STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SHETEK AREA WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM FINDINGS OF FACT MURRAY COUNTY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CURRIE, MINNESOTA 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 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
Project Overview
The Shetek Area Water and Sewer Commission (SAWSC), Murray County, is proposing to construct a new sewage collection system around area lakes and expand the city of Currie’s (City) Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) to treat a total Average Wet Weather Flow (AWW) of 319,000 gallons per day (gpd). The WWTF would serve Currie, as well as developed areas within the SAWSC. Ultimately, the project is designed to accommodate an additional 297 Equivalent Domestic Units (EDUs) (connections) of future growth, for a total of 983 EDUs. The expanded WWTF would be located east of the City, and would discharge treated effluent to the West Fork of the Des Moines River.
Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in the summer of 2005. The project would be divided into four parts – three parts would involve construction of the wastewater conveyance system, and the fourth would involve the construction of the new wastewater stabilization ponds. The collection and treatment facility system is scheduled to begin operation in the summer of 2006.
Previous Environmental Review
The existing Currie wastewater treatment facility has never undergone environmental review since its flows did not meet the thresholds which require development of an EAW. As a result of the proposed expansion, Minnesota Rules require that an EAW be developed.
TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Compliance History
The facility was initially constructed in the early 1970’s and upgraded in 2000. The facility was last issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit in 2000. There is no history of compliance problems with the existing Currie WWTF.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed New Construction/Proposed Modification
Ultimately, the project is designed to accommodate an additional 297 EDUs of future growth, for a total of 983 EDUs. The city of Currie’s WWTF currently has an AWW of 87,000 gpd. After the proposed project is completed, the AWW for the regionalized system would be 319,000 gpd. The expanded WWTF would be located east of the City, and would discharge treated effluent to the West Fork of the Des Moines River.
Sewage Collection System
The entire length of sewer pipe that would be needed to service the project area is 33.8 miles. This would include 10.5 miles of gravity sewer pipe, 25 lift stations, and 23 miles of forcemain. The proposed conveyance system would be placed along established roadways and easements, where feasible. In addition, a portion (a total of 6100 linear feet) of the sewer pipe would be routed eight feet beneath the lakebed.
The intent of the project is to serve existing homes and businesses primarily along the shoreline of Lake Shetek, Lake Sarah, the Inlet, Smith Lake, Park Lake, Fremont Lake, Bloody Lake, and Armstrong Slough. The proposed sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system would commence on the northeast side of Lake Sarah along North Shore Drive, Lazy Lake Lane, and Benjamin’s Road. Wastewater would then be conveyed by forcemain south along the U.S. Highway 59 right of way to 201st Street (County Road [CR] 16) where it would tie into a forcemain which is directing wastewater flow collected from the south side of Lake Sarah along Pioneer Trail and Shady Lake Road.
Wastewater would then be conveyed by forcemain along the 155th Avenue and 201st Street (County Road 16) right of ways to the intersection of U.S. Highway 59 and 201st Street (CR 16). All wastewater flows from Lake Sarah would then be conveyed easterly along the north right of way of 201st Street (CR 50) to 180th Avenue and continue easterly to a point of intersection with the forcemain serving the Inlet development area (Pioneer Lane).
The sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system would convey flow from the Brasco Enterprises Camp Site on Armstrong Lane on the northeast side of Lake Shetek westerly to Bluestem Road, Owanka Lane, Dudley Drive to Koch Circle, and then northerly along Teepeeotah, Eastlick Trail and Dear Path Road. Wastewater from Dear Path Road would be conveyed along the north shore of Lake Shetek within the right of way for Sandbar Road, across the inlet where it intersects with the forcemain from the inlet.
2 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Sanitary sewer flows from Lake Sarah, the Inlet and the northeast and north sides of Lake Shetek would be conveyed southerly along the westerly side of Lake Shetek within the Pleasant View Road and Lakeview Drive right of ways to the intersection with Valhalla Road (CR 13).
Sanitary sewer flows, including that from Edgewater Bay and Lakeview Drive, would be routed easterly on Valhalla Road (CR 13) to the southerly point of Keeley Drive. Sanitary sewer flows would then be pumped by forcemain across Lake Shetek through the Boy Scout Camp, to the main lift station located on Hudson Road.
The sanitary sewer collection system would also be routed along the south shore of Lake Shetek from Sioux Trail, through the Baptist Camp to South Shore Drive, and then underneath Lake Shetek to Hudson Road. Wastewater from the State Park would be pumped by forcemain to the collection system on Smith Lake Drive and Foreman Road to Hudson Road.
The main lift station would pump the collected wastewater flows from all the service connections within the service area via forcemain to the WWTF located approximately 1.5 miles east of the City. The forcemain route would begin at Hudson Road, continuing to 166th Street, then easterly on 166th Street to County Road 38, southerly along County Road 38 to 161st Street, easterly 1 mile to the intersection with 210th Avenue, southerly along a property line for 0.5 mile, and easterly for 0.5 mile, to the WWTF site.
Sewer Construction Methods
A. Land Crossings
The majority of the sewer pipe would be installed on land surrounding area lakes using conventional methods, such as open trench construction. Open trench construction activities would include excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, grading, compacting, de-watering, and re-vegetation of disturbed areas.
The proposed sanitary sewer line would include sections that are forcemain and sections that are gravity flow. Forcemain pipe sizes would range from 4-inch to 12-inch pipe, with some 1.25-inch to 2-inch pipe associated with individual home grinder stations. Gravity flow pipe sizes would range from 8-inch to 12-inch pipe. The following is a breakdown of the collection system piping that would be installed:
• Force main (Directional Drilled) 50,000 L.F. (9.5 mi) • Force main (Open Cut) 73,000 L.F.(13.8 mi) • Gravity Sewer (Directional Drilled) 1,300 L.F. (0.3 mi) • Gravity Sewer (Open Cut) 54,000 L.F.(10.2 mi) TOTAL 178,300 L.F.(33.8 mi) *Linear Feet (L.F.) * Miles (mi)
3 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Where homes cannot be served by a gravity sewer due to topographic constraints, the wastewater generated from the home would be “lifted” to the wastewater collection system located within the right-of-way with a grinder pump station. The grinder pump grinds waste material into small particles. Generally, the grinder pump station would be installed between the home and the collection system, with a small diameter pressure pipe drilled underground to connect with the collection system located within the right-of-way.
