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

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

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

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW PRAGUE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY UPGRADE HELENA TOWNSHIP/SCOTT COUNTY NEW PRAGUE, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600 (2003), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed New Prague Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) Upgrade project (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 The city of New Prague’s (City) current domestic WWTF was built in 1966, and was upgraded in 1988 and 2001. A new upgrade is needed to accommodate increased wastewater flows projected for future years and to comply with new and more stringent effluent limits. Permitting History The original plant was built in 1966; in 1975 the WWTF was issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit MN0020150 as a Class C facility. In 1977, the permit was amended due to changes in the final effluent limitations. It was again amended in 1984 when the WWTF was reclassified as a Class B facility, in 1989 for facility expansion and rehabilitation, in 2001 when it was reclassified as a Class A facility, and in 2003 when it was classified as a major facility. Phosphorus limitations were added at that time. Previous Environmental Review An EAW was prepared in 1984-85 on the then-current upgrade proposal and permit amendment. Compliance/Enforcement History An effluent residual chlorine violation occurred in 2002. The City reported .04 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and the limit was .038 mg/L. It was discovered that City staff had rounded up the reading. The MPCA considered this a violation of permit requirements and required a written response for corrective action, which was submitted on December 2, 2002. The MPCA now considers this matter resolved. The City receives occasional odor complaints when the wind is from the northwest and the weather is hot and humid. A residential development has been constructed close to the WWTF.

New Prague Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Findings of Fact On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Conclusions of Law New Prague, Minnesota And Order

2

PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed New Construction/Proposed Modification The City proposes to construct a new WWTF on property currently owned by the City and located adjacent to the existing WWTF. The proposed treatment process is referred to as an upflow, submerged, aerated, fixed film filter system. The discharge receiving waters will continue to be Phillips Creek, a tributary to the East Branch of Raven Stream, which discharges to Sand Creek, which ultimately flows into the lower Minnesota River. Environmental Concerns Typical environmental concerns with WWTFs include the potential for noise and dust from construction, odors, erosion and sedimentation, and water quality impacts to surface water bodies. Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters The Metropolitan Council commented that much of the growth to be accommodated by this Project would take place in Scott County, and that the City should, therefore, maintain its good working relationship with the county to allow for proper planning for this growth. Community Involvement in Process On February 28, 2005, a public hearing was held to consider the Facility Plan. On September 6, 2005, the City Council met with its consultant to review options and the process to submit options to submit Facility Plan to the MPCA. On September 19, 2005, the City Council discussed with staff and its consultant the options available for the WWTF, including expansion of the existing WWTF and a new WWTF and types of processes. On November 7, 2005, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Facility Plan dated November 2005. The resolution states that the report was adequately and completely discussed at Public Hearings that were held on February 28 and November 7, 2005.

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

proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500 (2003), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on June 16, 2006.

2. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to County, as well as, other interested parties on June 20, 2006. In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on June 19, 2006, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html on June 21, 2006.

3. The public comment period for the EAW began on June 19, 2006, and ended on July 19, 2006. During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received three comment letters from government agencies and received no comment letters from citizens.


3

4. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period. Comment letters and the MPCA responses to comments received have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2003), 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 (2003). These criteria are:

A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public

regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other

available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.

THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA

ARE SET FORTH BELOW Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 6. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below.

7. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to air quality:

A. Odors B. Noise C. Dust

8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Odors Wet chemical odor scrubbing will be employed to remove odors from the waste stream. Plant

odor impacts to the surrounding environment should be minimal.


4

B. Noise Construction noise will be minimized by proper muffling of construction vehicles.

C. Dust Dust will be controlled by means of watering when necessary and by establishment of

permanent vegetation after the completion of construction.

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. As discussed above, the expected effects on air quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on air quality.

10. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to air quality:

None.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to water quality:

A. Surface water runoff B. Water quality impacts

14. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Surface water runoff This Project will require an NPDES/SDS Phase II, General Stormwater Permit for Construction

Activity. Erosion control will be maintained throughout the construction period. Temporary erosion control will comply with MPCA, NPDES/SDS Phase II requirements. Erosion and sedimentation control will be in place prior to the start of construction and will remain until protective cover has been established. Temporary erosion control devices may include silt fences, straw bales and storm sewer inlet protection. Additional erosion control methods for steep slopes or highly erodible soils should not be needed.


