chisago lakes joint sewage treatment facility improvements

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CHISAGO LAKES JOINT SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS CHISAGO COUNTY CHISAGO CITY, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600 (2001), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (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:

Facility HISTORY Overview The Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Commission’s (Commission) Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility (Facility) provides wastewater treatment service for the cities of Chisago City, Lindstrom, Center City, and a portion of Chisago Lakes Township in the South Center South Lindstrom Sanitary District. The Commission’s existing Facility consists of two parallel aerated ponds (each pond has one 2.1 acre primary cell and one 3.1 acre secondary cell), four intermittent sand filters, a chlorine contact tank and outfall pipe that discharges effluent to an unnamed tributary of the Sunrise River. The Facility has a continuous discharge and is designed to treat an average wet weather (AWW) design flow capacity of 1.26 million gallons per day (mgd). Permitting History The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit has been reissued several times, most recently on November 30, 2002. Previous Environmental Review This project is not a subsequent stage of an earlier project and the Facility has never before been subject to environmental review. Compliance/Enforcement History There have only been two parameters exceedences in the past three years (one for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand in 2001 and one for total suspended solids in 2002). The Facility appears to be in current good standing.

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Findings of Fact Chisago City, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order

PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project To accommodate anticipated growth in the Commission’s service area and to provide capacity for the cities of Wyoming and Stacy, who plan on joining the Commission, the Facility will need improvements. The project proposal is the construction of a new mechanical Facility with an AWW design flow of 2.46 mgd that would take the place of the existing pond system. It will be located in the center of the 153-acre parcel of land owned by the Commission, placed just to the west of the existing ponds. The new mechanical Facility will include screening and grit removal, biological treatment using a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) system, and chlorine disinfection. Effluent will be re-aerated prior to discharge to ensure that the effluent dissolved oxygen limit is met. The Facility will have a one milligram per liter (mg/L) phosphorous effluent limit. This limit will be met through biological phosphorus removal with a chemical back-up. Treated effluent will be continuously discharged to the unnamed tributary of the Sunrise River utilizing the existing outfall structure; however the outfall structure itself will be modified to accommodate the larger flows resulting from this Facility upgrade. Sludge generated in the treatment process will be transferred to two aerated sludge digester tanks where air and mixing provide some sludge stabilization. From the aerobic digester, the sludge will be stored short term in a sludge storage tank and then periodically transferred to a gravity belt thickener. After thickening, the digested sludge will be pumped to reed beds.

One cell from the existing aerated pond system will be maintained for use as an equalization pond and as a back-up for the SBR system. There is no immediate plan for the remaining ponds and they will remain intact. Accumulated biosolids removed from the ponds will be land applied to MPCA-approved sites or landfilled if suitable application sites cannot be found.

As mentioned previously, the Commission plans to begin to accept and treat raw wastewater from the cities of Wyoming and Stacy. The construction of sanitary sewer pipelines that will carry raw wastewater from the cities of Wyoming and Stacy to the Facility are connected actions to the Facility improvements. The existing Wyoming and Stacy Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs), which are pond systems, will both be abandoned once the Commission’s Facility and the sanitary sewer pipelines are operational. 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 Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is located to the east of the city of Stacy and to the north and west of the city of Wyoming. Portions of the pipeline corridors from each city will cross in close proximity to this WMA. The pipelines will also cross near wetlands, streams, and lakes in the region and, so, potential impacts to the WMA and to other water resources are an additional concern.

2


Permitting Requirements Required permits are listed in Findings 23 below. Construction for the proposed project will not start until all permits are issued. These permits will mandate that the Facility operate in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters Comment letters received during the public comment period for the draft EAW voice concerns about the seeming incompatibility of a project that may encourage secondary development with the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan and with the Carlos Avery Overlay District.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18B, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed

project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500 (2001), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on April 12, 2004.

2. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to interested parties on April 12, 2004. In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on April 12, 2004, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html on April 13, 2004.

3. The public comment period for the EAW began on April 12, 2004, and ended on May 12, 2004. During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received five comment letters from government agencies.

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.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2001), the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement

(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. 4410.1700, subp. 7 (2001). 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

3


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. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A (2001). 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 C. Dust

8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

A. Odors Once construction is complete, it is anticipated that some odors will be released as influent from the service area arrives in the pretreatment building. The pretreatment room will be enclosed and all ventilation from this room will be conveyed through an odor treatment system, comprised of either activated carbon columns or biofilters. The Facility staff will monitor the existence of odors from the other treatment processes and take actions to reduce them should they occur. Any odors that may be generated outside the pretreatment building can typically be reduced by increasing the aeration rate.

Sludge will be stabilized through aerobic digestion before application to reed beds. Odors from reed beds during spring months may occur, but any odors would decrease as spring progresses and oxygen is incorporated into the beds. Odor from the reed beds would not be strong and similar WWTFs have not had significant odor nuisance problems. Odors that may be given off during spring thaw are expected to be far less problematic than those created by stabilization pond systems. Odors from the improved Facility are not expected to cause significant impacts.

B. Noise There will be a temporary increase in noise generated by heavy machinery during the construction of the mechanical Facility. The contractors will be required to comply with any and all noise ordinances. Construction will be allowed only during daylight hours. The completed Facility will not be a source of significant noise.

4


C. Dust The construction process will generate some dust from equipment and vehicles operating on the exposed soils. These areas will be watered to reduce dust generation so dust should not pose a significant environmental effect within the community during construction. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated as soon as possible after construction. The operation of the completed Facility will not generate 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.

12. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to water quality:

A. Surface-water runoff; B. Water-quality impacts; and C. Erosion and sedimentation.

13. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

A. Surface-water runoff The change in quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the construction of the proposed projects will be minimal, though quality of runoff may temporarily decrease during the construction phase. The NPDES General Stormwater Construction Activity Permit 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.

Commission Facility Runoff from impervious surfaces will flow over the surface of the ground, providing an opportunity for infiltration, before the runoff reaches a holding pond located on-site. The holding pond will be designed to treat a Type II 24-hour storm event, which for this region is a 5.8 inch rainfall. The pond will provide initial treatment of stormwater runoff. From there, runoff will flow across the ground before it enters nearby wetlands.

5


Wyoming and Stacy sanitary sewer pipelines Site runoff will filter through erosion control devices and either enter ground water beneath the construction area or reach the surface water bodies of the Sunrise River and various wetlands along the pipeline corridor. The pipeline will not directly affect the drainage patterns in the project area or change the volume or composition of runoff from the area. Seeding and mulching will be completed to provide permanent vegetative drainage and erosion control.

B. Water quality impacts

The wastewater generated by the future Commission service area will be primarily domestic strength wastewater. No major industrial wastewaters are treated at the Commission’s Facility at this time, nor are major industrial wastewaters currently treated at either the existing Wyoming or Stacy WWTFs. Treated effluent will be discharged at the proposed Facility through the existing outfall structure to a small tributary of the Sunrise River. The proposed project meets the definition of a significantly expanded discharge under Minn. R. 7050.0185 and this has triggered the need for a nondegradation to all waters review. The MPCA has completed this review and has proposed effluent limits for the expanded Facility’s discharge. These limits will be incorporated into the Facility’s modified NPDES/SDS Permit and are intended to protect the uses of and minimize the impact on the receiving water. Effluent limits set in the NPDES/SDS Permit will be met at the point where treated effluent leaves the Facility. Concerns were raised early in the project that an expanded discharge would exacerbate nutrient concerns in the St. Croix Basin. The proposed Facility will comply with a one mg/L effluent phosphorus limit. With this limit the MPCA has concluded that the anticipated phosphorus load from the proposed Facility will represent a minimum reduction of approximately 33 percent from the phosphorus loads currently discharged by the existing Facility. More information on this issue is provided in response for Comment 1-3 of the Response to Comments document, Appendix B. Since the Sunrise River is known to support rich and diverse populations of native mussels and sponges, particular attention was focused on ensuring that the dissolved oxygen and ammonia-nitrogen effluent limits would protect water quality standards. No significant impacts to the receiving waters from the proposed project are anticipated.

C. Erosion and sedimentation The project proposer will be required to obtain a NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity from the MPCA to control erosion and runoff. 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. Potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation are not anticipated to be significant.

6


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. If pipeline installation will impact any water resource and if that water resource has been designated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a public water, then the project proposer must obtain a License to Cross Public Lands from the DNR. Much of the pipeline will be installed using directional boring, a construction method which greatly reduces the potential for erosion and sedimentation.

14. The reversibility of any potential water 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. Though not expected to occur, impacts from a release at the Facility 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.

15. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality: Four comment letters expressed concerns about water quality:

• The DNR sent in two of the four comment letters. Their concerns were largely centered on construction methods to be used for pipeline construction. These pipelines will pass in close proximity to the Carlos Avery WMA and to several other lakes, streams and wetlands in the area.

• One letter was sent by the St. Croix Basin Water Resources Planning Team. The comments

were all focused on concerns related to increased phosphorus loading to the St. Croix Basin.

• The fourth letter, submitted by Chisago County, voiced concerns about water quality. This

letter focused more broadly on potential impacts to the many water resources in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline projects.

Complete responses to all of these water quality concerns can be found in Appendix B, Responses to Comments. As discussed above in Findings 13 and 14, the review indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.

16. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed expansion of this Facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed.

17. The MPCA finds that the project as it is proposed does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on water quality based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur.

7


Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 18. 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. 4410.1700, subp. 7.B (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

19. 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.

20. Public comments concerning cumulative impacts:

Three comment letters expressed concerns regarding cumulative impacts from secondary development that may be encouraged by the availability of an expanded utility. Chisago County, in particular, stated that the encouragement of secondary development due to construction of the Wyoming and Stacy pipelines was incompatible with the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan and with their commitment to protecting a buffer zone around the Carlos Avery WMA. The land around the WMA is largely township land and Chisago County currently has authority over zoning for those areas. Future annexing by the cities could change that zoning, allowing for higher density housing. The area of the greatest concern to the commenter is the area around the WMA near the city of Stacy. At this time, the city of Stacy has no plans for connections outside of city limits to their proposed pipeline. Item 29 of the EAW discusses secondary development in general terms and states that the Commission service area will need to regularly assess and address impacts that occur due to the secondary development. Development will be encouraged in accordance with current zoning and land use requirements. The construction of these pipelines is not directly incompatible with the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan. Local units of government can work together to plan for future growth and pair this growth with a strong commitment to protect the natural resources of the area. Based on MPCA staff experience and available information on the project information presented by the commenters, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this project.