In most instances, the sewer pipe would be placed within the road right-of-way or on the house-side opposite the lake and would be approximately 150 to 300 feet from the lake. The pipe would be buried six feet below the soil surface.
B. Water Crossings
Forcemain will cross the lake in seven places. Waterbody crossings for the forcemain are to be completed using directional drilling techniques. The starting–stopping points for directional drilling will be 200 feet from the lakeshore at a minimum, wherever feasible. The pipe would be drilled eight feet below the bottom of the lake to prevent impacts to the lake’s ecosystem and to prevent freezing of the pipes during harsh winter conditions.
WWTF - Stabilization Ponds
Sewage collected from the service area would be routed to the Currie Regional WWTF, located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Lake Shetek and 1 mile east of the City. Wastewater treatment at the existing Currie WWTF is currently accomplished using a three-cell stabilization pond system. The proposed Regional WWTF would consist of a total of six ponds. The three new stabilization ponds (encompassing approximately 50 acres) would be located on a 60-acre site just east of the city’s three existing ponds. The land is currently being used for agricultural purposes. The system would be designed such that both of the three-pond systems would operate in parallel. In addition, both three-pond systems would outlet to the same discharge point in the West Fork of the Des Moines River.
As part of the construction of the new regionalized facility, new pond piping, control structures, pond liners, and riprap to stabilize the pond dikes would be installed. Construction activities and equipment used would generally be the same as that described for construction of the collection system.
The proposed stabilization ponds would provide a 180-day detention time. Effluent from the stabilization ponds would be discharged twice a year, once in the spring and again in the fall when stream flow is typically higher. The facility would be designed to meet the 20-year growth needs of the planning area.
Environmental Concerns
Air Quality • Odor
4 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Traffic • Traffic Disruptions During Construction
Water Quality • Possible Sewer Collection System Ruptures/Sewage Backups During Power Outages • Stabilization Pond Impacts to Ground Water • Impacts of Wastewater Effluent on the West Fork of the Des Moines River • Wetland Impacts and Water Crossings • Impacts to Private Wells
Natural Resources • Construction Impacts to Trees/Wildlife • Visual Impacts to Trees/Wildlife
Archeological Resources • Possible Impacts to Archeological Resources
Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters • The appropriate selection of a treatment system for Lake Shetek • The projected cost of the project
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18C, 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 September 10, 2004.
2. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to Murray County, as well as, other interested parties on September 14, 2004. In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on September 13, 2004, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html on September 13, 2004.
3. The public comment period for the EAW began on September 13, 2004, and ended on October 13, 2004. A public meeting was held on this project in Slayton, Minnesota on September 29, 2004, to provide citizens with an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments. During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received 3 comment letters from government agencies and 11 comment letters from citizens. After the comment period ended, the MPCA received a letter from one government agency.
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.
5 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
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: • Odor Impacts
8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:
Odor Impacts
Although the proposed sewer pipe is long (approximately 33 miles) and includes numerous lift stations and manhole covers, odor impacts are expected to be minimal. All of the 25 major lift stations will have odor control devices on them. Each of these stations is equipped with a vent pipe that includes a replaceable 11-inch deep activated carbon filter to control odors. The smaller lift stations and the manholes are normally sealed to prevent inflow into the sewer. As a result, odor is not expected to be a problem for residents living near them.
6 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
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:
Some comment letters expressed a general concern for odor impacts from the sewer pipe, lift stations and manhole covers. As discussed above in Sections 8 and 9, the analysis indicates that the effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.
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 due to traffic: • Traffic Impacts
14. The extent of any potential traffic that are reasonably expected to occur:
Traffic Impacts
The construction and placement of the sewer pipe may take two years, however, the impact to adjacent residents and businesses will be of a much shorter duration. For the areas where the roadway will be temporarily closed to through traffic, the contractor must provide a sanitary service installation crew and a street maintenance or reconstruction crew within a few days of the main line sewer installation crew. Affected residents and businesses, as well as the fire department and police, will be notified prior to any temporary road closures. All roads will be opened to through traffic during holidays, weekends, and at the end of each workday. The Contractor must provide access to all areas if an emergency arises and will work with residents so that they can get in and out of their neighborhood when needed.
7 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Minimal effects on traffic are anticipated on highways such as state Highway 59, as the pipe would be placed using directional drilling, or would be far enough away from the travel surface that traffic disruption would be insignificant. Directional drilling would be used to place the pipe under County Road 13/Valhalla Road (access to Keeley Island) and County Road 38 between Lake Shetek and the WWTF. Tunneling under these roads is not expected to result in major traffic impacts, although minimal traffic disruption, such as minor slow-downs, may occur during the short period of tunneling.
15. The reversibility of any potential traffic impacts 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 traffic are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on traffic.
16. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to traffic:
Some comment letters expressed concern that traffic disruptions and reduced access to homes will result from construction of the new wastewater collection system. As discussed above in Sections 14 and 15, the analysis indicates that the effects on traffic that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.
17. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because:
All potential impacts to traffic that are reasonably expected to occur from the new wastewater collection and treatment facility 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 traffic based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur.
19. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to water quality: • Sewer Collection System Ruptures/Sewage Backups During Power Outages • Stabilization Pond Impacts to Ground Water • Impacts of Treated Wastewater on the West Fork of the Des Moines River • Wetland and Water Crossings • Impacts to Private Wells
20. The extent of any potential water quality issues that are reasonably expected to occur:
Sewer Collection System Ruptures/Sewage Backups During Power Outages
The project, as proposed, meets all of the MPCA’s existing standards and rule requirements. A number of safeguards have been designed into the proposed project.
8 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
The entire length of the sewer line would be installed in accordance with accepted engineering practices and the Ten State Standards. The sewer pipe would be leak tested prior to use to ensure there are no leaking joints or cracked piping. Conveyance lines would be placed on granular bases to prevent movement or undue pressures on the lines. Gravity lines would be constructed of pipe with the appropriate strength for sanitary sewer construction and its joints would be gasketed to prevent leakage.
Flows would be monitored at each lift station upstream and downstream of every forcemain which crosses the lake. Smaller lift stations contain alarms for high and low wet well water levels. Each of these lift stations also have run-time meters that are checked daily. Larger lift stations (lift stations number 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) are further monitored by a SCADA System. The SCADA System monitors and records alarms and flow trends of all data for the aforementioned lift stations. SCADA computer, printer, and related items will be installed at the WWTF in Currie, Minnesota. Remote access software will be included to allow remote monitoring and diagnostics of the system by the operator via a standard dial-up telephone line. By monitoring lift station flows, the operator will be made aware of any problem in the forcemain.
