STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED WHITEWATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY EXPANSION - DOVER-EYOTA-ST. CHARLES AREA SANITARY DISTRICT FINDINGS OF FACT WINONA COUNTY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ST. CHARLES TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT

Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600 (2005), 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 Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District (DESCASD) operates an interceptor and wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), known as the Whitewater Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), that provides service to the cities of Dover, Eyota and St. Charles in Winona County, Minnesota. The interceptor consists of 53,489 feet of 15-inch, 18-inch, and 21-inch sanitary sewer. The WPCF has an average wet weather (AWW) design flow of 1.12 million gallons per day (mgd) and consists of a fine screen, mechanical bar screen, vortex grit chamber and classifier, two oxidation ditches, two final clarifiers, three dual-media tertiary effluent filters, a chlorine contact tank, “cascade” effluent aeration manholes for dechlorination, and a biosolids storage basin. Treated effluent is continuously discharged to the South Fork of the Whitewater River.

Permitting History A permit from the MPCA’s Division of Water Quality was issued in 1975. Since then, a permit authorizing the discharge has been reissued many times. The existing WPCF operates under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit No. MN0046868, which was most recently reissued in 2001.

Previous Environmental Review The MPCA staff is unaware of previous environmental review for the WPCF through the MPCA, though the proposer does have information in its archived files regarding an Environmental Assessment Statement, Environmental Evaluation Factors for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Projects and Minutes for Public Hearing and Printer's Affidavits for Notice of the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessment Statement was held March 19, 1974, at the city of St. Charles City Hall. The Environmental Assessment was prepared by McGhie & Betts, Inc., of Rochester, Minnesota. The WPCF began operation on January 1, 1978.

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Proposed Project DESCASD proposes to expand and upgrade its existing WPCF to treat an AWW design flow of 2.184 mgd (Project). The expansion will occur on the site of the existing WPCF and continue to discharge to the South Fork of the Whitewater River.

Proposed construction is scheduled to start in the summer of 2006 and will consist of the following items: • Alter existing oxidation ditch splitter box; • Raise walls on two existing oxidation ditches to increase the depth and capacity; • Construct one new oxidation ditch; • Raise walls on two existing final clarifiers and replace existing clarifier mechanisms; • Construct one new final clarifier; • Construct a final clarifier splitter structure; • Construct a chemical phosphorus removal system to assist biological removal; • Replace the Return Activated Sludge (RAS) pumps and Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) pumps; • Construct new gas chlorine disinfection facilities; • Construct new effluent cascade aeration facilities; • Construct a new site drainage/supernatant return/subnatant return lift station; • Construct a new effluent water system for wastewater plant use; • Construct a new 750,000-gallon sludge storage tank; • Provide a new effluent sampler and flow meter; • Construct associated yard piping; • Construct associated site work; • Construct associated mechanical systems; • Construct associated electrical and instrumentation and control systems; • Decommission existing effluent flow meter; • Decommission existing chlorine disinfection facilities and leave the chlorine tank in place; • Decommission existing effluent sampler; • Decommission and salvage existing RAS and WAS pumps; • Demolition of existing effluent filters; • Demolition of existing effluent water system; • Demolition of existing blower building and foundation; • Decommission and salvage existing blowers; • Construct four new aerated sludge holding tanks with a sludge mixing and transfer station and associated blowers; • Construct four new reed drying beds (7,500 square feet each) and associated sludge distribution structure; • Construct associated yard piping; • Construct associated site work;

2 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

• Construct associated mechanical systems; • Construct associated electrical and instrumentation and controls systems; and • Construct new standby power facilities.

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.

Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters The MPCA received one comment letter from a citizen, one from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and one from Winona County, all of whom raised concerns about the expanded discharge’s potential to thermally impact downstream trout habitat and to increase river bed and bank erosion. These concerns are addressed in Findings 16 and 17 below and in Appendix B, Responses to Comments document.

The citizen also raised a wide variety of additional concerns. Responses to these additional concerns raised can be found in Appendix B, Responses to Comments.

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 (2005), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on June 2, 2006

2. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to interested parties on June 8, 2006. In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on June 5, 2006, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html on June 5, 2006.

3. The public comment period for the EAW began on June 5, 2006, and ended on July 5, 2006. During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received three comment letters from government agencies and received one comment letter from a citizen.

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

3 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

5. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2005), 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 (2005). 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 (2005). 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:

Dust and noise will be generated by construction equipment during construction. Odors may also be generated from construction equipment exhaust. Equipment used during construction will include trucks, backhoes, loaders, cranes, and compressors. The nearest receptors to odors, noise and dust associated with construction of the proposed Project are both commercial and residential properties located along the force main corridor.

Odors can sometimes arise with the operation of wastewater treatment ponds; however, mechanical activated sludge treatment processes (such as the proposed Project) are aerated systems and normally do not cause odors.

4 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

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

Operation of the proposed Project will not create noise disturbances. There will be a temporary increase in noise generated by heavy machinery during construction. Noise mitigation will be achieved by requiring contractors to comply with state requirements for installation and maintenance of mufflers on construction equipment. Noise and odors from construction equipment will be controlled by restricting hours of operation to daylight hours, or those permitted by local noise ordinances. No significant noise impacts are expected.

Construction-related dust emissions will also be temporary. Measures to mitigate dust emissions from the construction activities will be employed, including application of water to areas actively graded and avoidance of construction activities during periods of high winds. Additional dust controls will include minimizing the amount of open graded area, particularly in areas with soils susceptible to wind erosion. Following completion of construction, ground not paved will be re- vegetated. No dust will be generated from the Project area after disturbed areas are re-vegetated.

The existing WPCF has not experienced significant odor problems and the proposed expansion is not expected to result in an increase in odors. The proposed reed drying beds should have less of a potential for odor problems than the current methods of biosolids handling used by the WPCF.

9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

The MPCA finds that any potential air quality effects that are reasonably likely to occur from the proposed Project would be reversible. Any air emissions or noise released to the atmosphere would not be recovered, but further emissions or noise can be stopped, if necessary. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record 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. The discharge of treated effluent to the South Fork of the Whitewater River; and

B. Erosion and sedimentation from stormwater runoff during construction of the proposed Project.

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

5 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

A. Discharge of Treated Effluent Treated effluent will be discharged to the South Fork of the Whitewater River. The quality of the effluent has the potential to degrade the receiving water’s quality.

The proposed Project meets the definition of an expanded discharge under Minn. R. 7050.0185 (2005), and this has triggered the need for a nondegradation for all waters review. A significant discharge is a flow increase of 200,000 gallons per day or more based on the AWW flow. This rule requires the Project proposer to submit additional information to the MPCA for a preliminary determination of the effluent limitations for the expanded discharge. As part of that decision, the rule requires the MPCA to consider the importance of economic development impacts of the Project, the impact of the discharge on the receiving water, the characteristics of the receiving water, the costs of additional treatment beyond what is required of non-significant dischargers, and other matters brought to the MPCA’s attention.