21. 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.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject To Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 22. 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. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

23. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:

8


Commission Facility Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA Plans and Specifications To be approved MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit for a Surface-

water Discharge Submitted; to be issued

MPCA NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity

To be submitted

MPCA Air Quality Permit To be submitted B. DNR Temporary Water Appropriations

Permit To be submitted

DNR Water Appropriations Permit To be submitted C. Chisago County Building Permit To be submitted Chisago County Conditional Use Permit To be submitted

Wyoming Sanitary Sewer Pipeline Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. United States Army

Corps of Engineers (USACOE)

Section 404 Permit

To be submitted, if necessary

B. MPCA Plans and Specifications To be submitted MPCA Section 401 Water Quality

Certification of USACOE Section 404 Permit

To be submitted


To be submitted

MPCA Sewer Extension Permit To be obtained MPCA SDS Permit Modification In progress C. DNR Public Waters Work Permit To be submitted DNR License to Cross Public Lands To be submitted DNR Temporary Water Appropriations


D. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)

Utility Permit on Trunk Highway Right-of-Way (Form 2525)

To be submitted

E. Chisago County Utility Permit on County Highway/County Road Right-of-Way

To be submitted

Chisago County Certificate of Wetland Conservation Act Exemption

To be submitted

9


Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. USACOE Section 404 Permit

To be submitted, if necessary

B. MPCA Plans and Specifications To be submitted MPCA Section 401 Water Quality

Certification of USACOE Section 404 Permit

To be submitted


To be submitted

MPCA Sewer Extension Permit To be obtained MPCA SDS Permit Modification In progress C. DNR Public Waters Work Permit To be submitted DNR License to Cross Public Lands To be submitted DNR Temporary Water Appropriations


E. Chisago County Utility Permit on County Highway/County Road Right-of-Way

To be submitted

Chisago County Certificate of Wetland Conservation Act Exemption

To be submitted

24.

Commission Facility 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 Facility 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 Facility to a surface water. Effluent limitations established within the NPDES/SDS Permit ensure that water quality in the receiving water is protected. NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity A NPDES 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

10


timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The NPDES 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. Air Quality Permit The Air Emission Permit for the facility would contain operational and emission limits, including requirements for use of control equipment, that would help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects.

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 gallons per day, or one million gallons per year. Water Appropriations Permit (well) A water use (appropriation) permit from DNR is required for all users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or 1 million gallons per year.

C. Chisago County

Building Permit Building permits and inspections assure that the project will be constructed or installed in accordance with city ordinances and codes. Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit is required when a use is not usually allowed within a zoning district, but may be allowed with certain conditions. A Conditional Use Permit may be approved upon a showing by an applicant that standards and criteria stated in the county’s ordinance would be satisfied.

Wyoming and Stacy Sanitary Sewer 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.

11


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 General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity See above. Sewer Extension Permit This permit is required if you are adding, rehabilitating, replacing or relocating a sewer main, lateral, or interceptor. SDS Permit See above.

C. DNR 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. 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. General Permit for Temporary Dewatering See above.

D. MnDOT (for the proposed Wyoming pipeline only)

Utility Permit on Trunk Highway Right-of-Way (Form 2525) This permit is required anytime a public utility crosses a state highway.

12


E. Chisago County

Utility Permit on County Highway/County Road Right-of-Way This permit is required anytime a public utility crosses a county highway or is placed in a county right-of-way. Certificate of Wetland Conservation Act Exemption This certificate is required for anyone planning a construction project in Chisago County and who wishes to claim an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act.

25. 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. 26. 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. 4410.1700, subp. 7.D (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

27. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commentors, staff experience, and other available information.

• EAW data; • NPDES/SDS Permit file; • Facility plan; and • Proposed effluent limitation sheet and nondegradation review document.

28. 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.

29. 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.

13


14

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

30. 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 Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements 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.

31. 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.

32. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2001), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project.

33. An EIS is not required.

34. 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 Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED

__________________________________________ Sheryl A. Corrigan, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency __________________________________________ Date

APPENDIX B

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW

1. Comments by Steven Colvin, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Letter received April 13, 2004. Comment 1-1: The DNR believes that more detailed information regarding the proposed Wyoming and Stacy pipeline projects will be needed from the project proposer before the DNR can proceed with issuing Public Water Work Permits for these projects. Response: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) appreciates this comment and will pass it on to the project proposer. The project proposer will provide more detailed information regarding the horizontal and vertical locations of the pipelines and proposed construction methods as part of the Public Waters Work Permit application(s). It is anticipated that the matter will be managed through ongoing regulatory authorities; in this case, with the DNR. Comment 1-2: The DNR would like information on proposed mitigation should effluent monitoring reveal noncompliance with the proposed effluent five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) limits or should monitoring data indicate that the proposed wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) is not adequately nitrifying. Response: The MPCA fully believes that the proposed WWTF will have the capability to comply with the proposed limits and conditions to be placed in the proposed WWTF’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit. An exceedence of the CBOD5 limit (either the mass limit or concentration limit) or monitoring data that shows that ammonia concentrations are rising above 23 milligrams per liter (mg/L) would be an indication of improper management of the process units. The Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Commission (Commission) would be required to alter management of the wastewater processes so as to return to compliance with limits and conditions identified in the NPDES/SDS Permit. A rare violation of the CBOD5 limit would not seriously affect the receiving water. It is only chronic violations of the CBOD5 limit that would be problematic because of a possible depletion of the in-stream dissolved oxygen (DO) in the receiving water. However, MPCA has also imposed the seasonal DO effluent limitation to prevent potential in-stream DO and so mitigation would not be required. If the MPCA were to apply an effluent ammonia limit to the WWTF’s discharge, it would be set at 23 mg/L. An activated sludge process, such as the proposed WWTF will have, can easily meet this concentration limit; in fact, it is MPCA policy not to set ammonia limits for activated sludge facilities at concentrations higher than 20 mg/L unless there is reasonable potential that the limit will be exceeded for this reason. Since there is no apparent reasonable potential, an effluent ammonia limit for the proposed WWTF was deemed unnecessary. If monitoring data reveals that ammonia levels are violating water quality standards, the NPDES/SDS Surface Water Discharge Permit would be modified and an ammonia limit would be applied. As with the CBOD5 limit, a rare instance of ammonia-nitrogen levels rising