Forcemains would be pressure-rated polyvinyl chloride or ductile iron pipe. Ruptures in forcemain pipe are not common and typically are more likely to occur in piping that is very old or compromised. In the unlikely event that a leak would occur under the lakes, shutoff valves would be employed upstream and downstream of the ruptured pipe to minimize the spill, and the damaged pipe would then be promptly repaired.
Installation of monitoring systems, valve systems that can be used to reduce wastewater spillage and the availability of vacuum trucks to address potential sewage backups during power outages are considered reasonable safety measures for a system such as this. No additional measures are currently required by the state for the project which has been described.
Stabilization Ponds Impacts to Ground Water
The proposed stabilization ponds would be designed so that they provide effective ground-water protection. At least four feet of separation between the bottom of the pond and ground water is required. The bottom of each of the three new ponds will have a clay liner. The liner would be required to meet the MPCA seepage rates of no more than 500 gallons per acre per day. This seepage rate would be verified through a water balance test prior to start-up of the facility.
9 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Impacts of Treated Wastewater to the West Fork of the Des Moines River/Lake Talcot
A Nondegradation of All Waters Review was required for the proposed project to determine whether the expanded facility should be required to perform additional treatment of its wastewater. The Nondegradation Review was completed and approved by the MPCA on March 23, 2004. No additional treatment requirements beyond those required of a nonsignificant discharger were applied to this facility.
The newly expanded facility would be required to treat wastewater to the level that ensures the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of cool and warm sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life, and their habitats. The water must also be suitable for all kinds of aquatic recreation, including bathing.
The West Fork of Des Moines River is the receiving stream for the effluent from Currie’s regionalized wastewater facility. The Des Moines River eventually drains to the Mississippi River system. The Des Moines River has been given use classifications of 2B, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6, which are described below:
• Class 2 waters -- aquatic life and recreation.
• Class 3 waters -- industrial consumption.
• Class 4 waters -- agriculture and wildlife.
• Class 5 waters -- aesthetic enjoyment and navigation.
• Class 6 waters -- other uses.
WWTF effluent would be discharged to the West Fork of the Des Moines River, which flows 15- 20 miles before entering Talcot Lake. Talcot Lake is a shallow, hyper-eutrophic (overly enriched) lake that was monitored by the MPCA during the summer 2002. Talcot Lake is not listed on Minnesota’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. Summer mean Total Phosphorus and chlorophyll-a concentrations were among the highest found in a statewide shallow lakes study.
Monitoring data for the past three years were used to estimate annual loads of phosphorus to Talcot Lake. Currie’s existing facility (at 87,000 gpd) could potentially discharge up to 265 pounds of phosphorus per year to the lake. Its actual load was approximately half of that. The new facility (319,000 gpd) will be required to meet a 1 milligram per liter (mg/L) phosphorus limit. This is approximately one-half of the concentration of phosphorus typically discharged from a pond facility. The concentration of the current facility is approximately one mg/L. Since the new facility will discharge an increased volume of water, the new facility will ultimately discharge 1240 pounds at the wet weather design flow.
10 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
The new facility will contribute 1-2 percent of the total load of phosphorus to Talcot Lake during an average to dry year and approximately 0.5 percent of the total load during a wet year. Based on the hyper-eutrophic status of Talcot Lake, removal of phosphorus to one mg/L will not reduce the abundance of algae in the lake or increase water clarity significantly. The MPCA staff carefully reviewed whether effluent discharged from this facility would cause phosphorus-related impacts downstream. Staff concluded that imposing a one mg/L phosphorus limit on the facility will minimize the impact of the expanded discharge as a portion of the cumulative load to the West Fork of the Des Moines River and Talcot Lake. The over-abundance of algae is an issue for the Des Moines River, downstream of the City and all other reaches of the Des Moines River further downstream, near the Iowa border. The slope of the river is very gradual and inorganic solids are relatively low during average to low flow conditions. These characteristics of the river, coupled with high phosphorus concentrations, are ideal for riverine algal production. There is strong evidence that the Des Moines River has a high internal production of algae. Analysis by MPCA has shown that total phosphorus is positively correlated with total chlorophyll abundance and biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the Minnesota River. The monitoring station on the Des Moines River (WDM-3) had the highest summer average total chlorophyll of all rivers monitored in the state for this study in 2001. The Des Moines River is on MPCA’s 2004 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) list due to the river’s dissolved oxygen levels, fecal coliform, ammonia, and turbidity impairments. The MPCA is currently working to develop a TMDL for the Des Moines River downstream of Windom, however, the Total Phosphorus-Chlorophyll-BOD linkage has not been established for the Des Moines River system at this point in time. Once a TMDL is developed for the Des Moines River, more stringent effluent limitations may be imposed on all point sources of pollution in the watershed. This could include the Currie WTTF. Until then, the MPCA will require this facility to meet a one mg/L phosphorus limit in an effort to protect downstream waters from further degradation. To protect designated uses of the Des Moines River, the expanded WWTF would have to meet all of the following effluent limitations. The following effluent limits are consistent with 122.44 (d) (1) and will not cause or contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.
Substance or Characteristics Limiting Concentration or Range CBOD5 25 mg/L TSS 45 mg/L Fecal Coliform 200 organisms/100 milliliters pH (Range) Not less than 6 or greater than 9.0 Phosphorus 1 mg/L (monthly average)
Phosphorus removal would be accomplished by applying alum to the ponds on a periodic basis. MPCA would also require the City to monitor odors, vegetation in ponds, ice cover, precipitation and other factors that could influence the effectiveness of the pond system. The City would be allowed to discharge treated effluent from the ponds between April and October of each year.
11 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Wetland Impacts
Most wetlands will be avoided completely by directionally boring the sewer pipe underneath them. No impacts to the wetlands will occur in these cases. In a few cases, minor, temporary impacts to some undelineated wetlands may occur, particularly in depressions and low areas. In these areas, the pipe will be installed using a trenching method of excavation. It is estimated that impacts may affect a total of approximately 0.25 acres of land.
