STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

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 Environmental Assessment Worksheet REVISED FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER The Crane Lake Water and Sanitary District (District) in, proposes to install a new central collection system and repair or replace existing individual sewage treatment systems (ISTSs). Pursuant to Minn. R , Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project and received five letters of comment from agencies and individuals on the EAW. Two additional comment letters were received in response to an MPCA letter dated August 17, Based on the EAW and comments or information received during and after the EAW comment period, the MPCA hereby makes the following,, signifying that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted. PROJECT DESCRIPTION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Crane Lake is a small, unincorporated community located on Crane Lake, St. Louis County, Minnesota. The community serves as a gateway for several nearby State and Federal wilderness and park areas, including Superior National Forest, Voyageurs National Park, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). It is estimated that there are 125 year-round residents and 200 to 250 seasonal residents within the planning area, plus thousands of visitors annually. 2. In 1994, St. Louis County formed the District to address failing septic systems within the area. The proposed project would eliminate existing, failed ISTSs having potentially untreated waste and nutrient loads to the lake. The proposed project is unique since natural barriers created by lakes and bays prevent the construction of a centralized collection system for the entire planning area. Because of the geography of the District, it was divided into planning areas, referred to hereafter as the Western and Eastern Service Areas, which would have different wastewater treatment systems. 3. The proposed project is to properly collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater by constructing a municipal wastewater treatment system and also by upgrading ISTSs. The initial phase of the project would be to construct a central sewer and treatment facility in the Western Service Area of the District. Repair or replacement of ISTSs in the Eastern Service Area would occur at a later time, which is to be determined but expected to follow completing the construction in the Western Service Area. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 100% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 4. In the Western Service Area, the proposal is a 51,000 gallons per day (GPD) collection and treatment system. The proposed system consists of a septic tank effluent pump pressure (STEP) sewer for collection, a recirculating sand filter for treatment, and surface water discharge for disposal. 5. The STEP system includes a house connection, septic tank, pumping vault, service connection, and low-pressure lines. A recirculating sand filter is a method of secondary wastewater treatment that consists of repeated filtration through two to three feet deep beds of granular material, followed by disinfection, phosphorus removal, and discharge. The proposed disinfection technology is ultraviolet disinfection. Phosphorus removal is proposed using chemical precipitation with ferric chloride. The proposed outfall would be to the main body of Crane Lake, at the outlet of the Vermilion River at the location of an existing overhead powerline. 6. In the Eastern Service Area, the proposed wastewater treatment method would continue to be ISTSs. Cluster systems would unite dwellings where it would be more feasible and economical to share a common treatment and disposal area. Dwellings that were isolated would have their ISTS repaired or replaced. The proposed wastewater collection and treatment systems would be owned, operated, and managed by the District. As noted above, the timing for this portion of the project has not been determined. JURISDICTION AND PROCESS 7. The project entails the construction of a municipal wastewater treatment facility with an average wet weather (AWW) design flow capacity of 51,000 GPD, in addition to repair and replacement of ISTSs within the District. Minn. R , subp. 18 B, requires preparation of an EAW for construction of a new municipal or domestic wastewater treatment facility with an AWW design flow capacity of 50,000 GPD or more. Minn. R , subp. 18 B, provides that the MPCA is the Responsible Governmental Unit for EAW preparation for projects to which this subpart applies. 8. An EAW was prepared on the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board mailing list and other interested parties on November 22, 2000, and is hereby incorporated by reference. 9. A press release containing the notice of availability of the EAW for public review was provided to media serving the project area on November 20, The public comment period for the EAW began on November 27, 2000, and ended on December 27, Comment letters from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), the National Park Service, the Baylis Bay Property Owners, and an anonymous party were received during the 30-day comment period. Responses to comments received have been prepared by MPCA staff and are hereby incorporated by reference. 2