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet above water quality standards should not seriously impact the receiving waters or inhabitants of those waters because ammonia-nitrogen nitrifies naturally. Since the impact would be temporary and localized, mitigation would not be required. Comment 1-3: The DNR feels that the EAW should mention the St. Croix Basin Water Resources Planning Team (St. Croix Basin Team) goal of reducing phosphorus loads to the St. Croix Basin by 20 percent in relation to the one mg/L effluent phosphorus limit to be applied to the proposed WWTF. Response: The MPCA has been applying its Phosphorus Strategy to surface water discharges since 2000. The Strategy indicates that a one mg/L effluent phosphorus limit should be applied to the proposed Commission WWTF. Currently, the Commission’s WWTF discharges an average of 790,000 gallons of treated effluent per day. The effluent phosphorus concentrations for the existing WWTF averaged 4.66 mg/L for 2003. Multiplying the average flow by the average phosphorus concentration and converting to pounds per year (lbs/yr) yields an average phosphorus loading into the St. Croix Basin of 11,212 lbs/yr. The proposed Commission WWTF will have an average wet weather design flow of 2.45 million gallons per day. The maximum annual phosphorus concentration present in the effluent will be one mg/L. Multiplying the flow by a phosphorus concentration of one mg/L and converting to lbs/yr yields a maximum phosphorus loading from the proposed WWTF into the St. Croix Basin of 7,462 lbs/yr. It appears from these calculations that the phosphorus loads to the St. Croix Basin from the proposed Commission WWTF at maximum capacity will represent a 33 percent reduction over current phosphorus loads from the existing WWTF. Although the MPCA is not formally implementing the St. Croix Basin Team goal, the MPCA believes that the proposed phosphorus effluent limit will result in a phosphorus load reduction that exceeds the goal recommended by the St. Croix Basin Team. It should be noted that the estimates for loading from the proposed WWTF are at design capacity and at the maximum phosphorus concentration that will be allowed. Actual phosphorus concentrations from the WWTF will likely be in the 0.7-0.9 mg/L range and since the WWTF will be discharging below design capacity most of the time, the actual load for the proposed WWTF will be even less than indicated above. Comment 1-4: The DNR cautions that potentially steep slopes and highly erodible soils in the proposed pipeline construction areas may impact the temporary Dewatering Permit process and the Work in Public Waters Permit process. The DNR will require more information from the project proposer before those permits can be issued. Response: The MPCA appreciates this comment and will pass it on to the project proposer. It is anticipated that the matter will be managed through ongoing regulatory authorities; in this case with the DNR. Please note that the project proposer will be required to identify steep slopes and highly erodible soils as a part of the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (NPDES Construction Permit) and to identify appropriate mitigation. This information will also be included as necessary in the Water Appropriation Permit and Work in Public Waters Permit applications. Comment 1-5: The DNR is concerned about proposed plans to drain the stabilization ponds at the existing Wyoming WWTF into the Sunrise River.

2

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: In order to remove accumulated biosolids from the bottom of those stabilization ponds, the ponds will need to be dewatered or drained. Preliminary abandonment plans include dewatering the ponds by spray irrigation and/or by routing treated effluent to the Commission WWTF. The ponds do not have a permitted discharge point to the Sunrise River and their SDS Permit does not allow for surface water discharges. Any plan forwarded by the city of Wyoming to dewater the ponds in preparation for abandonment via an overland flow that results in a surface water discharge to the Sunrise River will not be accepted by the MPCA. The city of Wyoming will be required through the modified SDS Permit issued to the Wyoming WWTF to submit a formal abandonment plan to the MPCA for approval. MPCA staff can assure through this approval process that the existing Wyoming stabilization ponds will not be dewatered in preparation for abandonment via a surface water discharge to the Sunrise River. Comment 1-6: The DNR feels that environmental impacts from proposed annexations should be addressed in the EAW. Response: The DNR made this comment after reviewing a pre-public notice version of the draft EAW. The MPCA does not customarily provide specifics regarding proposed development projects in EAWs that we prepare, although there is a requirement to discuss, in general terms, the cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of secondary development. Item 29 of the draft Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements EAW was modified and expanded after the DNR’s pre-public notice review and the version that was placed on public notice discusses in greater detail the potential cumulative impacts that may occur from secondary development that will occur in the foreseeable future relative to the proposed project, including potential impacts to the Sunrise River and its tributaries. 2. Comments by Pam Davis, St. Croix Basin Team. Letter received April 28, 2004. Comment 2-1: The commenter provides information on the formation of the St. Croix Basin Team and its purpose and goals. The commenter also identifies the St. Croix Basin Team’s largest concerns as nutrient and sediment loading into the basin. Response: The MPCA appreciates the information provided. Comment 2-2: The St. Croix Basin Team recently announced a goal to reduce phosphorus loading by 20 percent into the St. Croix Basin by the year 2020. A 20 percent reduction will approximate the ecological conditions of Lake St. Croix in 1940. Response: Please refer to the response to Comment 1-3. It should be noted that an estimated 87 percent of the phosphorus in the St. Croix Basin originates from non-point sources. In addition to reducing phosphorus loads from point sources, strong efforts will need to be taken to reduce non-point sources of phosphorus in order to achieve substantial basin-wide phosphorus reductions. Comment 2-3: The commenter urges the Commission to develop and implement a voluntary plan to further reduce the proposed WWTF’s phosphorus loads to the St. Croix Basin. Response: The MPCA appreciates the comment and has passed it along to the project proposer.