The MPCA has completed this review and has proposed effluent limits for the proposed Project’s discharge (shown below in Table A), which will be incorporated into the 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 proposed Project. No significant impacts to the receiving waters from the proposed Project are anticipated.

TABLE A ANTICIPATED EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT Effluent Parameter Limiting Concentration or Range 5-day Carbonaceous Biological Oxygen Demand 15 mg/L* Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/L Fecal Coliform Group Organisms 200 organisms/100 milliliter pH 6.0-9.0 Ammonia-Nitrogen • June-September 2.2 mg/L • October-November 6.5 mg/L • December-March 5.0 mg/L • April-May 4.8 mg/L Dissolved Oxygen 2.2 mg/L • April-November 6 mg/L • December-March 7 mg/L Total Phosphorus 1 mg/L mg/L = milligrams per liter

6 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

B. Erosion and Stormwater Soil will need to be excavated for the construction of the proposed Project. Disturbance of the soils will increase the chances for erosion and sedimentation. The sediment from exposed soils can be deposited in nearby water bodies, such as the South Fork of the Whitewater River, during storm events. The extent of construction stormwater impacts will depend upon the length of time required to re-establish vegetative cover, and the effectiveness of interim erosion control measures.

The Project proposer will be required to obtain an NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities 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 silt fences and rock dam checks, and seeding and re-vegetating disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction is complete. After construction is completed, turf will be established immediately.

The NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities also requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be developed to manage pollutants in stormwater runoff that may occur both during construction of the proposed Project and after the Project is in operation. The SWPPP is a detailed plan that will identify all sources of possible stormwater contamination for the Project, provide an inventory of exposed significant materials, evaluate facility areas for exposure of significant materials to stormwater, describe structural and non-structural BMPs to be used to minimize contamination of stormwater, develop a preventive maintenance program, develop a spill prevention and response procedure, develop schedules for routine inspections of BMPs, and identify personnel responsible for implementing and managing the SWPPP. SWPPP and BMP implementation strategies must be prepared prior to submitting a permit application. With the use of the aforementioned erosion control measures, impacts from construction of the Project will not be significant. The requirements of the NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities will ensure that the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff will not substantially change as a result of construction of the Project.

The existing WPCF has a stormwater collection system. A portion of the WPCF’s stormwater system will collect runoff from a curved impervious roadway area (0.30 acres) and discharge this runoff water to a flared outfall equipped with riprap for dispersion into the farm fields on the east side and on site of the facility. Another portion of the stormwater system collects runoff from curbed impervious roadway areas, buildings, and covered tanks (1.77 acres existing and 0.89 acres new), which discharges to the west side of the near the South Fork of the Whitewater River. The collected stormwater is piped to an outfall equipped with several feet of riprap for dispersion before discharging by overland flow for approximately 240 feet to the South Fork of the Whitewater River. The amount of stormwater discharged from this outfall will increase after completion of the expansion due to the increase of 0.89 acres in impervious surfaces. The dispersion over

7 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

riprap, coupled with the overland flow through long grasses, brush and trees will decrease the potential for a significant amount of sediments in the stormwater discharge from reaching the river.

In addition to the flow collected in the stormwater collection systems, a portion of the flow from new impervious areas will be dispersed by overland flow on the site. Runoff from approximately 0.55 acres of impervious roadway area (bituminous and/or gravel with no curbs) will be dispersed on the north side of the WPCF into farm fields on the site. Runoff from approximately 0.46 acres of impervious roadway area (bituminous and/or gravel with no curbs) will be dispersed on the east side of the WPCF into farm fields on the site. Runoff from approximately 0.26 acres of impervious roadway (bituminous and/or gravel with no curbs) will be dispersed on the east side of the WPCF into a field area on the site.

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 of effluent not meeting the limits stipulated in the NPDES/SDS Permit for the proposed Project would be of finite duration and the environment would be expected to ultimately return to current conditions. This Project is not reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality.

15. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality:

Three comment letters expressed concern that the proposed Project’s discharge may negatively impact the water quality of the South Fork of the Whitewater River. Two commenters, one citizen and the DNR, expressed concerns regarding the potential for thermal impacts to trout habitat downstream from the Project’s outfall. The DNR, Winona County and a citizen all expressed concerns that the increased volume of flow from the proposed Project would increase erosion of the riverbank and bed and worsen the turbidity impairment that exists in the stretch of the river where the Project will discharge. As discussed above in Findings 16 and 17 below, the MPCA’s analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.

16. Brown trout (Salmo trutta), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) can all be found in various reaches of the Whitewater River. The distance from the proposed Project’s outfall at the city of St. Charles to the beginning of the trout stream designation is 8.65 miles. The time it takes for the discharge to travel from the outfall to the point where the stream is protected for trout is approximately 16 hours (based on a river velocity of 0.8 feet per second determined during the Whitewater River Intensive Survey, carried out by MPCA staff in August 1974). Monitoring indicates that the effluent temperature ranges between 59 to 66 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with an average temperature of 64°F (included with the Responses to Comment document as Attachment 2). Effluent from the proposed Project is expected to be the same temperature as that discharged by the existing WPCF now.

The preferred temperature for trout ranges from 40-70°F depending on the stage of growth. Lethal temperatures for adult trout are generally those above 75°F.

8 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

The effluent from the existing WPCF is cooler than temperatures determined as lethal for trout. Even the warmest effluent data recorded does not approach the temperature defined as lethal for trout. Additionally, heat in the effluent that is above the ambient temperature of the stream would dissipate by the time it reaches the trout stream designation. Thermal effluent impacts are not likely to be significant.

17. The bankfull discharge is the flow during an average one to two-year flood occurrence (sometimes referred to as the 1.5 recurrence interval) and it is when channel maintenance is the most effective; that is, it is the discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and meanders, and generally doing work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of channels. The bankfull discharge does not transport the most sediment at one time, but cumulatively, it is the most effective discharge at transporting sediments over time. Therefore, the bankfull discharge, under most circumstances, has the most influence on channel formation, and we consider this discharge when trying to determine if added flow will cause additional erosion and sedimentation in a stream.

A regional curve of bankfull dimensions plotted versus drainage area has been developed by MPCA staff for 20 sites in southeastern Minnesota. Each site had at least 20 years worth of data. The regional curve, known as the Southeast Minnesota Regional Curve, is included with the Responses to Comments document as Attachment 1.

By using U.S. Geological Survey watershed maps, MPCA staff has determined the drainage area above the existing WPCF is 31 square miles. By finding this drainage area on the Southeast Minnesota Regional Curve, the estimated bankfull discharge at the outfall location is estimated to be 600 cubic feet per second (cfs). From this information, we know that the 1.64 cfs additional flow from the proposed Project will not increase the frequency of bankfull discharges and, as the additional flow will be negligible, we do not believe there is potential for significant erosion and sedimentation to the river.

