and quantity based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. 10

11 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 17. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects," Minn. R , subp. 7.B (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 18. Many comment letters expressed concern that the proposed WWTF would not serve the communities for 20 years, as planned. These commenters wished to know how soon the Cities may wish to expand the proposed WWTF, by how much the WWTF could be expanded utilizing the proposed pipelines and the effect that an expansion to the proposed WWTF may have on the North Fork of the Crow River. One comment letter expressed a belief that Item 29 of the EAW was incomplete because it did not assess the cumulative impact that a proposal to expand the proposed WWTF may have on the North Fork of the Crow River. Although the Cities may request additional capacity for the proposed WWTF, the action itself is not expected to happen in the near future. The Cities have no specific information right now regarding what they may need or want once the proposed WWTF reaches maximum capacity and so potential environmental impacts from a proposed expansion cannot be assessed at this time. The amount of capacity that may be requested in the future and the rules and laws in effect when such a proposal is made will impact the MPCA s review and the limits and conditions that may be applied to such an expanded facility. In addition, a Total Maximum Daily Load study is currently underway for the Crow River Watershed and when it is finished it will also have ramifications on how we manage both point and nonpoint source discharges to this watershed. Therefore, due to uncertainties pertaining to the growth of the Cities and when further treatment capacity may be needed, anticipated future expansions could not be fully described in this EAW. Environmental review for a future expansion, if required, will occur at a later time. For the time being, these concerns are speculative and do not address the project at hand. The MPCA cannot evaluate the impacts of purely speculative actions. See Iron Rangers for Responsible Ridge Action et. al. v. Iron Range Resources et. al., 531 N.W.2d 876, 881 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this project in such a way as to identify any potential cumulative environmental impacts that are reasonably expected to occur. 19. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the reasonably expected effects from this project will not be significant. 11

12 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject To Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 20. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R , subp. 7.C (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 21. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: WWTF Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA Plans and Specifications In progress MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit for a Surface-water In progress Discharge MPCA NPDES/SDS General Stormwater To be submitted Permit for Construction Activity B. DNR Temporary Water Appropriations To be submitted Permit C. Wright County Building Permit To be submitted Wright County CUP Approved Pipelines Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Section 404 Permit, if necessary To be submitted, if necessary B. MPCA Plans and Specifications In progress MPCA Section 401 Water Quality Certification of USACOE Section 404 Permit, if To be submitted, if necessary necessary MPCA NPDES/SDS General Stormwater To be submitted Permit for Construction Activity C. DNR License to Cross Public Lands To be submitted DNR Public Waters Work Permit To be submitted DNR Temporary Water Appropriations To be submitted D. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Permit Long Form Utility Permit To be submitted E. Wright County County Highway Permit To be submitted 12

13 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 22. WWTF A. MPCA Plans and Specifications Approval Construction plans and specifications for the project are submitted to the MPCA for technical review and approval. This review is performed to ensure that the WWTF design is consistent with good engineering practice and state and federal criteria. NPDES/SDS Surface-water Discharge Permit An NPDES/SDS Permit will be prepared and issued by the MPCA following a 30-day public comment period. The NPDES/SDS Permit authorizes a maximum discharge flow and pollutant loading allowed from the WWTF to a surface water. Effluent limitations established within the NPDES/SDS Permit ensure that water quality in the receiving water is protected. NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity A NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity is required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It provides for the use of BMPs, such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt re-vegetation, to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The project proposer must have an erosion and sediment control plan that will provide more detail as to the specific measures to be implemented and will also address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion control measures implemented; and timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit also require adequate stormwater treatment capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the project is constructed. B. DNR General Permit for Temporary Dewatering Approval of dewatering through a DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required when the amount of appropriation exceeds 10,000 gpd, or one million gallons per year. C. Wright County Building Permit Building permits and inspections assure that the project will be constructed or installed in accordance with city ordinances and codes. CUP A CUP is required when a use is not usually allowed within a zoning district, but may be allowed with certain conditions. A CUP may be approved upon a showing by an applicant that standards and criteria stated in the county s ordinance would be satisfied. 13