In these cases, if good quality wetland plant species are present, a minimum of one foot of bottom sediment will be excavated, salvaged, then re-distributed over disturbed wetland areas during restoration to replace the native seedbed. If wetland areas are highly disturbed and are dominated by invasive species, the topsoil would not be reused; instead, the restored wetland areas would be seeded with a native wetland seed mix. In either case, the original grade contours would be restored after construction, and therefore, pre-construction drainage patterns would not be altered by the project. Prior to construction through any wetland areas, a Wetland Conservation Act Certificate of Exemption would be required as approval for the temporary impacts to the wetlands due to the utility construction.
Water Crossings
In order to serve island development within Lake Shetek at a reasonable cost, the SAWSC determined that the seven lake crossings were unavoidable. In areas where it is necessary to cross a waterbody, plans are to directional drill the pipe installation under the waterbody in order to prevent impacts. The pipe will be drilled eight feet below the lakebed to ensure that aquatic habitats will not be disturbed. Pipes buried at this depth also are not at risk of freezing.
Ruptures or breakages in sewer pipes are rare. However, in preparation for such an event, the Sewer Commission has included a number of protective measures in the design of this system. The sewer will include a wastewater flow and sewer pressure monitoring system that will alert the operator to potential problems in the system, as well as shut-off valves on the upstream and downstream sides of the lake to reduce the potential for sewage spills. These are considered reasonable safety measures for a system such as this. No additional measures are currently required by the state for projects where sewer pipe is placed under a body of water.
12 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters Inventory (PWI) map for Murray County indicates several DNR public waters are present within the project area. The EAW shows the project area portion of the Murray County PWI map. The PWI waterbodies include: Smith Lake (51-27P), Unnamed lake (51-29P), Fremont Lake (51-39P), Bloody Lake (51-40P), Lake Shetek (51-46P), Lake Sarah (51-63P), Unnamed lake (51-108P), Armstrong Slough (51-45W), Unnamed wetland (51-64W), Unnamed wetland (51-109W), an unnamed creek connecting Lake Sarah and Lake Shetek, and an unnamed creek connected to the southwestern end of Lake Shetek.
Because of the proposed crossings of some of these waterbodies, a Crossing License from the DNR would be required. Correspondence and discussion with the DNR regarding the crossings has been initiated and is ongoing. Preliminary information from the DNR indicates that they would require the installation of shut off valves at the upstream and downstream end of each underwater crossing (these valves are already included in the proposed project design). The DNR would also require the directional drilling to start and finish at least 200 feet away from the Ordinary High Water level of 1482.6, where feasible. The project proposer is working to address some questions from the DNR regarding erosion control and tree removal/replacement. Plans and specifications would also be submitted to the DNR for their review and recommendation before construction begins.
Private Well Impacts
Seven private, domestic wells have been located within 50 feet of the sanitary sewer collection system to date. It is conceivable that additional wells will be located during construction of sanitary sewer facilities. Two private wells are located 15 feet and 25 feet from the sanitary sewer on Sioux Trail on the southwest side of Lake Shetek. Another well is located 20 feet from the sanitary sewer on Duley Drive on the northeast side of Lake Shetek. There are two private wells on Bluestem Road located 20 feet and 30 feet from the sanitary sewer collection system on the northeast side of Lake Shetek. There are also two private wells located 20 feet and 15 feet from the sanitary sewer on Shady Rest Road on the South Side of Lake Sarah.
A small number of domestic water wells may require abandonment if the required separation distance of 50 feet cannot be maintained between the wells and the sanitary sewer pipe. In these cases, the wells would be properly abandoned in accordance with MDH regulations, and new wells would be drilled. The Water and Sewer District will drill and pay for the cost of an equivalent or better new well for the owner.
The new wells would be constructed by a certified well driller hired directly by the SAWSC. The placement of the new well will be completed as construction activities for placement of the wastewater collection system are occurring. The new wells would be in place before the collection system is approved for operation.
If private wells go dry due to the temporary dewatering and construction activities, water for drinking purposes would be provided by the Water and Sewer District free of charge.
13 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
21. The reversibility of any potential water quality issues 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 issues are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality.
22. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality:
Some comment letters expressed concern that the sewer collection system could rupture, that the stabilization ponds would contaminate groundwater, that the effluent from the WWTF would negatively impact the West Fork of the Des Moines River and Talcot Lake, that wetlands would be impacted along the sewer alignment, and that their private wells may go dry during and/or after construction. As discussed above in Sections 20 and 21, the analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.
23. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because:
All potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed expansion of this facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed.
24. 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.
25. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to natural resources:
• Impacts to Trees and Wildlife
26. The extent of any potential impacts to natural resources that are reasonably expected to occur:
Within the construction area for the sewer collection pipe, some wildlife may be temporarily displaced. Some habitat (2 acres of trees over the entire 33.8 mile pipeline alignment) will be removed within the sewer alignment construction zone. This is difficult to completely avoid, however, impacts should be reduced by the proposal to put the sewer pipe within established rights- of-way and easements wherever practical. The majority of mature tree stands, most wetlands and some of the agricultural land would remain as they currently exist, therefore, habitat areas for animals would not be impacted in a significant way.
The proposer intends to employ the following measures during construction to minimize impacts:
• Utilizing dedicated road right-of-ways wherever possible; • Limiting tree removal to only when absolutely necessary; • Utilizing acceptable construction procedures and practices; and • Minimizing the disturbance of ground cover and tree root systems.
14 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Shoreline impacts should be minimal, since the directional drilling would not occur within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark. In general, the sewer alignment would be placed between 150 and 300 feet from the lakes. Best Management Practices (BMPs) must also be implemented along the entire sewer alignment to control stormwater runoff from the construction site. The DNR will be working with the proposer to ensure that trees are not removed within the shoreland area unless necessary.
27. The reversibility of any potential natural resources impacts that are reasonably expected to occur:
The MPCA finds that any potential effect to natural resources that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would be reversible. As discussed above, the expected effects on natural resources are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on natural resources.
28. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to natural resources:
Some comment letters expressed concern that trees and wildlife will be impacted during construction of the sewer collection pipe. As discussed above in sections 26 and 27, the analysis indicates that the effects on natural resources that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.
29. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because:
All potential impacts to natural resources that are reasonably expected to occur from the new wastewater collection and treatment facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed.
30. The MPCA finds that the project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on natural resources based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur.
31. Reasonably expected environmental effects to archeological resources:
• Impacts to Archeological Resources
32. The extent of any potential archeological resources that are reasonably expected to occur:
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the potential presence of known or suspected cultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed alignment alternatives. According to the response received, SHPO believes “there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties might be present in the project area” and recommended that a survey of the area be completed.