Damage to a riverbed during low flows times of the year is not a concern when the receiving water is a natural stream or river. At such times, natural fluvial processes will move and shape the bed material to accommodate sediment transport. All natural channels must manage sediment as part of the convenience of water.

18. As discussed above in Findings 13 through 17 above, the MPCA’s analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.

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

20. 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.

9 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects

21. 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 (2005). A recent Minnesota Supreme Court (Court) decision has clarified the meaning of the phrase “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects.”1 The Court distinguished the “cumulative impact” analysis for generic EIS determinations under Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 11 (2005), from the project-specific “cumulative potential effects” criterion in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7 (2005).

The Court held that a “cumulative potential effects” inquiry under Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, requires a responsible governmental unit to inquire whether a proposed project, which may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects that (1) are already in existence, are actually planned for, or for which a basis of expectation has been laid; (2) are located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources.2 The MPCA’s findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

22. 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.

23. Public comments concerning cumulative impacts:

One comment letter expressed concern that the proposed Project would enable development and that the cumulative impacts of the enabled development had not been included in the Project EAW.

The Project proposal includes an expanded WWTF that will treat wastewater from the cities of Dover, Eyota, and St. Charles. The Project will not, in itself, provide sewer service to additional, currently unsewered areas. There are no known connected or phased actions to this Project proposal.

1 See Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi Board of Commissioners, 713 N.W.2d 817 (Minn. 2006). 2 Id. at 830-31.

10 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Though it is true that the availability of expanded wastewater treatment capacity may encourage new development, this development will occur only if local economics support growth. At this point in time, it is impossible to say for certain that local economics will support growth, or when and how much development might be undertaken. Given these uncertainties, it is infeasible to describe the environmental effects of enabled development in the Project EAW, and any attempt to do so would be speculative. Considering what is known at this time, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this Project.

24. 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

25. 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 (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

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

TABLE B PERMITS OR APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA Facility Plan Approval Approved B. MPCA Facility Plan Amendment No. 3 Preliminary approval C. MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit Submitted D. MPCA Plans and Specifications Approval Submitted E. MPCA NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit To be submitted for Construction Activity F. DNR Temporary Water Appropriations Permit To be submitted G. Public Facilities Authority Funding Application Submitted

27. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur.

11 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Findings of Fact Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Conclusions of Law On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement And Order St. Charles Township, Minnesota

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

28. 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 (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

29. MPCA and DNR staff assessed the geomorphology of various southeastern Minnesota streams, including the South Fork of the Whitewater River, in 1997. A draft report titled “MNDNR Region 5 – Southeastern Minnesota Evaluation of Geomorphology-Based Rosgen Stream Classification System” was compiled in 1998 and contains the information regarding the river’s depth, width, gradient, and bankfull discharge. This study provided useful information that has guided the MPCA’s decisions on the potential for erosion and sedimentation to the river from the proposed Project.

30. The MPCA’s nondegradation review document also provided key information on the drainage area above the existing WPCF outfall. This information was needed to determine the bankfull discharge of the river at the outfall location.

31. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Project. 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; • Proposed effluent limitation sheet; and • NPDES/SDS Permit Application and related application submittals.

32. 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.

33. Based on the environmental review, the draft “MNDNR Region 5 – Southeastern Minnesota Evaluation of Geomorphology-Based Rosgen Stream Classification System” report, the nondegradation review findings, 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.

12

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion - Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

1. Chris Moates, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Letter received June 26, 2006. 2. Matt Langan, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received July 5, 2006. 3. Pat Bailey, Winona County. Letter received July 5, 2006. 4. Jeff Broberg, Minnesota Trout Association. Letter received via e-mail July 5, 2006.

APPENDIX B

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Whitewater Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Expansion - Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District (DESCASD) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW

1. Comments by Chris Moates, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). Letter received June 26, 2006.

Comment 1-1: The commenter states that the proposed Project will have no significant impact to roadways under MNDOT’s jurisdiction and is acceptable to the MNDOT.

Response: These comments are noted.

2. Comments by Matt Langan, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received July 5, 2006.

Comment 2-1: The commenter notes that the proposed Project will discharge 2.2 million gallons per day (mgd), which is equivalent to 3.4 cubic feet per second (cfs), and that flow volume measurements taken from a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fisheries survey indicate that this discharge volume will add 80 percent more flow volume to the reach of the river designated as a trout stream.

Response: The referenced 2.2 mgd flow represents the existing and proposed flows combined and so the proposed Project by itself will not add 80 percent more flow volume to the reach of the river designated as a trout stream. Rather, the proposed Project will expand the existing WPCF’s average wet weather (AWW) design flow from 1.12 mgd to 2.18 mgd – an increase of 1.06 mgd or 1.64 cfs.

In an effort to determine what percentage of the river’s flow the 1.64 cfs addition would represent, MPCA staff compared it to flow monitoring records compiled over the last several decades. Low flow values for the South Fork of the Whitewater River have been calculated using the flow to drainage area method. Stream flow and flow statistics are available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) continuous gauging station (#05376500) on the South Fork Whitewater River near Altura, Minnesota, which is approximately 16 miles from the WPCF discharge point. The period of record available was from 1940 to 1971 (1,952 available data points). The drainage areas were calculated using USGS watershed maps and were calculated to be 31 square miles above the WPCF and 52.48 square miles above the trout stream reach.

The 7 or 30-day average flow having a recurrence interval of 10 years (7Q10 and 30Q10) river flows of the South Fork of the Whitewater River at St. Charles, calculated on a seasonal basis, are shown in Table 1 below. Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

TABLE 1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY FLOW DATA Season 7Q10 flow, cfs 30Q10 flow, cfs 30Q10 flow cfs (trout reach) Summer (June-September 3.9 3.98 6.67 Fall (October-November) 4.32 4.44 7.45 Winter (December-March) 3.57 3.89 6.53 Spring (April-May) 4.63 5.12 8.59

From the information provided in Table 1, the 1.64 cfs flow will represent a 35-46% increase in the 7Q10 flow of the stream depending on the season.

The median flow for the spring season (April to May) can be considered to be representative of the high flow of the river. That estimated median flow using the 1,952 available data points is 21.0 cfs. During high flow times of the year, then, the 1.64 cfs increase in flow will represent a 7.8 percent increase in the flow of the stream.

Comment 2-2: Potential environmental impacts from the proposed Project include bank erosion, bank cutting, slumping, higher flood levels, stream channel widening and incising. The commenter requests more information on effects of the increased discharge volume on bank erosion.