3 11. The proposed project came before the MPCA Citizens Board (Board) on February 20, Interested parties testified before the Board, and questioned whether the proposed discharge location, to Baylis Bay, may have had the potential for a significant environmental impact. They provided additional information, included suggestions for alternative discharge locations. The decision on the need for an EIS was deferred pending additional review by the MPCA of the data supplied by commentors at the Board Meeting. The Board also requested that the District provide additional opportunities to meet with concerned citizens about the proposed project. 12. Mark Tomasek, of the MPCA, reviewed the additional information provided by interested parties, other information related to lake levels and bays, and aerial photographs of the proposed discharge location to Baylis Bay. Mr. Tomasek then recommended a total phosphorus effluent limit of 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/l) for the proposed discharge to Baylis Bay in a memorandum dated March 15, This recommended effluent limit would reduce or eliminate the potential for excess algae or plant growth in Baylis Bay, which could have resulted in an adverse environmental impact. Because alternative discharge locations had been raised, Mr. Tomasek also included a recommendation for discharges to the main body of Crane Lake. If the discharge were to be moved out of Baylis Bay, he recommended a total phosphorus effluent limit of 1.0 mg/l based on the estimated loading and overall size of Crane Lake. 13. Between February and August 2001, the District reevaluated the proposed project alternatives and the recommended phosphorus effluent limits. In March 2001, the District also formed an Advisory Committee including residents and a local business owner, to evaluate alternatives. The District also provided several public meetings, including on weekends, on the proposal and the evaluation of alternatives. The proposed project has now been modified from the original EAW. The location of the wastewater treatment facility has been moved approximately onequarter mile north of the original site. The proposed discharge location has been moved approximately 1.5 miles, to the main body of Crane Lake at the outlet of the Vermilion River. A total phosphorus effluent limit of 1.0 mg/l would apply at the new discharge location. The proposed discharge pipe would be routed along an existing road (Crane Lake Road) and powerline. Maps of the alternatives are attached. Although the District has verbal agreements regarding the new locations, staff notes the proposed discharge location alternative is pending, as easements have not been finalized. If the proposed discharge site is not available because an easement is not granted, an alternative site at the county boat launch in the Crane Lake community would be proposed as the discharge point. This alternative discharge point would also be to the main body of Crane Lake. The same permit limits would apply. 14. The MPCA notified interested parties of the changes to the original proposal in a letter dated August 17, Interested parties were determined by the existing project mailing list as well as by adding residents in the Western Service Area of the District. Two comment letters were received, as well as one comment provided by telephone. Both letters supported the wastewater treatment plant. One letter supported the proposed discharge location at the mouth of the Vermilion River while the other letter supported the alternative discharge location near a public boat launch. Responses to comments received have been prepared by MPCA staff and are hereby incorporated by reference. 3

4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 15. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must consider the four factors set out in Minn. R , subp. 7. 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 issues are set forth below. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the MPCA must consider is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects," Minn. R , subp. 7.A. The MPCA findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 16. Land Use Western Service Area: Various areas of the proposed project are on federal land and forestland, including the proposed forcemain and access road to the treatment site. Impacts to land use would be minimized to the extent possible, by placing collection lines and transmissions lines in established right-of-ways. The District now proposes to move the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) site approximately one-quarter mile north. Data provided by the proposer for preparation of the EAW and in the facility plan, dated May 1998, indicate that soils in the area are glacial till over bedrock. These soil types are similar to Site A, the original WWTF location. Soils at the new location would be suitable for construction of the project. The design of the recirculating sand filter also provides adaptability for construction at the new site, should bedrock prove to be higher than at Site A. The new site is closer to Handberg Road than Site A, the original site. The amount of roadway needed to be built to access the site from the existing road is reduced from the original proposal. The new site is also forested, and measures as described in Items 9 and 11 of the EAW would be followed to prevent or minimize impacts to forest and wildlife resources. Although the proposed discharge location would require a greater length of pipe than the original proposal, the discharge pipe would be routed along existing right-of-way, thus minimizing potential impacts. Eastern Service Area: Traffic over ISTS disposal and treatment areas would be restricted to prevent soil compaction and damage to the drainfields. Land use in the treatment and effluent disposal area would be limited to the provision of a public wastewater utility, thereby restricting the use of this land for agriculture, forestry, recreation, or housing. While new impervious surfaces and land use restrictions are long-term and permanent, the potential impacts are not significant because of the small area affected. 4

5 17. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources Crane Lake is part of a very high quality lake system that is adjacent to the BWCAW and is a tributary to Outstanding Resource Value Waters. Six rare and ecologically sensitive resources are known to be located within the project s vicinity. For example, the lake sturgeon and the northern brook lamprey, both of which as state-listed species of special concern, have been documented in Crane Lake and in the Echo River just south of Crane Lake. The MDNR indicated that it would not expect the project to result in direct impacts to those resources. As the proposed new WWTF site is within the one-mile radius of the original site (considered in the MDNR s Natural Heritage Database review), impacts to rare and ecologically sensitive resources appear unlikely. One commenter identified a fish spawning area near the proposed discharge location. The District has met with the DNR to review the location of the spawning area relative to the proposed discharge. The District and DNR have come to an agreement on where the discharge should be located to avoid a potential impact to the fishery. The effluent limits have been determined by the MPCA staff, in accordance with all applicable requirements. Proposed effluent limits for the draft permit were developed to protect the environment, fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources from significant impacts. 18. Wetlands The proposed discharge location has been moved away from the wetland and Baylis Bay. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to wetlands under the new proposal for the WWTF site, discharge pipe routing and discharge location. 19. Applicable Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards Pursuant to Minn. R. ch , Crane Lake is classified as a 1B, 2A, and 3A water protected for domestic consumption, aquatic life (cold water fishery) and recreation, and industrial consumption. 20. Water Quality, Western Service Area The wastewater treated at the Western site is generated by residential and commercial users in the area and will be characteristic of normal domestic wastewater. Incoming loadings are expected to be approximately 250 mg/l or less for Biological Oxygen Demand and suspended solids and six to eight mg/l phosphorus. Total wastewater quantity for the Western site will be 51,100 GPD average wet weather flow. The proposed discharge point for the treated wastewater from the Western treatment facility is to the main body of Crane Lake. The proposed discharge location is at the outlet of the Vermilion River. Neither the proposed nor alternative discharge locations are reasonably expected to result in negative environmental effects. Effluent Limitations for the Western Facility are proposed to be: 5-Day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand 25 mg/l Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/l Fecal Coliform Group Organisms a 200 organisms/100 ml Total Residual Chlorine b mg/l 5