14 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Pipelines A. USACOE Section 404 Permit This permit is required anytime a project seeks to discharge dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States that are regulated under this program include fills for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports), and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. B. MPCA Plans and Specifications Approval See above. Section 401 Water Quality Certification of USACOE Section 404 Permit The project is subject to the review requirements of the MPCA s Water Quality Certification for the USACOE Section 404 Wetlands and Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors) Permits and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses to hydropower facilities. NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity See above. C. DNR License to Cross Public Lands A license is required for the passage of any utility over, under or across any state land or public waters. Standards and criteria of the DNR include route design, structure design, construction methods, safety considerations, and right-of-way maintenance to provide maximum protection and preservation of the natural environment and to minimize any adverse effects, which may result from utility crossings. Public Waters Work Permit The Public Waters Work Permit Program regulates activities that change or diminish the course, current or cross section of public waters within the state, by any means, including filling, excavating, or placing materials in or on the beds of public waters. General Permit for Temporary Dewatering See above. D. MnDOT Long Form Utility Permit This permit is required anytime a public utility crosses a state highway. 14

15 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order E. Wright County County Highway Permit This permit is required anytime a public utility crosses a county highway or is placed in a county road right-of-way. 23. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur. The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs. 24. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs." Minn. R , subp. 7.D (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 25. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed Annandale/Maple Lake WWTF. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commenters, staff experience, and other available information. EAW information; Facility Plans; NPDES/SDS Permit files; and Proposed effluent limitation sheet. 26. There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans. 27. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 28. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the Annandale/Maple Lake WWTF EAW, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this project. 29. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and permits. The project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards. 15

16 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 30. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R (2003), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project. 31. An EIS is not required. 32. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ORDER The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Annandale/Maple Lake Wastewater Treatment Facility project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. IT IS SO ORDERED Deputy Commissioner Kristen Applegate Chair, Citizens Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 16

17 APPENDIX B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Annandale/Maple Lake Wastewater Treatment Facility (EAW) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Claudia Dumont, Minnesota Department of Transportation, District 3, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Letter received May 13, Comment 1-1: The commenter states that a long form utility permit will be needed since the project proposer intends to lay a utility pipeline in state highway right-of-way. Response: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) agrees that the long form utility permit will be needed. It is identified in Item 8 of the EAW. 2. Comments by Walt Barlow, Planning and Zoning, Howard Lake, Minnesota. Letter received May 20, Comment 2-1: The commenter notes that since the treated effluent will be discharged directly to the North Fork of the Crow River rather than to a small tributary of the river, as was previously proposed, the project as described in this EAW addresses Middleville Township s initial concerns. Response: The MPCA appreciates the comment. Comment 2-2: The commenter states that if installation of sanitary sewer pipe deviates from county road right-of-way and onto township property, that a permit from the township for the installation of that pipe will be needed. Response: The MPCA has passed the comment on to the project proposer. 3. Comments by Linda Decker, Howard Lake, Minnesota. received May 25, Comment 3-1: The commenter wishes to know the current populations of Maple Lake and Annandale. Response: Minnesota Planning maintains census records and other demographic information. A formal census was taken in 2000 and according to their database the year 2000 population for the city of Maple Lake was 1,633 and for the city of Annandale was 2,684. From that 2000 census data, Minnesota Planning has developed population estimates for 2001 and These estimates and other demographic data can be accessed at Minnesota Planning s Web site: Comment 3-2: The commenter wishes to know how much treated effluent is currently being discharged from the existing Maple Lake and Annandale wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs). Response: The average daily flow of effluent in million gallons per day (mgd) from the existing Maple Lake and Annandale WWTFs for the 12 months between May 2003 and April 2004 is shown below.