Response: The bankfull discharge is the flow during an average one to two-year flood occurrence (sometimes referred to as the 1.5 recurrence interval) and it is when channel maintenance is the most effective; that is, it is the discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and meanders, and generally doing work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of channels. The bankfull discharge does not transport the most sediment at one time, but cumulatively, it is the most effective discharge at transporting sediments over time. Therefore, the bankfull discharge, under most circumstances, has the most influence on channel formation, and we consider this discharge when trying to determine if added flow will cause additional erosion and sedimentation in a stream.

A regional curve of bankfull dimensions plotted versus drainage area has been developed by MPCA staff for 20 sites in southeastern Minnesota. Each site had at least 20 years worth of data. The regional curve, known as the Southeast Minnesota Regional Curve, is included with this document as Attachment 1.

By using USGS watershed maps, MPCA staff has determined the drainage area above the existing WPCF wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) is 31 square miles. By finding this drainage area on the Southeast Minnesota Regional Curve, the estimated bankfull discharge at the outfall location is 600 cfs. From this information, we know that the 1.64 cfs additional flow from the proposed Project will not increase the frequency of bankfull discharges and, as the additional flow will be negligible, the MPCA staff does not believe there is potential for significant erosion and sedimentation to the river.

Please note that the bankfull discharge should not be confused with the median flow described in the Response to Comment 2-1 above. The median flow is the average flow during spring when the river is swelled from spring rain and snowmelt. The bankfull discharge is the flow during an average one to two-year flood occurrence (sometimes referred to as the 1.5 recurrence interval).

2 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Damage to a riverbed during low flows times of the year is not a concern when the receiving water is a natural stream or river. At such times, natural fluvial processes will move and shape the bed material to accommodate sediment transport. All natural channels must manage sediment as part of the convenience of water.

Comment 2-3: The commenter states that there are potential biological impacts from a discharge of water that is warmer than the stream that might affect the trout fishery and requests more information on these potential warm water effluent effects.

Response: Brown trout (Salmo trutta), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) can all be found in various reaches of the Whitewater River. The distance from the proposed WPCF’s outfall near the city of St. Charles to the beginning of the trout stream designation is 8.65 miles. The time it takes for the discharge to travel from the outfall to the point where the stream is protected for trout is approximately 16 hours (based on a river velocity of 0.8 feet per second determined during the Whitewater River Intensive Survey, carried out by MPCA staff in August 1974). Monitoring indicates that the effluent temperature ranges between 59 to 66 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with an average temperature of 64°F (Attachment 2). Effluent from the proposed Project is expected to be the same temperature as that discharged now.

The preferred temperature for trout ranges from 40-70°F depending on the stage of growth. Lethal temperatures for adult trout are generally those above 75°F.

The effluent is cooler than temperatures determined as lethal for trout. Even the warmest effluent data recorded does not approach the temperature defined as lethal for trout. Additionally, heat in the effluent that is above the ambient temperature of the stream can be expected to dissipate by the time it reaches the trout stream designation. Thermal effluent impacts are not likely to be significant.

3. Comments by Pat Bailey, Winona County. Letter received July 5, 2006.

Comment 3-1: The commenter notes that the EAW says that the South Fork of the Whitewater River from the headwaters to the trout stream is fully supporting, but threatened, for aquatic life and that this contradicts the fact that the reach was designated as impaired for aquatic life based on turbidity and placed on the 303(d) list in 2002.

Response: The commenter is correct. The information provided in the EAW that the 2002 Minnesota 305(b) Report to the Congress of the United States identifies the South Fork of Whitewater River, from the headwaters to the trout stream portion, is fully supporting aquatic life use and that the same stretch of the river was also designated in the 2002 Minnesota 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) List as impaired for aquatic life due to turbidity is true, and contradictory. This problem is now managed by compiling the 303(b) and 303(d) reports to Congress in one submittal, where discrepancies like this can be more easily identified.

Comment 3-2: The commenter notes that the proposed Project will almost double the discharge from the existing WPCF and asks if the increased volume of discharge will affect the downstream river channel.

Response: Please refer to the response given to Comment 2-2.

3 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Comment 3-3: The commenter wishes to know the low and high flow of the river.

Response: Please refer to the response to Comment 2-1 above.

Comment 3-4: The commenter asks if the proposed discharge represents a significant increase to the river and if it will affect the frequency of times in which the river reaches bank full conditions, which, in turn, might affect channel stability and flooding.

Response: Please refer to the response given to Comment 2-2.

Comment 3-5: The commenter asks if the total suspended solids (TSS) limit can be kept at 30 milligrams per liter (mg/L), as it is in the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit, knowing that the receiving water is impaired for turbidity. She indicates that this may be inappropriate without completing a TMDL study and understanding what allocations may be dictated in the TMDL implementation plan.

Response: As stated in Item 18b of the EAW, the South Fork of the Whitewater River, from the headwaters to the trout stream portion, is listed on the 2002 Minnesota 303(d) TMDL List for aquatic life and swimming impairments. The pollutant or stressors affecting the uses are turbidity (estimated from TSS) and fecal coliform. The 30-mg/L TSS limit is equivalent to the water quality standard. The MPCA staff believes that the proposed Project’s discharge will not contribute to the turbidity problem in the river if the TSS is met. The removal of phosphorus will also reduce the TSS. Since the proposed discharge will not worsen the existing turbidity impairment, it is allowed. The proposer is aware that additional pollutant reductions may result from the TMDL study that will be undertaken in the future.

Comment 3-6: The commenter asks if four land application sites will be sufficient for the increased volume of biosolids to be created as a result of the proposed Project.

Response: Biosolids are currently applied twice a year on five land application sites. The proposed reed beds will be able to store biosolids for five to seven years. Many years will pass before biosolids will need to be land applied from the proposed Project. Should the existing five sites not suffice additional land application sites will need to be proposed for MPCA review and approval.

Comment 3-7: The commenter asks if the land application site approval process considers other materials applied to the site, the distance to the river or to karst features that may be present in the area.

Response: Yes, all of these issues are considered during the land application site approval process.

Comment 3-8: The commenter notes that expanded wastewater treatment capacity will encourage development and thus stormwater runoff from the cities of Eyota, Dover and St. Charles. She asks if the cities could work with MPCA staff and local water managers to develop erosion and sediment control and stormwater ordinances and programs so that both the quantity and quality of stormwater discharges can be managed, as well as the wastewater, to improve the condition of the South Fork of the Whitewater River.

Response: The MPCA is aware of a draft Stormwater Management Plan dated February 27, 2003, for the city of St. Charles. This report has five sections: Introduction, Physical Environment, Goals and Policies, Storm Drainage System Evaluation, and Storm Drainage System Improvement. There are several maps

4 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

and figures associated with this report. It is unclear to what extent this draft Stormwater Management Plan is being implemented. MPCA staff is unaware of plans of this type for either the cities of Dover or Eyota, and agrees with the commenter that a regionalized approach to stormwater management for the area will be helpful as the communities grow.