6 Total Phosphorous c 1.0 mg/l ph Range a. Applicable year-round to protect Crane Lake for domestic water consumption. b. If chlorine is used to achieve the effluent limitation for fecal coliform group organisms, then dechlorination must also be provided. c. Applied as a monthly average. The MPCA staff has assigned these effluent limits because their experience with lakes, rivers, and streams of the state of Minnesota have shown that the limits are protective of the above water quality standards and the water quality use classifications that they support. 21. Phosphorus Impacts, Western Service Area Commentors were concerned about potential impacts to the bay and lake from the new point source discharge of phosphorus. A 1.0 mg/l effluent limitation for phosphorus is imposed, by Minn. R , because the effluent is directly to or affects a lake or reservoir. The permitted load of phosphorus allowed per year from the proposed discharge (at a wet weather design flow of 51,100 GPD and effluent concentration of 1.0 mg/l) would be a maximum of about 156 pounds. Actual loading would be less because the average discharge rate for the year would be less than the wet weather flow and the average effluent concentrations would be less than 1.0 mg/l to maintain permit compliance. The MPCA review originally concluded that an effluent limitation of 1.0 mg/l would be protective of Baylis Bay and Crane Lake. After additional analysis, however, Mark Tomasek of the MPCA staff, recommended a total phosphorus effluent limit of 0.3 mg/l for the originally proposed discharge to Baylis Bay. He also provided a recommendation a total phosphorus effluent limit of 1.0 mg/l if the discharge were moved to the main body of Crane Lake. The District has now proposed a discharge location in the main body of Crane Lake. However, a detailed analysis of the lake nutrient budget could not be done without additional years of monitoring data. In comparison to other sources of nutrient input to Crane Lake, the potential phosphorus contribution from the proposed discharge is small. For example, inflow from the Vermilion River into Crane Lake averaged about 654 cubic feet per second for the period If concentrations of phosphorus in the river inflow were at the same concentration as measured in the lake, at mg/l, then annual loading from the river alone would be about 20,600 pounds per year (compared to 156 pounds for the proposed discharge). Considering this, it is unlikely that significant impacts to Crane Lake from additional phosphorus loading would be expected. 6

7 22. Water Quality, Eastern Service Area In the Eastern Service Area, the proposal is to repair, modify, or replace the existing ISTSs with new ones. Some locations may have a clustered ISTS, where several buildings would share one treatment system. In a typical septic system, raw sewage is piped from a home or business to a buried, watertight septic tank. The tank is sized to retain wastewater for about 36 hours. This gives time for the physical processes of settling solids and floating greases and fats to occur. Inside the tank, bacteria break down organic matter in the sewage through an anaerobic, biological process. Effluent from septic tanks must be further treated through soil treatment via a drainfield. Repair and replacement of ISTSs in the Eastern Service Area is expected to mitigate current impacts and prevent or minimize future environmental impacts. 23. Special Resources Historic Property: A Phase I archaeological reconnaissance survey identified cultural materials in ten locations on Baylis Island and Bear Islands. Of these ten sites, four are considered potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The rest of the project area was devoid of cultural materials. It was recommended that the four sites that were potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places should be avoided by project activities. If a site or sites cannot be avoided through engineering design, a more extensive evaluation and survey needs to be completed. Construction work would be halted if archaeological resources are uncovered and the proposer would contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Work in an affected area would not resume until clearance has been received from SHPO. The changes in the proposed location of the Western Service Area WWTF and discharge pipe routing is not expected to result in adverse impacts to historic property. The proposed discharge location at the mouth of the Vermilion River would require crossing property owned by the MHS. While the District has obtained verbal agreement from MHS, the proposer must negotiate for an easement and ensure that construction would not adversely impact any protected resources on the route or provide adequate mitigation. Recreational Areas: The proposed project is near Voyageurs National Park, is two miles west of the Minnesota BWCAW, and is also near the Quetico Provincial Park in Canada. The community serves as an entry point for recreational travel to these areas. The proposed project is anticipated to have a positive cumulative effect on these recreational areas by safely and properly treating and disposing of wastewater. Other Unique Resources: The proposed project is near Kabatogama State Forest and part of the project area lies within the Superior National Forest. An access road for the Western Service Area facility is proposed to be constructed through a corridor of the Superior National Forest, as discussed above (Paragraph 16). 7