3

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet 3. Comments by Brigid Gombold, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Letter

received May 7, 2004. Comment 3-1: MnDOT notes that a portion of the Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline will be constructed along a portion of U.S. Highway 8. MnDOT is planning on expanding and improving portions of this highway and wishes the project proposer to contact MnDOT so that efforts for both projects can be coordinated. Response: The MPCA appreciates this comment and has passed it on to the city of Wyoming. Representatives of the city of Wyoming will contact MnDOT to coordinate on the final pipeline location along U.S. Highway 8. Comment 3-2: MnDOT states that a Utility Permit form 2525 will be required for the construction of the portion of the Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline that will cross U.S. Highway 8. This permit is required anytime a public utility crosses a state highway. Response: The MPCA appreciates this comment. The need for this permit was noted in Item 8 of the draft EAW. Representatives of the city of Wyoming will apply for the required permit as part of the design phase of the pipeline project. 4. Comments by Diane K. Anderson, DNR. Letter received via facsimile May 11, 2004. Comment 4-1: The commenter wishes for information on potential environmental impacts from the Pine Lane Sanitary Landfill and how these impacts will be mitigated, if encountered. Response: The city of Wyoming and MPCA staffs have more carefully reviewed the proposed Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline in relation to the closed Pine Lane Sanitary Landfill. There is low-level volatile organic compound contamination in the ground water near the closed landfill and the contamination plume is migrating to the north. The Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline will be south and east of the contamination plume. Therefore, the presence of the closed landfill and its associated ground water contamination shouldn’t pose a problem during pipeline construction. The MPCA has recently installed a landfill gas collection system for this landfill so gases released from the closed landfill will also not pose a problem during pipeline construction. Comment 4-2: The commenter wishes to know how the two acres of forested/wooded land identified in Item 10 of the draft EAW will be lost or converted to brush/grassland during the construction of the Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline. Response: In certain portions of the Wyoming pipeline corridor, the land is wooded. In those areas, the trees will be removed to make way for construction. Once the pipe has been installed, grasses and forbs will be seeded or planted on the soil surface. In this way, acreage that was previously forested will be converted to grassland. Comment 4-3: Since the use of silt fencing during construction will play such an important role in protecting threatened Blanding’s Turtles believed to live in the area, the commenter feels that the MPCA should require the proper installation of silt fencing as part of the project approvals.

4

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: The proper installation of silt fencing will be required through the NPDES Construction Permit. NPDES Construction Permits will be required for all construction activities associated with the proposed project. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which identifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used during construction, is required to be developed by the project proposer and submitted with the permit application. Part III.A.3a. of the NPDES Construction Permit requires that the final plans and specifications for the project include the standard plans and/or specifications for the BMPs to be used. Therefore, if silt fencing is identified as a BMP to be used (and the proposer, in this case, has said it will be), it must be properly installed. If inspection of the construction site reveals that the fencing has been improperly installed or inadequately maintained, the Permittee will be in violation of their NPDES Construction Permit and corrective action will ensue. It should be noted that silt fencing will not be required up-gradient of exposed soils for the purpose of turtle exclusion alone. The NPDES Construction Permit will require erosion and sedimentation controls down-gradient of exposed soils only. Comment 4-4: Figure 7 of the draft EAW shows that open cutting will be used during construction of the Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline as it crosses near Lake Mattson. The commenter indicates that issues related to the width and the depth of the trenches will need to be addressed during the DNR’s Utility Crossing Permit process. Response: The MPCA appreciates this comment and has passed it on to the project proposer. The project proposer will provide more detailed information regarding the horizontal and vertical locations of the pipelines and proposed construction methods as part of the Public Waters Work Permit application(s). It is anticipated that the matter will be managed through ongoing regulatory authorities; in this case with the DNR. Comment 4-5: Item 12 of the draft EAW indicates the strategies that will be used to avoid or minimize water resource impacts. The commenter has included a list of additional practices that are recommended for construction. Response: The MPCA appreciates this comment and the associated list and has passed it on to the project proposer. Comment 4-6: The commenter notes that the potential for impacts to the water resources and to wildlife will change if the plan is to improve the roads during pipeline construction. Response: There are no plans to improve the county roads at the same time that the Wyoming and Stacy pipelines are installed so impacts to the water resources or to wildlife along those portions of the pipeline route other than those identified in the draft EAW are not anticipated. During the public comment period for the draft EAW, MnDOT identified plans to improve a portion of U.S. Highway 8. The Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline will involve installation of pipe along a portion of this highway. Since the MnDOT project is not considered to be a connected action to the proposed pipeline project, impacts due to MnDOT’s improvement of U.S. Highway 8 were not assessed as a part of the draft EAW. MnDOT and the city of Wyoming do plan on coordinating their activities and this should result in minimized impact. Further, if the MnDOT project will disturb an acre or more of land, they will be required to obtain their own NPDES Construction Permit for the purpose of avoiding, reducing or mitigating potential environmental impacts due to construction.