It should be noted that the Whitewater Watershed Project organized and sponsored a Stormwater Management Workshop on February 22, 2001, in Plainview, Minnesota. This was co-sponsored by the Southeast Minnesota League of Municipalities and the MPCA and was arranged to inform elected officials, public works staff, contractors and consultants of stormwater management and the rules.

The MPCA will support coordination and joint efforts to improve stormwater management in the South Fork Whitewater River watershed.

4. Comments by Jeff Broberg, Minnesota Trout Association. Letter received July 5, 2006.

Comment 4-1: The commenter believes that the EAW has not addressed the ability of the receiving water to handle the increased loads of contaminants and nutrients that will be discharged by the proposed Project.

Response: The MPCA does not agree with this position. The proposed effluent limits for the expanded discharge will be stringent and will ensure protection of water quality standards. Please refer to the response given to Comment 4-18 below for detailed information on how nutrient (i.e., phosphorus) loads to the receiving water will be substantially decreased as a result of the proposed Project.

Comment 4-2: The proposer believes that the EAW lacks important information about the hydraulic, thermal and chemical impact the Project will have on the receiving water and is, therefore, inadequate. He believes that it should be granted a negative declaration by the MPCA’s Citizens’ Board.

Response: Since it was unclear from the commenter’s letter whether he was affirmatively requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), MPCA staff contacted the commenter for clarification. He explained in an e-mail to the MPCA that he is not requesting an EIS, but is asking that MPCA staff respond to the Minnesota Trout Association’s questions and concerns before making a staff determination on the need for an EIS. This request is noted.

Comment 4-3: The commenter asks for more information on the increased volume of water to be discharged and its potential impact on the stability of the bed, bank and channel of the receiving water.

Response: Please refer to the response given to Comment 2-2.

Comment 4-4: The commenter asks for more information on the potential thermal impact of the proposed discharge to the receiving water, especially to trout habitat located downstream.

Response: Please refer to the response given to Comment 2-3.

Comment 4-5: The commenter asks for more information on the potential impact of untreated chemicals, such as pharmaceuticals, surfactants and pesticides, on the receiving water.

5 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Response: The Clean Water Act requires that point source discharges to surface waters be permitted. Over the past 30 years, an enormous body of information has been collected on the impacts that specific parameters (i.e., pollutants and non-pollutant factors) have on water quality and wildlife habitat. Based on this information, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has developed water quality standards for various parameters. Point source discharges may not exceed these standards and NPDES/SDS Permits are the regulatory tool used to enforce effluent limits. In addition to effluent limits, an NPDES/SDS Permit may require monitoring for parameters for which the MPCA needs more data. When the Permit is reissued (which is intended to occur every five years), the monitoring data is evaluated to determine if an effluent limit is warranted. In this way, the NPDES/SDS Permit is intended to protect surface waters from point source discharges.

Though much is known about how certain parameters impact surface waters, much is unknown about the effects of some parameters, how various parameters interact and how nonpoint sources of pollution interact with point sources of pollution. Currently, the research on the effects of pharmaceuticals and surfactants has not advanced far enough to merit the development of water quality standards, though research is ongoing. There are limited in-stream standards for some pesticides (i.e., atrazine), but there is no reasonable potential that pesticides will be found in the proposed effluent in concentrations large enough to violate the standards, so a requirement to limit or monitor pesticides was not placed in the NPDES/SDS Permit.

The NPDES/SDS Permit is reissued every five years, which provides the MPCA with an opportunity to incorporate limits and monitoring requirements, if necessary, for parameters for which new water quality standards have been developed since the previous permit issuance.

Comment 4-6: The commenter believes Item 6b of the EAW is inadequate because it does not give a detailed description of the receiving water, the fact that the receiving water is on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters for turbidity that may affect the issuance of the discharge permit. The commenter believes that placing this information in Item 6b is reasonable because the proposed Project cannot move forward without an acceptable discharge point that has the capacity to manage the proposed discharge.

Response: Item 6b of the EAW asks for a complete description of the proposed Project and related new construction emphasizing construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. When in doubt, MPCA staff refers to a document published by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) titled EAW Guidelines, which provides item-by-item guidance for those completing EAWs. It does not indicate that a detailed description of the receiving water is appropriate for Item 6 of the EAW.

The MPCA typically discusses the receiving water in Item 18 of the EAW, which asks for specific information about the surface water discharge and the potential for effects on the receiving water. The EAW Guidelines document indicates this is the appropriate place to discuss the receiving water and provides lengthy guidance on the level of detail needed. All of the information that the commenter has requested was included in Item 18 of the WPCF EAW, so it is information that was made available during the public comment period for the EAW.

The reader can access the EAW Guidelines document here: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/2000/eqb/eawrules.pdf

6 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Comment 4-7: The commenter wants to know the base flow of the river at the proposed outfall location and wishes to know how the river is currently affected by the discharge. The commenter is under the impression that the discharge from the existing WPCF constitutes the majority of the flow in the river during low flow conditions and wants to know if this is true.

Response: Information on the 7Q10 and 30Q10 flow of the river is provided in the response to Comment 2-1. The data used to develop these average flows comes from a monitoring station near Altura, Minnesota. It is the best long-term river flow data available. The average discharge from the WPCF from the past 12 months was 0.745 mgd. That average discharge represents between 16-21 percent of the 7Q10 flow.

The MPCA is unaware that the existing WPCF is impacting to the South Fork of the Whitewater River. Its discharge is authorized under NPDES/SDS Permit No. 0046868 and it complies with the limits provided in that permit.

Comment 4-8: The commenter says he has witnessed flow within the river as sudsy, gray and having an odor. He says that various residents have commented that prior to 1980 the reach downstream of the city of St. Charles would dry frequently and he wishes to know if this is true.

Response: The nearest stream monitoring station collecting data prior to 1980 is the USGS station (#05376500) near Altura, Minnesota. It collected flow data from October 1, 1939, to September 30, 1971, when its use was discontinued. During the period of record, there were no zero flows. The lowest recorded flow was 7 cfs on February 7, 1968. This implies that even prior to the WPCF’s existence there was flow in the river near Altura during dry times of the year. It is possible that the river’s flow is different nearer to the discharge point than it is at Altura, but there is no long-term stream monitoring data near the discharge point to determine this.

Comment 4-9: The commenter states that if the stream periodically dries, this indicates that hydrologically the stream is a losing reach where water in the channel infiltrates into the subsurface recharging the underlying aquifer. He asks if the South Fork of the Whitewater River is a losing reach, and, if so, wants to know the impact the proposed Project will have on ground water.