8 24. Development Enabled by the Project A significant amount of induced development that typically results from construction of conventional wastewater collection systems is not anticipated. The proposed Western Service Area treatment plant is sized to accommodate a projected 20-year growth of 20 percent. New roads are not anticipated to result from construction of the wastewater system, primarily because of the low annual growth rate. Another constraint is the lack of available and buildable land in the community. The Western Service Area is surrounded by Forest Service land. Handberg Point is surrounded by water and Forest Service land. Most of the land on the islands are inaccessible and too rocky or steep for buildings, and nearly all of the East Bay homes are located on federal leasehold lots that are limited in number (current leases only). This type of infrastructure, however, would allow for the development of marginal lands - those sites that would not meet the requirements for having an ISTS. Consequently, for such sites that could not have been developed under ISTS requirements, there may be more impacts due to construction of buildings connected to the proposed collection system than would occur if the proposed WWTF were not built. 25. MPCA Findings. The MPCA finds that the type and extent of environmental effects of the project as proposed does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the MPCA must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects," Minn. R , subp. 7.B. The MPCA findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. 26. The proposed project is intended to provide wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities. 27. The MPCA finds that there are no related or anticipated future actions which could result in cumulative, adverse, environmental effects. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY The third factor that the MPCA must consider is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R , subp. 7.C. The MPCA findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. 8

9 28. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required a. St. Louis County Septic permits Land alteration permit b. MPCA Facility Plan Approval National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Operating Permit (NPDES) Treatment Facility Design Approval NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit Section 401 Wetland Certification c. MDNR Utility Lines License Stream Crossing (if needed) d. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) e. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA) Section 404 Wetlands Permit Section 569 NE Minnesota Special Use Permit f. MHS Construction Easement 29. Description of the Scope of Key Permits/Approvals: a. St. Louis County. The project is subject to regulatory control and mitigation of impacts through the review requirements of the county, including ordinances, permits, and inspections. The permits assure that the facility will be constructed according to county ordinances and controls. b. MPCA. The facility plan and treatment system design approvals assure the facility meets minimum engineering standards. MPCA. An NPDES permit will be prepared and issued by the MPCA following a 30-day public comment period. The NPDES permit stipulates the maximum discharge flow and pollutant loading allowed from the facility. That maximum is arrived at after sufficient study to demonstrate that the pollutant flow and loading will not diminish water quality. 9

10 MPCA. A general NPDES construction storm-water permit is required when a project disturbs five or more acres, and requires appropriate management of sedimentation, erosion, and storm-water runoff. MPCA. The 401 Certification of the 404 Dredge and Fill Permit. The MPCA certifies that water quality impacts will not result from activities permitted under the Section 404 permit issued by the Corps of Engineers. c. MDNR. The Utility Permit regulates utility crossings of public waters. A stream-crossing permit may be required for construction if the collection system cannot be suspended below an existing bridge. d. USACE. The USACE regulates the excavation in wetlands and placement of excavated materials. Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized environmental infrastructure projects in Northeastern Minnesota. e. USDA Forest Service. Development activity on or requiring access over or through lands under the management of the USDA Forest Service requires "Use" or Authorization Permits. "Special Use" activities are generally subject to the Rules and Regulations specified in 36 CFR Part 251. f. MHS. An easement is required for locating the Western Service Area discharge pipe on MHS land to access the proposed discharge location. Easement agreements may include provisions to ensure that construction would not adversely impact any protected resources on the route. 30. The MPCA finds that the permits and monitoring reports required by public regulatory authority will provide additional opportunity to mitigate the environmental effects of the project, if necessary. 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 fourth factor 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. The MPCA findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. 31. The proposed wastewater treatment facilities were reviewed by the MPCA staff. 32. There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects which cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes. 10

11 33. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of environmental review, previous environmental studies, and permitting processes undertaken by the MPCA on similar projects. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, and responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the EAW (the project), have generated information adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 2. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigative measures have been incorporated into the project design and permits. The project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards. 3. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R , the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 4. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. 5. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER HEREBY ORDERS THAT a Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Crane Lake Wastewater Treatment facility be distributed. Commissioner Karen A. Studders Chair, Citizens Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 11