5

All areas disturbed by construction will be returned to pre-construction conditions. Construction site best management practices will be employed for managing and treating site runoff during construction. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) will be developed and followed to manage and minimize runoff impacts during and after construction is complete. Upon completion, vegetative cover will be re-established in all disturbed areas. No significant long or short-term impacts are expected in runoff quantity or quality.

Runoff from the site would generally flow to the southwest through ditches, storm sewers or

overland routes to Phillips Creek and then northwest, joining drainage flows from the remainder of the Phillips Creek watershed.

After implementation of erosion control measures, best site management practices, and the

SWPP, runoff impacts are anticipated to be minimal. B. Water quality impacts

The proposed Project meets the definition of a “significant discharge” given in Minn. R. 7050.0185. This, in turn, creates a requirement for a Nondegradation of All Waters review by the MPCA. This review has been completed, and final effluent limits for the Project have been developed based on it. The impact of the proposed effluent limits on receiving waters is expected to be an improvement from current conditions due to the imposition of a mass load limit on phosphorus and a reduction in both concentration and mass loading of Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD). Since total suspended solids (TSS) in the effluent are expected to decline with the Project, and mercury in the effluent is proportional to TSS levels, a nondegradation analysis for mercury is not required.

The receiving waters will continue to be Phillips Creek, which discharges to the East Branch of

Raven Stream, which discharges to Sand Creek, which ultimately flows into the lower Minnesota River. This stretch of the Minnesota River has been identified as being impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). The discharge mass load limitation for phosphorus and CBOD outlined above were developed based on the need to assure that the DO impairment in the Minnesota River is not exacerbated by the Project discharge.

15. 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. As discussed above, the expected effects on water quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality.

16. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commented that, since this Project would double the volume of the effluent discharge at maximum plant capacity, the City should evaluate the discharge outfall point to ensure that the receiving stream can handle the increased discharge rate while maintaining bank and stream stability.


6

17. 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 WWTF have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed.

18. 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.

Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 19. 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 (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

20. 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.

21. Public comments concerning cumulative impacts:

None.

22. 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 23. 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 (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.


7

24. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status

A. MPCA Nondegradation to All Waters Review

Completed

B. MPCA Facility Plan Submitted

C. MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit Application To be submitted

D. MPCA Plans and Specifications To be submitted

E. MPCA NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity

To be submitted

F. MPCA Compliance with Minnesota River Total Maximum Discharge Level

Completed

F. DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Database Review

Completed

G. Minnesota Historical Society (MHS)

Archeological and Historical Review Completed

H. DNR Temporary Water Appropriations Permit

May be submitted

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 (2003). 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 upgrade of the New Prague WWTF. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Project proposer, commenters, staff experience, and other available information. • EAW data • NPDES/SDS Permit file • Facility Plan • Nondegradation review file • Comment letters

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

New Prague WWTF Upgrade Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS

1. Carmelita Nelson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received July 18, 2006. 2. Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council. Letter received July 14, 2006. 3. Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received June 30, 2006.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW

1. Comments by Carmelita Nelson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter

received July 18, 2006. Comment 1-1: The maximum outflow from the project will nearly double the current discharge to Philips Creek. The city should evaluate the discharge point to the creek with the aim of assuring that this situation will not create unstable bank and channel conditions. Response: Good point. This comment will be passed on to the city of New Prague. Comment 1-2: The EAW should acknowledge the need for a temporary construction dewatering permit. DNR foresees no issues with construction dewatering in this area. Response: The EAW did mention the possible need for such a permit in this case. While it is not certain that this permit will be needed, if construction dewatering is required, the necessary permit will be applied for. Comment 1-3: The project’s already minimal stormwater runoff impact potential could be reduced further by converting the western portion of the project land parcel to a native landscape such as prairie. Response: This suggestion will be passed on to the city of New Prague. 2. Comments by Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council. Letter received July 14, 2006. Comment 2-1: In light of the fact that much of the planned growth to be accommodated by the project will occur in Scott County, the city should continue its close working relationship with the county to plan for this growth. Response: This will be passed on to the city of New Prague. 3. Comments by Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received June 30, 2006. Comment 3-1: There are no known historical or archaeological properties in the area to be affected by the project. Response: None required.

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

Documents