Response: Neither MPCA nor DNR staff has information indicating that the South Fork of the Whitewater River is a losing reach, though MPCA staff is aware that small tributaries upstream of St. Charles that flow to the South Fork do, at times, disappear. During high flow times, the tributaries do not lose and flow above ground to the South Fork.

From cursory reviews of topographic maps and considering the geographic formations and soils present, DNR and MPCA staff believes it is unlikely that the stretch of the South Fork downstream from the outfall is losing.

Comment 4-10: The commenter asks for upgradient and downgradient information on the stream flow, temperature, water quality, and aquatic life. He also asks for information on the channel geometry and capacity, and the channel’s depth, width, gradient, and sinuosity at the discharge point and downstream from the discharge point.

7 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Response: The reader can access various data on the Whitewater River via the MPCA’s Web site. Water quality data gathered through the Minnesota Milestone River Monitoring Program can be accessed at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/milestone-sites.html. Stream monitoring data specific to the Whitewater River can be found at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/data/eda/STresults.cfm?stID=S000- 288&stOR=MNPCA1.

In addition, the Whitewater Watershed Project (Watershed Project), which the reader references in his letter, also has information on the Whitewater River. The reader is encouraged to contact Linda Dahl, the Project Coordinator, at (507) 523-2171, extension 10 for information compiled by the Watershed Project.

Dr. Neal Mundahl of Winona University, Minnesota, has studied the fish, stream habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and water chemistry of the Whitewater River watershed. On March 15, 2006, Dr. Mundahl submitted to the MPCA a final report on a study entitled “Whitewater Watershed Project: 2004-2005 Fish Benthic Macroinvertebrate, and Habitat Assessments.” Additionally, MPCA and DNR staff assessed the geomorphology of various southeastern Minnesota streams, including the South Fork of the Whitewater River, in 1997 using the geomorphology-based Rosgen Stream Classification System. A draft report was compiled in 1998 and contains the information regarding the river’s depth, width, gradient, and sinuosity. Due to the length of Dr. Mundahl’s report and the geomorphology report, they have not been attached to this document, but copies have been sent to the commenter; others who wish for copies can contact Dana Vanderbosch at (651) 297-1796 to make this request.

Comment 4-11: The commenter wants to know if the sewer pipe connecting the three cities (Dover, Eyota and St. Charles) and routing raw wastewater to the existing WPCF are gravity pipe or force mains.

Response: The WPCF’s existing infrastructure consists of a gravity sewer interceptor system, lift station with pumps and controls, force main to the WPCF, the WPCF itself, and effluent outfall pipe. The gravity sewer interceptor begins in the city of Eyota and ends at the main lift station in the city of St. Charles. The interceptor piping ranges in size from 15 to 21 inches. The record drawings and discussions with WPCF staff indicate that the pipe materials used were either reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) or polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC). The wastewater is pumped from the lift station through a forcemain to the WPCF. The existing gravity sewer interceptor consists of the following: TABLE 2 WPCF GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR

Location Size Pipe Slope Length (feet) Eyota to Dover 15” PVC 0.22 to 2.1% 25,762 (MH 19 – MH87) Dover to St. Charles 18” PVC 0.12% to 1.8% 19,913 (MH87 – MH135)

MH 135 to Lift Station 21” RCP 0.12% to 2.2% 2,013

Approximately 124 manholes were constructed on the interceptor as part the original project. Since then, several additional manholes have been added to the interceptor. Four metering stations have been placed

8 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

along the interceptor between Eyota and St. Charles to measure the wastewater flow. In addition, the wastewater flow is measured as it enters the existing WPCF. The combination of these five metering points allows determination of the wastewater flow from each community. In St. Charles, North Star Foods is considered a significant industrial user, so the flow from North Star Foods is also measured prior to entering the sanitary sewer collection system in St. Charles. Portions of the interceptor have been televised and a manhole survey was completed in 2003 to locate the manholes along the interceptor route. Some minor cleaning and repairs have been completed and the existing metering systems have been calibrated two times each year

Comment 4-12: The commenter wants to know if the gravity pipe that runs through the floodplain of the South Fork of the Whitewater River has been evaluated for infiltration and inflow. If so, the commenter wants to know how much of the existing WPCF’s discharge is due to infiltration and inflow.

Response: The 1999 Comprehensive Plan evaluated infiltration and inflow in the WPCF’s system. The Comprehensive Plan indicated that infiltration and inflow was not excessive and recommended continued treatment of the infiltration and inflow flow at the WPCF. The infiltration and inflow data from the Comprehensive Plan was updated in the March 2003 Amendment No. 2 to the Comprehensive Plan based on historic flow data from the individual communities in the DESCASD, as well as the flow from the entire DESCASD. Recommendations from that report indicated that no further evaluation was necessary and that the DESCASD operators, and the personnel of the individual members of the DESCASD, will continue to investigate and repair possible sources of infiltration and inflow as part of their regular maintenance operations. Additional information may be available from the individual members of the DESCASD for their collection systems as the DESCASD does not own nor have responsibility over the individual members’ collection systems.

Comment 4-13: The commenter wishes to know how the population estimates have been derived. He states that the estimates do not match information available from the cities and from the State Demographer’s Office.

Response: The State Demographer from the Minnesota Department of Planning makes population growth projections for each county in Minnesota. The State Demographer does not make population projections for individual cities, but does make population projections for counties, metropolitan areas, and development regions.

Meetings were held with the individual Planning and Zoning Commissions of each community in the DESCASD. These meetings, along with a survey conducted with local developers, were used to develop the population projections. In addition, it should be noted that there is a significant industrial user within the city of St. Charles that skews the flow numbers, making the correlation between flow and population numbers vary from standard averages.

Comment 4-14: The commenter states that the river, at the discharge point, supports aquatic life, including a wide variety of non-game fish, amphibians and reptiles, some of which are listed as threatened or species of special concern. He wishes to know how the proposed discharge will affect those species.

Response: The proposed discharge is required by law to comply with water quality standards that were established with the intention of protecting water quality and aquatic life. The NPDES/SDS Permit will

9 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

ensure that the permittee complies with limits and operating conditions needed to meet water quality standards.

The DNR raised no concerns that the proposed discharge would impact non-game fish, amphibians or reptiles. The MPCA is unaware of research that indicates that WWTF effluent, such as that proposed, is toxic to these animals. Given what is known, the MPCA does not believe that the proposed Project will have significant wildlife impacts.

Comment 4-15: The proposer does not believe that the database search compiled by DNR staff from their Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame database, which searches for rare species within a one- mile radius of the discharge point, is adequate to understand the potential impacts of the proposed discharge to the receiving water. He provides an example, by saying that he recently saw a snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), a state species of special concern, near the river in St. Charles and says that this species was not in the report compiled by the DNR. He also states that wood (Clemmys insculpta) and Blanding’s (Emydoidea blandingii ) turtles - state threatened species - and bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), pickerel frogs (Rana palustris), blue racer snakes (Coluber constrictor), rat snakes (Elaphe obsolete) and fox snakes (Elaphe vulpine), all species of special concern, are present in the watershed. He asks if the water volume and quality is supportive of the existing aquatic life.