12 LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED CRANE LAKE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ENVIORNMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 2. The following comment letters were received: Anonymous, letter dated December 18, 2000; Roger Andrascik, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, letter dated December 20, 2000; Dennis Gimmestad, Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), letter dated December 26, 2000; Thomas Balcom, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), letter dated December 27, 2000; and Baylis Bay Property Owners, letter dated December 27, SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS NOTE: Responses to comments were written before the proposed changes to the project outlined in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency s (MPCA) letter dated August 17, Two additional comment letters were received in response to the MPCA letter and are attached to the Summary of Comments Received In Response To The MPCA Letter Dated August 17, 2001, And Responses To Comments. For information on the proposed changes to the project, please refer to the Revised document. Responses, which are no longer up to date, include 4-4, 5-4, 5-8, and Anonymous Comment 1-1. A land exchange being negotiated between the owner of Voyageur Lodge and the US Forest Service would enable additional development. Future land acquisitions by the Crane Lake Water and Sanitary District and Volunteer Fire Department may be sold for development. This could impact the proposed facility if the capacity is reached much earlier than the 20-year planning cycle. Response 1-1. The MPCA encourages Smart Growth and responsible development. We have limited power, however, over specific site development provided the development itself does not significantly impact the environment. Utilization of Crane Lake s Wastewater Treatment Facility s (WWTF) permitted capacity will be determined by the Crane Lake Water and Sanitary District (District). Planning efforts to address growth-related issues have been initiated by Crane Lake residents in cooperation with the District. We hope that local citizens, with responsible concerns, will play an active role in these local growth and development decisions The MPCA has the authority to permit and regulate the discharge from the proposed wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). From that standpoint, proposed effluent limits for the draft permit were developed to protect the environment from significant impacts. These effluent limits are based on the fixed capacity of the collection and treatment system, which is 51,000 gallons per day (GPD). Once the permit is finalized, it will be the responsibility of the MPCA, as well as the owner, to not allow any additional flow and 1

13 loading into the system which could keep the wastewater treatment system from meeting its permitted limits. Violation of the permit conditions would be subject to enforcement activities. MPCA review is required prior to any increase in the permitted flow or loading from the WWTF for potential environmental harm (which may be subject to mitigation). Modifying the permit to add capacity would require a public notice period. 2. Roger Andrascik, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service Comment 2-1. These efforts will greatly improve the wastewater treatment systems currently in use. This action should improve the water quality of Crane Lake and reduce water quality impacts to the park. Response 2-1. The comment is noted. Comment 2-2. We are concerned about the long-term solution of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs). We would recommend that long-term monitoring of the waters adjacent to the ISTSs be implemented as a part of this project. Response 2-2. On-site systems will be designed to meet performance standards and State of Minnesota rules. To ensure proper operation and maintenance, on-site systems will be managed by a state-certified professional under contract to District. Refer to Response 5-6 for additional information regarding monitoring of Crane Lake. Comment 2-3. Would the current vaulted toilets located at the boat ramps be converted to the connected sewer system and treatment facility? Response 2-3. Yes, all wastewater-producing structures in the Western Service Area will be connected to the treatment and collection system. Possible exceptions are two homes in remote locations. It may be cost-prohibitive to connect them to the collection system. In that event, these homes would have on-site systems managed by the District. 3. Dennis Gimmestad, MHS Comment 3-1. The response to question 25a summarizes the results of the archaeological survey of the project area. We note in this review that we wrote to Mr. Ronald Sikkila of USDA-Rural Development regarding this survey in September of 1999, but have had no further correspondence from USDA to finalize the Section 106 review. Response 3-1. This comment letter has been forwarded to the project proposer. In addition, the project consultant requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development MHS about the Section 106 review. 4. Thomas Balcom, MDNR Comment 4-1. DNR conducted a review of the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program database of rare and ecologically sensitive resources that are known to be located within the project s vicinity. Six features were identified; however, we do not expect the project to result in direct impacts. Response 4-1. The comment is noted. 2