15 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
A consultant was hired to investigate the project area for cultural resources potential. The Phase I Archaeological Survey is approximately 95 percent complete, excluding DNR property. The DNR is conducting its own archeological survey which will be completed prior to sewer construction. All pipe that will be placed on the DNR property will be directionally bored to minimize habitat disturbance, while having the added benefit of avoiding possible archaeological sites.
During completion of the Phase I survey, the field study focused on the project corridor and pond locations. The potential presence of archaeological resources was assessed and shovel tests were completed in areas where lack of significant disturbance indicated the potential for resources to remain. Thus far, 21 new cultural sites have been identified and four previously-identified sites have been revisited.
The high number of sites attests to what appears to be expansive and continuous use of this area and intensive use of its rich resources. Many of these sites are comprised of one or a few lithic flakes (bi-products of stone tool making) found on agricultural fields or in shovel tests. These may be representative of a sparse scattering of such artifacts which exist continuously in proximity to the lakes. Other sites are dense, deep, exhibit integrity, and contain a variety of artifacts that can potentially be useful in describing early human activities in the area. These sites may be significant and potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Should it be determined that certain sites are eligible for listing on the NRHP, meetings would take place with appropriate agencies and individuals to discuss appropriate efforts to mitigate effects to eligible sites.
The proposer plans to avoid most resources by placing the sewer pipe within roads and right-of- way areas. Other significant areas could be avoided by using directional drilling techniques to install the sewer pipe or by routing the pipe around the resource location.
There are currently five sites that are unavoidable and will require further testing (Phase II Evaluation) to evaluate whether the sites are indeed eligible for listing on the NRHP. After the Phase II Evaluation is completed, a Phase I/Phase II report will be submitted to the proposer.
The cultural resources consultant is working with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC) regarding this project. MIAC also became aware of this project when they saw the archeologists consultant’s license application, submitted to the Office of the State Archeologist (OSA). The OSA forwarded it to the MIAC. Letters were also sent to tribes to alert them to the work being done in the area.
33. The reversibility of any potential impacts to archeological resources that are expected to occur:
The MPCA finds that any potential effect to archeological resources that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would not necessarily be reversible if a site were to be disturbed. However, as discussed above, the expected effects on archeological resources are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on archeological resources.
16 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
34. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to archeological resources:
Some comment letters expressed concern that Native American artifacts or burial mounds could be impacted by construction of the sewer collection system. As discussed above in Sections 32 and 33, the analysis indicates that the effects on archeological resources that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.
35. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because:
All potential impacts to archeological resources that are reasonably expected to occur from the new wastewater collection and treatment facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed.
36. The MPCA finds that the project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on archeological resources based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur.
Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Public comments concerning cumulative impacts:
Some citizens were concerned that adding additional phosphorus to the Des Moines River and Talcot Lake would cause serious impacts. However, the MPCA finds that the additional phosphorus load to Talcot Lake from the proposed WWTF is a very small portion of the total load to Talcot Lake (approximately two percent during a dry year and even less during higher flow years). The WWTF’s effluent would also be discharged in the spring during high flows and in fall when optimal growing conditions for algae have passed. The facility will not discharge during July and August which are the peak months for algal growth.
A TMDL for the Des Moines River will not be completed until 2008. In the interim, MPCA staff has analyzed existing water quality data for this watershed in order to develop effluent limitations for this facility. After careful consideration of the data, MPCA staff is confident that in analyzing cumulative effects on downstream resources, there is not a potential for significant environmental effects.
17 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
In the future, as a TMDL is developed for the Des Moines River, which is the ultimate receiving water for the effluent, tighter restrictions may be placed on all point source discharges in the watershed. Until then, MPCA believes that the one mg/L limit is protective of receiving waters.
Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the project, including the NPDES Water Quality Permit Application, data from the Clean Water Partnership Program, and information presented by the commentors, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this project.
40. 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
41. 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.
42. 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 Approved Review B. MPCA NPDES Permit Modification Submitted C. MPCA General Stormwater Permit for To be Submitted Industrial Activity D. MPCA Facility Plan Approval Approved E. MPCA Plans and Specifications Review In Progress F. DNR Temporary Water Appropriations To be submitted, if needed for Permit construction dewatering G. DNR Water Appropriations Permit To be submitted, if needed for dewatering well H. DNR License to Work in Public Waters To be submitted, if needed I. DNR License to Cross Public Waters To be submitted J. DNR LAWCON Right-of-Way To be submitted Approvals K. SHPO Archeological and Historical In Progress Review L. Murray County Plan Review To be submitted M. Murray County Plan Review To be submitted N. Murray County Conditional Use Permit To be submitted
18 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status O. Minnesota Dept. of Plan review To be submitted Health (MDH) P. MDH Well Abandonment Permit To be submitted Q. U.S. Fish and Federal Threatened and Completed Wildlife Service Endangered Species Review (USFWS) R. MnDOT Driveway Access Permit To be submitted S. MnDOT Utility Permit on Trunk Highway To be submitted Right-of-Way (Form 2525) T. Public Facilities Funding Application To be submitted Authority
43. A. MPCA Nondegration Review This review is done to ensure that the facility expansion does not degrade water quality. The review can result in the imposition of stricter effluent limitations on the facility than had been in place previously.
B. NPDES/SDS Discharge Permit to Receiving Waters A NPDES permit has been prepared and placed on public notice for a 30-day public comment period. Once environmental review has been completed, the NPDES permit process can proceed. The NPDES permit authorizes a maximum discharge flow and pollutant loading allowed from the facility. Effluent limitations established within the permit ensure that water quality in the receiving water is protected.
C. NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit A general NPDES Stormwater Construction Permit is required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It provides for the use of BMPs such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt revegetation to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The proposer must have a sediment and erosion control plan that will provide more detail as to the specific measures to be implemented and will also address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion control measures implemented; and timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also require adequate storm water treatment capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the project is constructed.
D. Facility Plan Approval The Facility Plan is reviewed to ensure that an adequate analysis of wastewater treatment alternatives is conducted and documented for a particular community.
E. Plans and Specifications Review Construction plans and specifications for the project are submitted to the MPCA for technical review and approval. This review is performed to ensure that the facility design is consistent with good engineering practice and state and federal criteria.