Response: As mentioned in the response to Comment 4-14, the proposed discharge is required by law to comply with water quality standards that were established with the intention of protecting water quality and aquatic life. The NPDES/SDS Permit will ensure that the permittee complies with limits and operating conditions needed to meet water quality standards. There is no legal protection for species of special concern and the DNR raised no concerns that the proposed discharge would impact the species mentioned by the commenter. Given what is known, the MPCA does not believe that the proposed Project will have significant wildlife impacts.

It should be noted that snapping turtles were placed on the DNR’s list as a species of special concern when there were no regulations on their commercial harvest. Since there are now regulations in place, the DNR does not actively track that species and, as they are abundant statewide, the DNR plans to de-list them in the future. This explains why they did not appear on the DNR’s report when they reviewed this Project proposal. Additionally, bullfrogs, pickerel frogs, and fox snakes are not identified by the DNR as species of special concern (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ets/amphibians.html).

Comment 4-16: The commenter says that the trout stream designation begins 3.2 miles downstream from the WPCF’s discharge point and notes that the EAW states it is 9 miles downstream. He asks for clarification on the discrepancy.

Response: According to Minn. R. 6264.0050, subp. 4(ZZ)(44), the trout stream designation for the South Fork of the Whitewater River begins at Township 106, Section 1, Range 10 and includes: Township 106, Section 6, Range 9; Township 107, Section 31, Range 9; Township 107, Section 10 and Ranges 3, 1, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 36. The Township 106, Section 1, Range 10 stretch is closest to the WPCF discharge point and is 8.65 miles away, taking the river’s meandering into consideration.

Comment 4-17: The commenter asks for information regarding how water in the upper reaches of the South Fork of the Whitewater River supports aquatic life in the portion downstream designated as trout stream. He wishes to know what impact variations or increases in flow and water quality have on trout.

10 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Response: Please refer to the responses to Comments 2-2 and 2-3 for information on how the proposed Project may impact the downstream trout habitat.

Comment 4-18: The commenter wants to know the effect that the 79 pounds of phosphorus discharged per day has on the receiving water. Further, he wants to know if the proposed Project will result in the production of additional filamentous algae.

Response: The influent arriving at the existing WPCF contains an average of 79 pounds of phosphorus per day. The effluent discharge contains an average of 51 pounds of phosphorus per day. It is difficult for the MPCA to determine how much of the algae present in the river can be attributable to the WPCF discharge because the river receives many point and nonpoint discharges that confound the assessment.

The existing NPDES/SDS Permit for the WPCF does not include an effluent phosphorus limit. The proposed Project will operate under a 1 mg/L effluent phosphorus limit. The addition of this effluent limit will ultimately result in a substantial reduction in phosphorus discharged from the WPCF.

Table 3 below summarizes the annual average phosphorus loadings from the proposed Project to the South Fork of the Whitewater River and how this loading will decrease dramatically as a result of the proposed 1 mg/L effluent phosphorus limit.

TABLE 3 PHOSPHORUS LOADING DATA Flow Phosphorus concentration Mass load (mg/L) (pounds per year) Current design capacity (1.12 mgd) 7.4 25,243 Actual average (0.745 mgd) 7.4 17,935 Proposed design capacity (2.184 mgd) 1 6,651

Comment 4-19: The commenter notes that the EAW does not describe the quantity of wastewater constituents such as pharmaceuticals (including hormone and hormone mimics), antibiotics, psychotrophic drugs, caffeine, surfactants, and detergents. He states that some of these compounds have been shown to affect native fish populations, creating gender imbalances and suspected reproduction problems. He wants to know if sampling and testing has been completed to determine the rate of discharge of unregulated compounds to the receiving water.

Response: Please refer to the response for Comment 4-5.

Comment 4-20: The commenter wants to know if pharmaceuticals, surfactants and other chemicals are currently discharged without treatment and if such discharges will continue after the WPCF has been expanded. He asks what effect these compounds will have on the receiving water.

Response: The wastewater treatment process does not specifically target pharmaceuticals, surfactants and other chemicals. Please refer to the response given to Comment 4-5 for more information.

Comment 4-21: The commenter asks for a copy of the water quality data referenced in Item 18b of the EAW.

11 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Response: The commenter and other readers can access this data through the Minnesota Milestone River Monitoring Program at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/milestone-sites.html. Stream monitoring data specific to the Whitewater River can be found at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/data/eda/STresults.cfm?stID=S000-288&stOR=MNPCA1.

Comment 4-22: The commenter asks for information on the trout populations and trout population trends in the receiving water downgradient from the WPCF’s discharge point.

Response: The DNR has managed the South Fork of the Whitewater River for more than 30 years. As the MPCA does not track fisheries information, the commenter would be best served by contacting Fisheries Specialist Vaughn Snook from the DNR’s Lanesboro office at (507) 467-2442 for information on the trout populations in southeastern Minnesota.

Comment 4-23: The commenter believes that the DNR Stream Surveys and trout population estimates should be a part of the official record in the EAW.

Response: The proposed effluent limits will protect water quality standards for the receiving water. Additionally, the responses to Comments 2-2 and 2-3 explain that the proposed Project is not reasonably expected to have a significant impact on the downstream trout habitat. Therefore, the MPCA does not believe this detailed fisheries information is needed for the WPCF EAW record.

Comment 4-24: The commenter asks for information regarding the potential for failure of the dechlorination system. He believes that chlorine should be strictly forbidden due to its toxicity. He wants to know if there is redundancy in the dechlorination system to assure zero discharge of chlorine.

Response: The commenter’s concerns and position regarding chlorination are noted. The proposed Project will not have redundancy for it dechlorination system, but the DESCASD will ensure that a back- up pump is on site in the event of a pump failure. The MPCA’s professional experience with permitting WWTFs indicates that failure of dechlorination systems resulting in a discharge toxic to aquatic organisms is rare.

Comment 4-25: The commenter states that the proposed discharge limits are acceptable and an excellent improvement, due to the new proposed dissolved oxygen limits.

Response: The comment is noted.

Comment 4-26: The proposer notes that there is no mention of the Watershed Project in Item 18b of the EAW. He says it is federally funded and addresses a wide range of watershed issues. He wants to know how the proposed Project compares with the recommendations and goals of the Watershed Project.

Response: The commenter is correct that the Watershed Project should have been referenced in Item 27 – Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. The Watershed Project, which operates through a partnership of watershed citizens, governmental agencies, environmental groups, and businesses, focuses on improving water quality, reducing sedimentation and flooding, and improving habitat for all plants and animals. The goals of the Watershed Project are fairly broad, do not specifically reference the WPCF, and participation is voluntary.