14 Comment 4-2. American bald eagles, which are federally listed as being a threatened species, have used the areas west of Baylis Island as nesting sites. The provision to avoid cutting old growth conifers listed in Item 11b is a positive project feature in terms of providing nesting sites for eagles. Response 4-2. The comment is noted. Comment 4-3. The lake sturgeon and the Northern brook lamprey, both of which as state-listed species of special concern, have been documented in Crane Lake and in the Echo River just south of Crane Lake. Both species require good water quality to maintain viable populations. Response 4-3. Water quality in Crane Lake is expected to be maintained or improved following construction and operation of the proposed wastewater system due to removal of existing sources of untreated or partially treated wastewater currently flowing into Crane Lake. The MPCA staff believes the proposed effluent limits would preserve the quality of the nearby lakes and rivers. Comment 4-4. Item 18b indicates that the WWTF discharge for the Western Service Area will be routed to an upland area adjoining a wetland. It is possible that the discharge can erode a channel over time that results in a de facto straight pipe discharge to Crane Lake. This possibility is addressed by a proposed outfall structure designed to provide low-velocity flow. We recommend that the upcoming permit include conditions for monitoring the wetland for potential erosion as well as provision to address any channelization that might occur. Response 4-4. The outfall structure will be designed to disperse effluent with a low-velocity discharge over a horizontal distance of 200 feet during the growing season. The outfall structure is planned as a horizontal pipe forming a "T" at the end of the sewer from the treatment plant. The branches of the "T" will be buried in a rock berm, plugged at the ends, and have holes drilled at regular intervals to allow effluent to trickle out into the rock berm. During cold months, when Crane Lake's population is very low, freezing temperatures may ice up the low effluent flows in the rock berm. In case of a severe freeze-up, a single-point discharge controlled by a manually operated valve would make the discharge point look more like an "I" with a single-point flow straight out the end into the rock berm. Winter flows are projected to be approximately 20 to 30 percent of design capacity at 20-year growth during snowmobiling season. The low winter flow is unlikely to create a channelized flow from the discharge point to the receiving stream. It is our intention to include permit language, which will make it a requirement, to monitor the discharge for operational problems and make modifications as necessary to prohibit significant erosion and straight pipe discharge. Exact language is to be determined, however, as an example, the draft permit could contain a requirement for monthly observation (during non-frozen conditions) of the discharge area to determine whether or not channelization is developing as a result of the discharge. Comment 4-5. We recommend that the WWTF design loading be compared to the whole lake phosphorus concentrations as part of an appropriate level of nondegradation analysis. Is it appropriate to designate a phosphorus loading cap, as has been done where specific circumstances warranted? This information should be considered because Crane Lake is part of a very high quality lake system that is adjacent to the BWCAW and is a tributary to ORVWs. Response 4-5. The permitted load of phosphorus allowed per year from the proposed discharge (at a wet weather design flow of 51,100 GPD and effluent concentration of 1.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l)) would be a maximum of about 156 pounds. Actual loading would be less because the average discharge rate for 3

15 the year would be less than the wet weather flow and average effluent concentrations would be less than 1.0 mg/l to maintain permit compliance. Discharge to the wetland area may also further mitigate nutrient loading to Crane Lake. As noted in Response 4-4, on-going compliance monitoring requirements proposed for the wetland will track changes in the wetlands and its capacity for nutrients. The MPCA review concluded that an effluent limitation of 1.0 mg/l would be protective of Baylis Bay and Crane Lake. However, a detailed analysis of the lake nutrient budget could not be done without additional years of monitoring data. In comparison to other sources of nutrient input to Crane Lake, the potential phosphorus contribution from the proposed discharge is small. For example, inflow from the Vermilion River into Crane Lake averaged about 654 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the period If concentrations of phosphorus in the river inflow were at the same concentration as measured in the lake, at mg/l, then annual loading from the river alone would be about 20,600 pounds per year (compared to 156 pounds for the proposed discharge). Considering this, it is unlikely that a phosphorus-loading cap would be imposed on the Crane Lake facility at this time. This would not preclude a phosphorus-loading cap being applied in the future to the proposed facility, should that appear to be warranted. Comment 4-6. We recommend that the NPDES permit include provisions for a phosphorus management plan with an element to educate residents and commercial interests on the system being installed and how use of low- or no-phosphorus products can benefit the water quality. Response 4-6. Development of a phosphorus management plan (PMP) for a facility with a discharge to a lake is recommended in the MPCA Phosphorus Strategy for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The PMP would work together with the permit effluent phosphorus limit to reduce nutrient loading. While domestic users already would have access only to low- or no-phosphorus cleaning materials, commercial facilities and restaurants may have cleaning materials containing higher levels of phosphorus. A PMP would help identify and address facility-specific concerns related to phosphorus-containing products. Comment 4-7. Potential nutrient sources on this lake must be carefully managed to ensure no depreciation of the Carlson Trophic index. A statistically significant amount of water quality data should be collected (see letter for list of suggested sampling). We recommend that this issue be considered as part of the ongoing Rainy River Basin planning or other available initiatives. Response 4-7. This comment has been forwarded to the MPCA s Basin Coordinator, Nolan Baratono. Baseline monitoring on Crane Lake and other areas will be done in The basin planning process is in its initial stages, and monitoring suggested by the MDNR will be taken under advisement and considered further as the plan is developed. See also Response 5-6. Comment 4-8. The project does not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement based upon natural resource considerations. Response 4-8. The comment is noted. 5. Baylis Bay Property Owners Comment 5-1. The MPCA should require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. If the project is completed as designed, it will create a situation that may be harmful to human health and the environment. The use of the word should indicates sufficient uncertainty to require an EIS. See p. 11, para. 4 The proposed effluent limitations in Table 2 should be adequate to protect the designated uses 4