19 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
F. DNR Water Appropriations Permit The permit is for certain temporary appropriations for construction dewatering, landscaping and hydrostatic testing projects involving less than 50 million gallons. Temporary water appropriation applies to projects involving a one-time, limited time (not more than 12 months), non-recurring appropriation of state water totaling one million gallons per year or 10,000 gpd. Examples of work requiring this permit include road construction, hydrostatic testing, dust control and dewatering.
G. Water Appropriation Permit The Water Appropriation Permit is required for all users withdrawing more than 10,000 gpd or one million gallons per year. The purpose of the permit program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The program exists to balance competing management objectives including both the development and protection of the water resources. Information on permitted water users and reported water use is used to evaluate impacts from pumping on surface and ground water resources. Water use data are also used for water supply planning and resolving water use conflicts and well interferences. The DNR administers this permit and requires monthly usage monitoring and annual reporting to ensure that surrounding communities’ and industries’ water supplies will not be affected by draw-down of the aquifer. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited.
H. DNR License to Work In Public Waters The DNR requires a Work in Protected Waters Permit for placement of the project in a protected water or wetland.
I. DNR License to Cross Public Waters A license is required for the passage of any utility over, under or across any state land or public waters. Standards and criteria of the DNR include route design, structure design, construction methods, safety considerations, and right-of-way maintenance to provide maximum protection and preservation of the natural environment and to minimize any adverse effects, which may result from utility crossings.
J. LAWCON Right-of-Way Approvals Projects on land purchased under the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 must be reviewed whenever any land transfers, easements, or licenses to cross are being considered.
K. SHPO Archeological and Historical Reviews The Office of the State Archaeologist reviews and licenses archaeological fieldwork conducted within the state.
L. Murray County Plan Review This review ensures that the proposed project is consistent with the County’s relevant rules and regulations.
20 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
M. Murray County Utility Permit The permit assures that the utilities will be constructed or installed in accordance with ordinances and codes and provides for inspections.
N. Murray County Conditional Use Permit The permit assures that the utilities will be constructed or installed in accordance with ordinances and codes and provides for inspections.
O. MDH Plan Review MDH reviews and approves plans and specifications for projects for community and municipal water systems for the installation of watermains, community water supply wells, pumphouses, chemical feed systems, water treatment plants and plant renovations, elevated or ground storage tanks and reservoirs, booster stations, and any other type of potable water related infrastructure project.
P. MDH Well Abandonment Permit This permit ensures that wells are properly sealed so that no future contamination of the aquifer can occur.
Q. USFWS Endangered Species Review This review results in a notification to the project proposer of any rare, threatened and endangered species in the project area, as well as federal requirements for protection of those species.
R. MnDOT Driveway Access Permit MnDOT reviews all plans for new driveways that have access to State Highways. In this case, a new driveway will be created from the WWTF site to State Highway 30.
S. MnDOT Utility Permit The Right of Way Permit ensures that the work will be accomplished in a manner that will not be detrimental to the Right of Way and that will safeguard the public, and that the right of way on trunk highways is restored to its original condition.
T. Public Facilities Authority (PFA) The local unit of government proposing the project can apply to PFA, a state agency, for low- interest loans that can help to finance the project.
44. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur.
21 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
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.
45. 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.
46. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Shetek Area Sewage Collection and Treatment Project. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commentors, staff experience, and other available information.
• NPDES Water Quality Permit Application • Draft Completed Data Portion for the Shetek Area Sewage Collection and Treatment Project • 1996 Clean Water Partnership Report • 1999 Facility Plan and Amendments
47. 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.
48. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
49. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the Shetek Area Sewage Collection and Treatment Project EAW, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this project.
50. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and permits. The project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards.
51. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2003), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project.
52. An EIS is not required.
22 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Findings of Fact Currie, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order
53. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such.
ORDER
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Shetek Area Sewage Collection and Treatment Project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
IT IS SO ORDERED
______Commissioner Sheryl A. Corrigan Chair, Citizens’ Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
______Date
23 APPENDIX B
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW
1. John Shoeman, Tracy, Minnesota. Letter dated October 5, 2004, and Letter received October 11, 2004.
Comment 1-1: “I feel that the proposer did not submit enough information on the environmental impact that this system could cause and as a forty-one year lake resident, I am submitting this letter to have an environmental impact statement prepared.”
“In the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), it is stated that failing on-site systems are adversely affecting the water quality of the lakes. In 1996, the University of Mankato made a year-long study of Lake Shetek water quality and water quality tests have been taken yearly since then. Basically, the water quality has not changed in those years and at no time did it ever become close to a health hazard. The only time the levels have risen was after a heavy rain and then they went down immediately. They also concluded that 90 percent of the pollution that entered the lake came from watershed runoff – a condition that the sewer system could not eliminate. Ten percent of the contamination came from other sources which include animals, birds, and some septic systems and since that time many of those systems have been brought into compliance.”
Response 1-1: Murray County’s own assessment of the on-site septic systems around area lakes found that a majority of the on-site septic systems they studied were either non-conforming, have not been properly maintained or are about to reach their life expectancy of 25 years. With the knowledge that wastewater issues were unresolved, the Murray County and Sewer Commission have been considering alternatives to waste treatment for many years. A Facility Plan was completed in 1999 for the Shetek Area Water and Sewer Commission, which analyzed a number of wastewater treatment alternatives for area lakes. The central sewer was selected as that which was most feasible, reliable and which would meet water quality standards at the lowest cost over the life of the project (20 years).
The commenter questions if the project is necessary. The environmental review rules, however, do not allow MPCA to consider whether or not the project is needed. A recent Minnesota District Court Ruling on the Jackfish Bay Wastewater Collection System, reiterated this point. The court found that Minnesota’s Environmental Review Rules do not include, in the criteria to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a consideration of the controversial nature of a project, nor consideration of whether the project is needed. The MPCA must only consider whether the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are likely to occur. The local unit of government is the entity that has been given the responsibility and the authority to select a wastewater treatment system.
Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 1-2: “In the EAW Report, it was mentioned that there was 6,100 feet of sewer under the lake, but the report failed to mention that there would be seven crossings which means that it would increase the potential of a break by seven times. This is a very important concern of mine and many, many other residents, especially when they read in the newspapers of underwater breaks in places such as Sioux Falls, South Dakota this spring; Sioux City and others around the United States. When a sewer pipe breaks, that is raw sewage, not gray water.”