5

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 4-7: The commenter believes that the answer to Item 14 should be “Yes”. Response: The MPCA agrees with the commenter since the Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline will cross portions of shoreland districts associated with several lakes in the project area, including Lake Emily, Green Lake, Lake Martha, and School Lake and since the Stacy pipeline will cross a portion of the Lake Mattson shoreland district. An Errata Sheet to the EAW will be prepared. Chisago County has incorporated the DNR’s Shoreland Management Guidance into the county’s own Shoreland Development Ordinance. Chisago County’s Shoreland Development Ordinance applies to the construction of sewer forcemain installed in the shoreland zone of public waters and, so, the proposed pipelines will be subject to this ordinance. Compliance with this ordinance does not require any additional approval, review or permitting from the county; however it does stipulate construction standards and erosion and sedimentation controls that must be installed. The cities of Stacy and Wyoming will comply with this ordinance during the construction of those pipeline segments. In addition, the proposer will need to obtain Utility Crossing Permits from the DNR for those pipeline segments. Comment 4-8: The commenter feels that the EAW could have included information related to foreseeable locations of induced growth and the indirect impacts that growth may have. Response: The Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline is intended to serve the population within the city limits only. The city of Stacy has no plans at this time for additional connections outside city limits to the proposed pipeline. The Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline is being designed for future servicing needs. A majority of the anticipated growth is being planned for in the commercial/industrial flows, which are anticipated within the existing city limits. A 1.5 percent residential growth rate is being used in determination of design flows for the city of Wyoming. There is very little residentially zoned property remaining within the current city limits; therefore, it is anticipated that some of the residential growth would occur through future boundary expansions. At this time, the Wyoming City Council has not expressed any interest in annexation for residential growth; however, it is anticipated that when expansion occurs it will be adjacent to the existing city limits. 5. Comments by Marion Heemsbergen, Chisago County Department of Environmental

Services/Zoning. Letter received via facsimile May 12, 2004. Comment 5-1: The Wetland Conservation Act requires a replacement plan if wetlands are to be impacted; however this requirement can be exempted in certain cases. The commenter has provided a list of items needed from the project proposer before Chisago County will grant an exemption for the replacement plan requirement, should such an exemption be needed or desired. Response: Wetlands along the pipeline corridors have not yet been delineated, but the comment has been passed on to the cities of Stacy and Wyoming. The wetland impacts for the pipeline projects are expected to be limited since any excavation will be restored to pre-construction conditions and mitigation will not generally be required. The cities of Stacy and Wyoming will work with Chisago County on this issue as planning progresses.

6

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Since completion and noticing of the draft EAW, the wetlands on the proposed Commission’s WWTF construction site have been delineated. Originally, the Commission planned to avoid all wetlands by moving treatment equipment during the planning phase. After the field delineation, five small wetlands were identified on the Commission property that had not previously been identified on the National Wetland Inventory. These newly identified wetlands are small and scattered, so the Commission feels they cannot move equipment to avoid them. It has been determined that 0.45 acres of wetlands will be removed for the purpose of constructing the mechanical WWTF. This wetland loss will be mitigated by the addition of 0.9 acres of new wetland to be located adjacent to an existing low wetland area on the Commission property. The wetland mitigation plan will be submitted separately to Chisago County and the new wetland, if approved, will be constructed with the new WWTF. Comment 5-2: The commenter would prefer for the Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline to follow County Road 30 from the city of Stacy to the city of Wyoming instead of having it follow County Road 19 through the Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area (WMA). Response: The MPCA staff is aware that the project proposer has considered a number of alternatives and those alternatives were briefly described in Item 31 of the draft EAW. The inclusion of this information implies that the MPCA has compared the alternatives and agrees with the proposer that the selected alternative is the most environmentally sound option; however that is not the case. The completion of an EAW does not require an analysis of alternative project proposals and information on those alternatives was provided for the reviewer’s interest only. The MPCA reviewed the project as it was proposed by the Commission and the cities of Stacy and Wyoming.

Comment 5-3: The commenter does not believe that the potential effects to the water quality of the Sunrise River and to the St. Croix River have been adequately addressed. The commenter notes that the city of Wyoming operates a pond system and spray irrigates their treated effluent, which avoids a surface water discharge, and implies that this may be a more environmentally sound strategy. Response: Water quality effects are discussed in Items 11, 12, 18 and 29 of the draft EAW. Item 18, in particular, provides a detailed discussion on the discharge of ammonia-nitrogen, dissolved oxygen and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand. The effluent limit setting process is fairly complicated and takes into account the WWTF flows, federal and state water quality standards, the flows in the receiving water during low flow conditions, the use designations of the receiving waters and any special designations or impairments that the water resource may have. After careful consideration of all of these factors, the MPCA has developed effluent limits that it believes will result in a discharge which will not cause a violation of water quality standards. If the commenter has a specific concern, the MPCA staff would be willing to provide more specific and detailed information. The proposed WWTF will serve an anticipated population of 23,200. A sewage treatment pond system with spray irrigation for the service area would need to be five to six times the size of the existing Wyoming system, consuming 3,000 to 4,000 acres of land over the next 10 to 20 years. This type of facility can provide very good treatment, but for local planning purposes it is not practical for large installations where suitable land is expensive and difficult to obtain.

7

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 5-4: Item 17 of the draft EAW states, “The quality and quantity of runoff produced by this site should have relatively little effect on the overall flow and quality in the unnamed stream.” Item 17 also concludes that the proposed project is not anticipated to have significant runoff or sedimentation impacts on the receiving waters. The commenter would like to see the comments made in Item 17 more fully explained, especially relating to the volume of discharge. Response: The comments made in Item 17 of the draft EAW were intended to address stormwater runoff from the WWTF site before, during and after construction; they are not relative to the WWTF discharge of treated effluent. Since the formation of stormwater runoff is dependent on precipitation it is difficult to estimate the volume of runoff that may be generated at a given time; however we do know that the holding pond to be constructed at the WWTF site will be sized to accommodate a Type II 24-hour storm event, which for this region is a 5.8-inch rainfall. The on-site holding pond will trap stormwater and slow its flow, allowing for removal of solids. For the proposed WWTF construction project, the most critical time for the creation of stormwater that may result in damage to water resources will be during construction. The NPDES Construction Permit will mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation of the construction site during and after construction. The proposer must specify what erosion controls will be used and must also develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan. The permit will require the proper installation and maintenance of those control measures and compliance with the plan. These mitigation measures will minimize the potential impact of stormwater runoff. Lastly, stormwater that flows from the on-site holding pond will flow across the ground, allowing an opportunity for infiltration. Considering these mitigation methods and the ongoing regulatory authority via the NPDES Construction Permit, the MPCA does not believe that there will be significant potential for adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff. Comment 5-5: The commenter wishes to see information showing that the alternate routes have been analyzed to minimize impacts to water resources. Response: Please see the response for Comment 5-2.