16 Response 5-1. The MPCA Citizens Board will make the decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Use of the word should is intended to connote expectation of design factors. The system is designed to meet performance expectations that are required by state regulations and are typical for such systems. Comment 5-2. Water levels in Crane Lake, including Baylis Bay, vary by 5-10 feet between summer and fall. The bay was completely dry in the spring of 1974 and The MPCA should require the Crane Lake Water and Sanitation District to evaluate other WWTF design options that would allow the discharge of treated wastewater into Crane Lake in areas that would provide a proper mixing zone on a year-round basis. The bay has inadequate mixing and is frozen in winter and spring. Alternative discharge locations are proposed by the commentors. Response 5-2. An EAW evaluates the project as proposed, and is not required to evaluate alternatives. Alternatives were considered, however, during the facility-planning phase. These included no action, holding tanks, land based treatment systems and point source discharge systems. In general, no action, holding tanks, and land-based disposal were not considered effective from a cost standpoint or due to inadequate soil conditions. Other point source discharge locations were considered during facility planning, and suitable sites for the wastewater treatment facility were not available. For example, access to the Vermilion River Gorge is not available. The land is owned by the Minnesota Historical Society and is not obtainable for use by the District for a treatment facility or discharge pipe. As a result of these factors, the District proposed the facility and discharge locations described in the EAW. The MPCA staff believes this proposal would meet MPCA requirements. See also Response Comment 5-3. Additional loading of pollutants would likely cause algae blooms and enhance the growth of aquatic plants that would reduce the aesthetic and recreational value of the bay. Navigation in the bay may become difficult or impossible. Sport fishing in the bay may be reduced. Response 5-3. The MPCA staff has indicated that, with a facility phosphorus limit, the nutrient loading would be reduced from what is likely the case currently from the failing septic systems. The relatively small amount of phosphorus allowed in the proposed discharge is expected to be readily taken up by the wetland plants in the down gradient wetland. Consequently, the potential for algal blooms and nuisance growth of aquatic plants would be reduced from the current circumstances. Comment 5-4. Comments on Item 12 concern the MPCA s modeling memoranda. Briefly, modeling originally assumed no or minimal mixing between the bay and main lake and staff recommended a proposed phosphorus limit of 0.3 mg/l. After a site visit, the MPCA staff indicated that hydraulic interchange was present, and recommended a phosphorus limit of 1 mg/l. The commentors indicate that such hydraulic interchange does not occur, and suggest that this would have been clearer to staff if the inspection had been by boat. They request that the MPCA reevaluate the technical basis for the reversal of the original, proposed phosphorus limit. Response 5-4. The memorandum in question originally assumed a lake discharge to an isolated bay. A review of field conditions, however, indicated that the lower limit was not applicable for two reasons. One was that MPCA staff believed the bay was not fully isolated from the main lake. The second is that there would be an overland discharge to a wetland approximately 500 to 700 feet from the stream entering Baylis Bay. Given those two factors, the MPCA staff believes a one mg/l limit for phosphorous is appropriate. See Response