Response 1-2: Force main breaks are rare, but do occur occasionally. If a break or rupture did occur under Lake Shetek, a monitoring system within the sewer would recognize the drop in flow and pressure and would alert the operator to a possible problem. The operator could then take appropriate measures to shut down portions of the sewer system by closing valves within the sewer pipe. Repairs would be completed as quickly as possible. To prevent backups of sewage into homes during the repair period, vacuum trucks could be brought to the site to remove excess wastewater, which would be taken to the ponds for treatment.
Installation of monitoring systems, valve systems that can be employed to reduce wastewater spillage and the availability of vacuum trucks to address backups are considered reasonable safety measures for a system such as this. No additional measures are currently required by the state for projects where sewer pipe is laid under a body of water.
If the local unit of government chose to incorporate additional safety measures, they could install a “double-barrel” pipe for each lake crossing. This would consist of two pipelines, one laid next to the other. If one pipeline ruptured, wastewater could be immediately diverted to the second sewer pipe, allowing a fairly seamless continuation of service. While this is an option for the local government to consider, it is likely to add additional costs to the project overall.
Comment 1-3: “The EAW Report says septic systems are adversely impacting water quality, which is a statement that can not be supported because the water quality is not deteriorating.”
Response 1-3: Area lakes are impacted by nonpoint sources of pollution due to high levels of phosphorus and total suspended solids. Aesthetics have also been compromised during some years when algal blooms reduced water clarity and caused odor problems. Lake water quality will vary from year to year as a result of weather patterns and rainfall. However, water quality trends have shown that Lake Shetek exceeds what would be considered an average phosphorus value for its ecoregion (a geographically distinct area of land that is characterized by a distinctive climate, ecological features, and plant and animal communities).
Lake Shetek is considered “hyper-eutrophic.” This means that the lake water has very high levels of phosphorus in it, which encourages the growth of nuisance algal blooms and aquatic weeds, which results in reduced water clarity and can ultimately cause fish kills. Addressing failing septic systems is one step toward addressing these impairments. Communities in the watershed will also need to address agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution if significant improvements in water quality are desired or expected.
Comment 1-4: “Private wells are also mentioned in the report – my well is 25 years old and is tested every year and never has tested even close to being contaminated. The report also says that “most wells in the area are shallow sand point wells.” I have yet to find to find a sandpoint well in my area because the soils in the area are not conducive to sand points. I personally have had three wells drilled during my
2 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
41 years as a lake resident and each well is over 165 feet deep. Two of my friends have had wells drilled and they are 450 feet deep. I can find no one who uses a shallow well because the rural water system services anyone in my area who desires it.”
Response 1-4: On page seven of the EAW, it states, “Some wells in the area are shallow sandpoint wells which are vulnerable to pollution from a number of sources.” Murray County Planning and Zoning staff support this statement. Sandpoint wells do not exist in all areas. However, there is a concern for those homeowners who do have shallow wells and who may be at risk for bacterial and nutrient contamination from nonconforming septic systems. The central sewer system would protect those wells from additional or potential contamination.
Comment 1-5: “The report also states, “If degradation of the county’s water quality continues, the use of water-based recreation will decrease, thus having an adverse affect on tourism, economic development, jobs and population trends.” Again, this is a statement that cannot be substantiated because water tests show this is not true.”
Response 1-5: As stated in the EAW, area lakes are, in fact, impaired, according to state water quality standards. As the population grows and as development pressures increase around Shetek area lakes, impairment could worsen over time. It is true that the majority of water quality problems are not caused by nonconforming septic systems, however, efforts will have to be made on all fronts to hold the line on or improve water quality in this watershed.
Comment 1-6: “The report says that the lakes are densely populated. There are several spots that are densely populated but considering the size of the lakes, they are not densely populated. The largest land owner on Lake Shetek is the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and it will never be developed. Much of the shores are not conducive to development, Bloody Lake is an environmental lake where everyone is required to have 2 acres with no less than 200 feet of shoreline, which I would call not densely populated and Fox Lake (which connects with Bloody Lake) is not in the sewer district and it is being developed and the Murray County Environmental Office is allowing septic tanks in that development.”
Response 1-6: It is true that not all shoreline in the Lake Shetek watershed is densely developed, however, there are a number of densely developed areas. These are the areas that pose the greater challenge with respect to ensuring adequate wastewater treatment. There are a number of substandard lots where there are few options other than wastewater holding tanks due to zoning setback requirements from lakes, homes, wells, property lines, and disturbed and compacted soils. The Sewer District made the decision that a central sewer would address these conditions in the most optimal manner.
Comment 1-7: “Also a 40 foot easement is required for construction of the system. Twelve homes in my area have a private road along the back of their cottages that is very narrow (probably 12 feet) with many large oak and ash trees on each side. The system plans to go down this road and with the contractors given the right to remove any trees in their way as stated in the plans, this would have a devastating environmental impact on these people. I feel they should not let the sewer be located here and it the proposer of this project would try to acquire this land, it ‛must be from the willing seller’ as stated in the loan application.”
3 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Response 1-7: The area in question, Eastlick Trail, will be served by a pressure sewer. Each home will be served with a grinder station and 1.25-inch pressure service line. The grinder stations will be located in the field near each home to minimize impact to trees as well as other features important to the property owner and the environment. The service lines will be directionally drilled so that they will not impact trees.
Each service connects to a seven foot deep, two inch forcemain, which is located along the centerline of Eastlick Trail. Eastlick Trail is 14 feet wide. Tree branches that overhang the road may need to be trimmed to accommodate construction vehicles.
According to the loan application for Public Facilities Authority (PFA) funded wastewater projects, the project proposer must comply with Title II of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and subsequent regulation found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24. These regulations identify procedures for the acquisition of property and relocation of persons and businesses. The requirement that acquisition of land must be from a willing seller only applies to PFA funded drinking water projects.
Comment 1-8: “This sewer plan has 25 major lift stations with 160 manholes and 110 residential lift stations. No odor control devices are shown to be installed. This is certainly a concern of the residents.”
Response 1-8: All of the 25 major lift stations will have odor control devices on them. Each of these stations is equipped with a vent pipe that includes a replaceable 11 inch deep activated carbon filter to control odors. The smaller lift stations and the manholes are normally sealed to prevent inflow into the sewer. As a result, odor is not expected to be a problem for residents living near the sewer alignment.