Comment 5-6: The commenter wishes to know the quantity of biosolids to be excavated from the Commission WWTF reed beds and where the biosolids will be land applied. Suitable land application sites in Chisago County are diminishing and the commenter is concerned that there will not be enough land available for disposal of biosolids. Response: Beginning roughly five years after the start of operation, one reed bed will be taken off-line annually for excavation. It is estimated that each reed bed will yield 1,800 cubic yards of biosolids. Therefore, land application sites that can accommodate 1,800 cubic yards of biosolids will be needed on an annual basis. These sites will not need to be identified for many years and so information on these proposed land application sites has not yet been required by the MPCA. When the Commission begins planning for disposal of biosolids, they will need to submit proposed land application sites to the MPCA for review and approval. The biosolids will be a Class B type biosolids which can be either land applied or landfilled. The Commission would prefer to land apply as this is a more environmentally and economically sound option, but if land application sites cannot be found they can pay to have the biosolids landfilled.

8

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 5-7: The commenter wishes to know the quantity of biosolids that are expected to be excavated from the Wyoming and Stacy ponds upon abandonment and where the biosolids will be land applied. Response: The MPCA will require the submittal of a formal abandonment plan from the cities of Wyoming and Stacy 90 days after the issuance of modified SDS permits for their existing WWTFs. The abandonment plan must specify the amount of biosolids expected to be cleared from the ponds and where those biosolids will be placed. The modified SDS permit for the Wyoming WWTF will be issued very soon; the modified SDS permit for the Stacy WWTF is expected to be drafted within the next few months. It is anticipated that the matter will be managed through ongoing regulatory authorities; in this case through the MPCA. Comment 5-8: The commenter has noted the discussion of alternative pipeline routes for the city of Stacy in Item 31 of the draft EAW and feels that the reason given for selecting the proposed Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline route described in the draft EAW (i.e. the route that follows County Road 19) is inadequate. Response: Please see the response for Comment 5-2. Comment 5-9: The commenter wishes for information on how impacts to wildlife living in Carlos Avery will be mitigated during the construction of the Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline. Response: There are several items in the draft EAW that describe potential impacts to wildlife species and how these impacts will be mitigated. The installation of the pipeline in the road right-of-way is expected to have a temporary impact on wildlife living in the vicinity of the construction site. Once the construction project is complete, the land will be restored to its existing state and wildlife will be expected to return to their normal activities and adapt to the limited modification to the landscape. The draft EAW (Items 11, 12 and 18) indicates that special measures will be taken to protect sensitive species that live in the vicinity of the proposed construction area. The Blanding’s Turtle, a threatened species, lives in the Carlos Avery WMA and is assumed to also be living in wetlands surrounding the WMA. The pipeline will be constructed in County Road 19 right-of-way. Item 11 explains the measures that the city of Stacy plans to take during construction to mitigate impacts to the Blanding’s Turtle. There are several native mussel species living within the Sunrise River and measures to minimize impacts to the river have been considered. A NPDES Construction Permit will require the use of temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control structures. Further, the pipeline will be installed underneath the bed of the Sunrise River using directional boring and this will negate the need for disturbance of the river banks. Since this river has been designated by the DNR as public water, the installation of this portion of the pipeline will require a License to Cross Public Lands and Waters and the proposal will be reviewed through the DNR. More details on how impacts to water resources will be managed can be found in Items 12, 16, and 17 of the draft EAW.

Comment 5-10: The commenter believes that alternatives for the Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline that may reduce the impact on the Carlos Avery WMA should be considered. Response: Please see the response for Comment 5-2.

9

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 5-11: The commenter feels that secondary development which may be encouraged by the proposed Wyoming and Stacy pipeline projects is contradictory to the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan and to the Carlos Avery Overlay District that has been created for the Carlos Avery WMA.

Response: The construction of these pipelines is not directly contradictory to the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan or to the Carlos Avery Overlay District. The area of the greatest concern to the commenter is the area around the WMA near the city of Stacy. At this time, the city of Stacy has no plans for connections outside of city limits to their proposed pipeline. Item 29 of the draft EAW contains a general discussion on the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of secondary development. This discussion is limited to considering potential development that will happen in the foreseeable future. It concludes that if the availability of expanded utilities does encourage secondary development, the local units of government have a responsibility to ensure that the growth is in accordance with the local ordinances and state codes and regulations intended to manage, minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts to natural resources. These local units of government can and should be working together to develop and implement strategies and ordinances that will protect their local natural resources. Comment 5-12: The commenter believes that maps should have been provided to ensure that the proposed Wyoming and Stacy pipeline projects will meet setbacks to all existing private wells. Response: The Minnesota Department of Health has authority over the state’s well code. There is code that requires 50 feet of separation between wells and sanitary sewer mains. The actual separation distances between the proposed pipelines and existing wells have not yet been identified, but will be identified during the design phase. If there are wells within the setback area, it may be possible to move the alignment of the sewer main. If this is not possible, it may be necessary to replace the individual well. The expense for such a replacement would be assumed by the project proposer; the homeowner would not need to pay to move their private well as a result of pipeline construction. Since the MPCA must approve the plans and specifications, the matter will be managed through ongoing regulatory authority with the MPCA. Comment 5-13: The commenter believes that the answer to Item 14 should have been “Yes”. Response: Please refer to the response for Comment 4-7. Comment 5-14: The commenter believes that the pipeline construction projects will encounter steep slopes, contrary to information provided in Item 16, because the charts in Item 19 identify soils with slopes between 12-40 percent. Response: The soils information provided in the charts in Item 19 is general to the region. For the purpose of answering Item 16 of the draft EAW, the project proposer focused on the actual pipeline corridors. At this point in the planning process, it does not appear that steep slopes or highly erodible soils will be encountered during construction since the pipe will be laid in road right-of-way which contains fill and is fairly level; however, more detailed planning will be needed before construction can begin. During the design phase, small modifications to pipeline placement to minimize environmental impact will be allowed. Final plans and specifications showing the actual pipeline placement must be approved by the MPCA before construction will begin.