17 If the results of the 2001 monitoring study and further evaluation of phosphorus loading in the basin indicated that a more stringent limit were necessary, the MPCA can address that through future permitting. Comment 5-5. Nutrient loading would be greatest in the spring when treated wastewater that had frozen in the wetland would thaw and be discharged, with melting wastewater added to the normal daily flow of wastewater. The bay s water level is lowest at this period. Response 5-5. It is not clear that nutrient levels would be highest in the spring following the thawing of winter snow and ice cover in the wetland. Proposed chemical (nutrient) monitoring of the wetland would help confirm when nutrient levels are highest. If nutrient levels are high in the spring, the newly growing wetland vegetation would likely take up much of the available nutrients from the water column for their growth demands. Melting of snow and ice in spring would also result in a relatively high volume of water flowing from the watershed of the wetland. In addition, treatment plant flows would be at the lowest level during winter and spring months when residential and recreational populations tend to be lowest. Comment 5-6. How can discharge limits be established when the water quality of Baylis Bay has not been determined? The current water quality in Baylis Bay has not been adequately tested. It is not known if Baylis Bay may be monitored as part of the MPCA s monitoring of portions of Crane Lake in Response 5-6. Surface waters are assigned use classifications, such as recreation or drinking water. Minn. R establishes water quality standards for the various designated uses. Permit limits are derived from those standards so that the designated uses are protected. Effluent limitations proposed for the surface discharge to the wetland are appropriate to protect the standards and beneficial uses of the wetland and downstream waters. The wetland at the discharge site is classified to include consideration for aquatic life and recreation, maintenance of a healthy community of aquatic and terrestrial species and their habitats, industrial consumption, agriculture and wildlife, aesthetic enjoyment and navigation, and other beneficial uses. Crane Lake is classified as water protected for domestic consumption, aquatic life (cold water fishery) and recreation, and industrial consumption. The 1.0 mg/l effluent limitation for phosphorus is imposed by Minn. R because the effluent is directly to or affects a lake or reservoir. In 2001, the MPCA will conduct a water quality assessment of Crane Lake. It is part of a comprehensive project to study the water quality of the large lakes in Voyageurs, conducted by the Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. Three sites will be sampled on Crane Lake: Baylis Bay near the proposed outfall of the wastewater treatment facility; a site west of Baylis Island; and a site in the main body of the lake west of Indian Island. Samples will be collected monthly from May - September, and analyzed for the following parameters: Total Phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Chlorophyll a, Pheophytin, Total Suspended Solids, Total Suspended Volatile Solids, Chloride, Alkalinity, and Color. In addition, vertical oxygen and temperature profiles will be collected, as well as a sample of the algal community. All this data will be used to determine the productivity (trophic status) of Crane Lake. Another option for collection additional data is if area residents participate in the Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP). The CLMP is a partnership program through which data about visibility and clarity are gathered for lakes and streams by residents or other interested groups, such a schools. Contact Jennifer Klang at (651) if you are interested in joining this program. 6

18 Comment 5-7. We are extremely concerned with the wetlands efficiency to remove nutrients from the effluent over the life of the WWTF. How will the District and MPCA respond to nutrient levels that may exceed permit limitations? What will be the potential costs to bring the system into compliance? Future impacts should be fully understood should the efficiency degrade over time. Response 5-7. Discharge limits were not based on an assumption that the wetland would be removing nutrients. Limits are established as described in Response 5-6. It is true, however, that soil has a capacity to remove phosphorus and other nutrients, and plant uptake from soil or sediment also provides a removal mechanism. The District would be subject to regular compliance determinations, including site inspections. Part of the compliance monitoring will occur within the receiving wetland. If the nutrient loading exceeds the capacity of the wetland, the MPCA anticipates this monitoring will show changes in the wetland long before it would have direct effects on Crane Lake. Appropriate compliance action can be taken before direct effects on the lake occur. Permit violations would result in possible enforcement action from the MPCA. If it is determined that effluent quality violates the effluent discharge limits, the agency would work with the permittee to return to compliance. One option for achieving compliance is enforcement action. Enforcement action would require implementation of corrective actions to address the violations to meet a schedule that would be satisfactory to the MPCA. Comment 5-8. The conversion of vegetative types in the wetland is a concern. Some residents only have access to the bay via a channel off Mile Forty Creek. Additional growth of weeds would eliminate lake access. Response 5-8. Centralized sanitary treatment will eliminate the need for individual septic systems, many of which occur along Mile Forty Creek and are believed to be failing. Thus, there should be a reduction in nutrient loading into Mile Forty Creek and directly to Crane Lake. As noted in Response 5-3, additional growth of aquatic plants would not be expected as a result of the proposed project. The vegetation changes which are of primary concern in this discharge will be the conversion of vegetation types within the receiving wetland, south of the Mile Forty Creek mouth. The most likely conversion is the promotion of growth of more nutrient tolerant plants especially emergent plants, such as dense stands of cattails, within the wetland. Comment 5-9. In Table 1, p. 11, total suspended solids appear to increase by 22 pounds per day or more than 8,000 pounds per year. How can the bay support this load, particularly since it is sometimes dry? There is a concern that the load would be increasing at the same time the WWTF/wetland efficiency may be decreasing. Response 5-9. The commentor used characteristics of influent wastewater to the treatment plant, rather than effluent discharged from the treatment plant. From initial discharge to ultimate discharge at full capacity of the treatment plant, effluent wastewater will increase its discharge of total suspended solids (TSS) by approximately 1,800 pounds annually, assuming wet-weather flows. This amount is not expected to negatively affect water quality. In addition, wetlands are especially effective at removing suspended solids through several mechanisms mostly related to physical actions resulting from slowed flows. Several studies have shown TSS removal close to 100 percent within wetland detaining systems. The MPCA does not expect a decrease in wetland 7