18 May 2003-April 2004 Average Daily Flows Annandale Maple Lake Combined WWTF WWTF Discharge flow (mgd) Comment 3-3: The commenter wishes for information on where MPCA authority ends and where local authority begins. Response: For the proposed Annandale/Maple Lake WWTF, the MPCA is responsible for the environmental review process and for issuing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit under which the proposed WWTF and associated pipelines will operate. All effluent limits will be met before the effluent is discharged to the receiving water. The MPCA will also issue the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Construction Activities for the construction of the WWTF, the sanitary sewer pipelines and for the effluent pipeline. The MPCA will ensure compliance with the limits, terms and conditions of both NPDES Permits. Comment 3-4: The commenter wishes to know the capacity of the influent and effluent pipelines. Response: Please refer to Attachment A of this Appendix for information on pipe capacities. Note that since all water coming into the WWTF will be treated and then discharged, the design flow capacity of the effluent pipeline is the sum of the design flow capacities of the influent pipelines. Comment 3-5: The commenter wishes to know how many building permits have been issued within the two cities for new construction (residential and commercial) for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and for the first quarter of Response: The MPCA s review of the proposed WWTF is dependent on the design capacity of the proposed WWTF, which will be 1.18 mgd. Our review does not rely on how the proposer intends to allot this capacity on the local level and for this reason, the MPCA does not have the information the commenter is requesting. The commenter may wish to pose this question directly to city staff. Comment 3-6: The commenter wishes to know the design capacity of the influent and effluent pipelines and how large of a WWTF could be sited on the WWTF property. She feels that the proposed WWTF may eventually be expanded to 3.97 mgd because MPCA staff identified this design flow for the effluent pipeline. Response: Please refer to Attachment A for capacity information. The influent and effluent pipelines will have a 40-year average wet weather (AWW) design flow capacity of 1.63 mgd. This means that the WWTF could also be expanded to accommodate an AWW design flow of 1.63 mgd and still utilize these proposed pipes. Any plan to expand capacity beyond the 1.18 mgd that the cities of Maple Lake and Annandale (Cities) are currently proposing would require a major modification of the NPDES/SDS Permit, which would entail a public notice period for the draft permit. Additionally, a plan to increase capacity by 50 percent or more and by at least 50,000 gallons per day of its AWW design flow capacity would require environmental review. The 3.97 mgd capacity identified by the commenter for the effluent pipeline is a peak hourly flow for the 40-year design; it is not an AWW design flow. The proposed WWTF would not be expanded from an AWW flow of 1.18 mgd to 3.97 mgd utilizing the proposed pipelines. 2

19 Comment 3-7: The commenter wishes to have information regarding the anticipated flows from the proposed WWTF when it begins operation and the anticipated flows once it reaches maximum capacity. The commenter also asks when the facility will reach maximum capacity. Response: Please refer to Attachment A for anticipated flows at start-up and at maximum capacity. The MPCA does not know for how many years the proposed Annandale/Maple Lake WWTF will be in operation before it reaches maximum capacity. The project proposer believes it will be able to accommodate the needs of the Cities for the next 20 years. Please refer to the response given for Comment 3-6 for information on what would occur should the cities request to expand capacity. Comment 3-8: The commenter believes that an odor management plan that includes monitoring requirements should be included in the NPDES/SDS Permit that will be issued to the proposed WWTF. Response: Odor from the WWTF is most likely to occur when the influent arrives at the facility because it has been traveling under anaerobic conditions through the pipelines. The pretreatment room, where the influent will arrive, will be a completely enclosed building and all ventilation will go through odor control devices. The rest of the wastewater treatment process and the sludge management process are aerated and this typically eliminates odors. Additionally, the NPDES/SDS Permit will state that nuisance conditions will not be allowed. Though not expected to occur, should chronic odors from the WWTF exist, the project proposer would be required to take action to remedy the situation. This design and the need to maintain the odor control devices will be NPDES/SDS Permit requirements. Since the proper operation of the odor control devices, the proper operation of the blowers that will aerate the treatment processes and the condition to not create a nuisance condition will all be enforceable permit requirements, the MPCA believes that the commenter s desire for enforceable odor control measures has been addressed. If the proposed WWTF is properly operated, there is no reasonable potential that there will be significant nuisance odors from the WWTF and so the MPCA does not believe that odor monitoring is warranted at this time. Comment 3-9: The commenter wishes to know how the MPCA has assessed the bank of the North Fork of the Crow River where the outfall structure will be placed. Response: The assessment and construction of the outfall structure will be managed through ongoing regulatory authorities; in this case, through the MPCA and through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities will be needed to construct the outfall and proposed mitigation for erosion and sedimentation, such as silt fencing, installation during low flow periods and re-vegetating as soon after construction as possible, is identified in Item 12 of the EAW. A Public Waters Work Permit will also be required by the DNR for the installation of the outfall structure on the bank of the North Fork of the Crow River and it will be their responsibility to review and assess the proposal before issuing the necessary permit. Should they feel that additional measures need to be taken to protect this public water, they will indicate that during their permitting process. Once construction of the outfall structure is complete, the project proposer will be required through the NPDES/SDS Permit issued by the MPCA to install and maintain outlet protection measures to prevent erosion around the outfall structure. 3