10

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet The NPDES Construction Permit will also require submittal of a SWPPP and the project proposer must include a site map with existing and final grades and drainage areas along with existing and final soil types and impervious surfaces on the project. If the preliminary site layout changes during the design phase and highly erodible soils or steep slopes will be disturbed, the project proposer will need to note those highly erodible soils/steep slopes on the site map and identify what BMPs they are planning to prevent erosion or control sediment from the area. Comment 5-15: The commenter believes that the conclusion in Item 21 of the EAW that the proposed project will not cause permanent traffic increases is inaccurate. The commenter feels that the availability of expanded sewage treatment capacity will encourage secondary development and that higher density housing will mean an increase in traffic in the area and a degradation of wildlife habitat. Response: Item 21 asks about traffic increases as a direct result of the proposed project. The MPCA still feels that the answer given for that item is accurate. Item 29 of the draft EAW contains a general discussion on the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of secondary development. This discussion is limited to considering potential development that will happen in the foreseeable future. It concludes that if the availability of expanded utilities does encourage secondary development, the local units of government have a responsibility to ensure that the growth is in accordance with the local ordinances and state codes and regulations intended to manage, minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts to receiving waters. These local units of government can and should be working together to develop and implement strategies and ordinances that will protect their local natural resources. Comment 5-16: The commenter wishes to know how the noise from construction will impact wildlife populations. Response: ‘General Comments’ in Item 11a of the draft EAW discusses this issue. Construction activities may temporarily affect the wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. After construction, most of the wildlife is expected to return to their normal activities and adapt to the limited modification to the landscape. Comment 5-17: The commenter believes that the box next to ‘Other Unique Resources’ in Item 25 should be checked. The commenter further believes that project-related impacts to the Carlos Avery WMA should be discussed. Response: The MPCA agrees with the commenter since the pipeline projects will be sited in road rights-of-way that border the Carlos Avery WMA in places. An Errata Sheet to the EAW will be prepared. The purpose of the EAW that was drafted for the proposed project is to describe the project’s potential for environmental impacts and to describe proposed mitigation. The EAW further identifies incidences where ongoing review will continue to manage the project. The commenter is directed to Items 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the draft EAW; these items describe specific ongoing regulatory authorities, potential impacts and proposed mitigation for the project. Comment 5-18: The commenter wishes to know how the light from the construction sites will impact wildlife populations at night.

11

Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Improvements Responses to Comments on the Chisago City, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

12

Response: It is not a certainty that lighting at night will be used, but the possibility that it may be used was identified in the draft EAW. ‘General Comments’ in Item 11a discusses this issue. Construction activities may temporarily affect the wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. After construction, wildlife is expected to return to their normal activities and adapt to the limited modification to the landscape. Comment 5-19: The commenter notes that there is no discussion in Item 27 of the draft EAW of the compatibility of the Wyoming Joint Sanitary Sewer Pipeline project to the Wyoming Township Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, nor is there mention of compatibility of the Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline project to the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Response: The construction of these pipelines is not directly incompatible with the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to the response to Comment 5-11 above for more information. Wyoming Township is not a member of the Joint Sewer Commission and cannot hook up to the sewer pipeline without approval from all of the Commission members. Therefore, compliance with the Wyoming Township Comprehensive Plan was not needed. Comment 5-20: The commenter believes that since the Stacy Sanitary Sewer Pipeline project provides potential sewer connections adjacent to the Carlos Avery WMA, the proposed pipeline is incompatible with current land uses. Response: The use of the land for this utility, a buried pipeline, will be relatively benign. The only above ground structures will be air release manholes located to highpoints along the forcemain route. These structures include a manhole casting at ground level and a vent pipe. Odor control equipment will either be incorporated into the structure or the vent will be fitted with a filter comprised of granular activated carbon. Additionally, the entire length of the sewer pipeline will be installed in accordance with accepted engineering practices and will be leak tested prior to use to insure there are no leaking joints or cracked pipe. The MPCA expects that the proposed pipeline itself will be compatible with the wildlife and recreational uses of the WMA. At this time, the city of Stacy does not intend to provide additional connections to the pipeline outside of city limits. Please refer to the response given to Comment 5-11 for more on the compatibility of the pipeline projects with other local plans.

Comment 5-21: The commenter wishes for a detailed analysis on the impacts that cumulative development will have on the resources in the area. Response: The completion of an EAW does not require a detailed analysis of the cumulative impacts of a project, although there is a requirement to discuss, in general terms, the cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of secondary development. Potential cumulative impacts that may occur in the foreseeable future from secondary development relative to the proposed project, including potential impacts to the Sunrise River and its tributaries, are discussed in Item 29 of the EAW. Please refer to the response given to Comment 5-11 for more on the compatibility of the pipeline projects with other local plans.

chisago lakes joint sewage treatment facility improvements

Documents