12 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Considering the proposed Project will operate under more stringent limits than it does presently (including an effluent phosphorus limit that will substantially reduce the load of phosphorus discharged) and that effluent limits within the NPDES/SDS Permit are expected to result in an effluent that does not violate water quality standards, the proposed Project seems to be compatible with the goals of the Watershed Project. Various local units of government received copies of the EAW and did not provide comment to the contrary.

Comment 4-27: The commenter believes that Item 18b of the EAW is inadequate because it does not describe the river’s flow, geomorphology, water quality, seasonal variations and aquatic life residing within the river.

Response: Neither the question asked in Item 18 of the EAW, nor guidance published by the EQB for completing EAWs, indicate that this level of detail on the receiving water is necessary or appropriate for the scope of an EAW, which is intended to be a brief review of available information. Since the Project will comply with effluent limits that will ensure protection of water quality standards, no significant impact to the receiving water’s quality is anticipated.

As mentioned previously, MPCA and DNR staff assessed the geomorphology of various southeastern Minnesota streams, including the South Fork of the Whitewater River in 1997 using the geomorphology- based Rosgen Stream Classification System. A draft report was compiled in 1998 and contains information regarding the river’s depth, width, gradient, and sinuosity. A copy of this report will be sent to the commenter. Others who wish for a copy of the report can contact Dana Vanderbosch at (651) 297-1796 to make this request.

Comment 4-28: The commenter questions the statement in Item 18b of the EAW under the heading “Impaired water issue” that states that the proposed Project will not contribute to the turbidity problem if the TSS limit is met due to his concerns that the increased volume of discharge will erode the stream banks and load more sediment into the river.

Response: The statement was made to respond to the likelihood that the TSS load in the expanded discharge would worsen the existing turbidity impairment. For more information on the expanded discharge’s potential to scour the river bed or banks and create additional sedimentation, please refer to the response to Comment 2-2.

Comment 4-29: The commenter wants more information on the geotechnical evaluation, which identified a potential for sinkhole formation in the area of the proposed reed beds if those beds are not lined. He wants a copy of the report and a full description of the report’s findings.

Response: As mentioned in Item 19 of the EAW, the geotechnical evaluation found that there will be negligible risks of sinkhole development beneath most of the tank structures as long as surface water is directed away from the structures so that the carbonate bedrock is not exposed to moisture, which encourages dissolution. The evaluation recommends that either a synthetic liner or two feet of compacted clay be provided for any structures that store fluid and are less than five feet from soluble bedrock. The report says that a liner should not be needed if the fluids are contained within tank structures that bear on a poured slab.

The report identifies a potential for sinkhole formation in the area of the proposed reed beds if they are not lined and recommends that the reed bed fluids be collected and diverted outside the structure to

13 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

reduce the risks. The proposed plan is to provide a 40 milliliter PVC liner and subnatant collection system that will pump the liquid (subnatant) portion of the solids to the head of the treatment process, where it will be sent through the WPCF for further treatment.

The MPCA will insure that the potential problems identified by the geotechnical report are addressed during the review and approval of the plans and specifications for the proposed expansion.

The geotechnical evaluation report is 44 pages in length. Due to its length, it has not been attached to this document. A copy has been sent to the commenter; others who wish for a copy can contact Dana Vanderbosch at (651) 297-1796 to make this request.

Comment 4-30: The commenter believes that Item 19 of the EAW should include the evaluation of stream bank erosion completed by the Whitewater Watershed Project. The commenter further believes that because the discharge will flow to a river where stream bank erosion occurs, the Facility Plan should address where the problems occur, whether the facility causes or contributes to stream bank erosion, and how mitigation will be accomplished.

Response: The commenter does not explain why he believes that the evaluation of stream bank erosion completed by the Whitewater Watershed Project should be included in the EAW. Information already at the MPCA’s disposal indicates that there is no reason to suspect that the proposed Project will reasonably cause significant erosion within the South Fork of the Whitewater River (see the response given to Comment 2-2).

Comment 4-31: The commenter notes that the EAW does not describe potential for cumulative impacts due to increased flow, nutrients and contamination to the receiving water. He asks if the river will be able to sustain a viable breeding population of trout over the next 50 or 100 years if the three cities continue to grow and discharge to the river.

Response: The commenter is directed to the response to Comments 2-1 and 2-2 for information on cumulative impacts from increased volumes of discharge flow to the river. The response to Comment 4- 18 describes how nutrient loading will be substantially reduced as a result of the proposed Project. The proposed effluent limits described in Item 18b of the EAW were determined by considering the background water quality of the river and will ensure protection of the rivers water quality standards.

The commenter asks for a projection of trout populations for the next 50-100 years. The EAW is required to consider the potential for cumulative effects between the proposed Project and those planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. Potential future development projects are dependent on local economics. At this point in time, it is impossible to say for certain when and how much growth will be undertaken during the coming decades. Given these uncertainties, it is infeasible to describe the cumulative effects of long-term enabled development in the WPCF EAW, and an attempt to do so would be speculative. Considering what is known at this time, the potential for significant cumulative effects between the proposed Project and development planned for the foreseeable future that will be serviced by the proposed Project is not believed to be significant.

Comment 4-32: The commenter states that the EAW does not provide any tangible evidence that wastewater treatment technology can continue to discharge to the South Fork of the Whitewater River and mitigate the impact of rapid growth.

14 Whitewater Pollution Control Facility Expansion – Responses to Comments on the Dover-Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District Environmental Assessment Worksheet St. Charles Township, Minnesota

Response: The wastewater treatment technology planned to be used for the proposed Project will be sized to manage flows that are expected for the next 20 years. The MPCA has reviewed this proposal and finds that, as sized, this treatment technology will be adequate to meet the limits and conditions that will be placed in the NPDES/SDS Permit for the proposed Project.

This environmental review cannot comment on applicability of the proposed treatment technology for growth and development expected beyond the 20-year design of the facility and the possible need to expand the proposed Project or upgrade its treatment technology at some later point in time. Environmental review for a future expansion or facility rehabilitation, if required, will occur at a later time.

Comment 4-33: The commenter believes that the options to land apply, spray irrigate or infiltrate the discharge should be explored in more detail. He also notes that created wetlands can be used to manage treated effluent.

Response: The MPCA appreciates this information, but notes that completion of an EAW does not require an examination or a comparison of all alternatives available to a proposer, nor does the MPCA assist the proposer in choosing an option. Local units of government decide which alternative best meets their needs, based on a variety of criteria. The MPCA’s role when completing an EAW is to evaluate the chosen option for potential environmental impacts.

Comment 4-34: The commenter believes that the risk of sinkhole formation appears minimal in comparison to a permanent degradation of the trout stream.

Response: The comment is noted.

15