Comment 1-9: “Failure of major lift stations can cause much pollution as was the case in Iowa this past summer when lightening hit a lift station on Lake Okoboji.”
Response 1-9: In any public sector infrastructure project, there is always some potential for failure. However, when one considers the millions of miles of underground pipeline in the United States, failure is a relatively rare occurrence. To protect against these unlikely events, systems such as the proposed Shetek sewer are designed so that emergency situations can be handled expeditiously and with limited impact to the environment.
With respect to the Shetek area sewer project, the entire system is designed in accordance with industry standards and is subject to the MPCA’s review and approval. Each lift station includes two pumps, with one acting as a back-up. Each pump is capable of handling wastewater flows.
The lift station that pumps all of the district’s wastewater to the treatment facility includes a permanently mounted standby generator for any backup power needs. The project also includes portable generators in anticipation of power outages for the other lift stations. In general, conventional gravity collection systems are more reliable, have more storage capacity in the system, and have a lower potential for negative impacts to affect homeowners than other types of systems.
Vacuum trucks could help empty the lift stations in emergency situations, if no backup power is available or if both pumps are out of service. In addition, bypass pumping could be set up until lift station operation is restored.
4 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Environmental review must consider not only whether there is a potential for significant environmental impact, but also whether these impacts are likely to occur. The MPCA staff believes that the potential for catastrophic failure is small and that sufficient safeguards are in place to address impacts should they occur.
Comment 1-10: “These are just a few of my concerns along with the 150 residents whose concerns were enough to form an organization to oppose this system because not only the potential environmental effects it could cause in the future; the environmental effects caused by construction of a sewer that has a depth to 26 feet, a construction time that may take two of their vacation seasons at the lake, residents who will have no way to get to their homes because of a one way road and will have to park and go by boat, and fire and police protection will be practically nonexistent.”
Response 1-10: The construction process may take two years, however, the local impact to adjacent residents and business will be of a much shorter duration. For the areas where the roadway will be temporarily closed to through traffic, the contractor must provide a sanitary service installation crew and a street maintenance or reconstruction crew within a few days of the main line sewer installation crew. Affected residents and businesses, as well as the fire department and police, will be notified prior to any temporary road closures. Roads will be opened to through traffic during holidays, weekends, and at the end of each workday. The Contractor must provide access to all areas if an emergency arises and will work with residents so that they can get in and out of their neighborhood when needed.
2. Chris Hansen and Karen Onken, Murray County Environmental Services Office. Letter received October 11, 2004.
Comment 2-1: “As Department Heads within the Murray County Environmental Services Office, we would like to submit our comments on the proposed Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project. This proposed project area is within Murray County and will serve approximately 614 homes and 17 businesses that are directly adjacent to a lake.
It has been estimated that 92 percent of the septic systems serving these lots are failing. Even though all systems have not been inspected, the percentage was based off of a deferred list of 91 residents that were to have their systems inspected. Ninety-two percent of the systems that were inspected by a Minnesota State License Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) Inspector failed the compliance inspection.”
Several subdivisions were developed before Zoning Regulations took effect, are substandard size and within the floodplain areas. Septic systems serving those homes in the floodplain, during periods of high water are oftentimes completely submerged.
For the majority of the substandard lots, it will be impossible to support anything other than a holding tank for an ISTS. Even on lots that are standard size, because of setback requirements to the lake, home, wells, and property lines, disturbed and compacted soils, they too will be unable to support anything other than a holding tank.
Based on what I know about the current septic systems around the lakes and water sampling results of the lakes, we feel a centralized sewer system may eliminate or greatly reduce many of the negative environmental impacts that are now affecting the lakes due to failing septic systems. The centralized sewer system should substantially reduce the amount of phosphorus, fecal coliform, and other potentially
5 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
harmful nutrients that enter into the lakes from ISTS systems. Therefore, it is our conviction that the Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project for Murray County would have a substantial, positive environmental effect, thus eliminating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.”
Response 2-1: Comments are noted. No response needed.
3. Donna Kor, Slayton, Minnesota. Comment received at public meeting on September 29, 2004.
Comment 3-1: “Chuck Schwartz stated that a study was conducted to plan for future growth of 297 new homes and seasonals, turning into permanents. Does the 297 include the new development at Barstads and Kuehls? Figure 7 and 6D do not include them. It is our observation that they would want to be first so as not to have the expense of septic system and sewer later. Why are these developments not included?”
Response 3-1: The scope of the project is in accordance with the approved January 1999 Facility Plan and subsequent Facility Plan Amendments. As part of that plan, 20-year growth projections were determined for the Shetek Commission. As with other EAWs, future growth is addressed in a general nature.
The Shetek Sewer Commission has requested cost estimates for areas the commenter has referred to, however, no formal feasibility studies or plans have been authorized. The feasibility of serving these areas is in question because they are sparsely populated. It has been demonstrated that extending service to these areas would require the Shetek Sewer Commission to increase every proposed user’s costs, which lessens the feasibility of the project. Sewer service may not ever be extended into these areas.
Comment 3-2: “Figure 3 excludes Schriers and Diamond Row. Schriers is a large campground and heavily populated spring, summer and fall. When Chuck Schwartz was asked this question he answered “because this is the way I designed it.” “and “expense.” We are mandated to be a part of the project with no regards to expense. Why do they not have to be included? If this project is to clean up our ten percent then we must include all especially heavily populated areas like Schriers.”
Response 3-2: The scope of the project was determined by the SAWSC and the County Board during the Facility Planning process and subsequent development of Facility Plan Amendments. The primary purpose of a facility plan is to determine the most cost-effective long-term solution to the District’s wastewater collection and treatment needs. The January 1999 Facility Plan concluded that it was more cost-effective to serve Schreiers on Shetek and Diamond Row areas with on-site systems rather than connecting them to the regional system.
Comment 3-3: “We have a well. At the September 29th meeting, it was stated that the sewer system must be located 50 feet from the well, putting the system in our CRP/Wildlife area. Since we have not been shown where the actual line will go, our concern is will it be too close to the well? If it is too close, who will be responsible for the cost of replacing and hooking up the new well to our home? If it goes into our CRP, who must pay back the CRP money for the disruption? What will happen to the wildlife? It seems we are disrupting and destroying much for so little gain (ten percent).”
6 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Response 3-3: Installation of the sewer is not expected to impact ground water wells after the construction process is completed. In cases where well setbacks cannot be achieved, or if a well is negatively impacted as a result of construction, the proposer will either pay for that homeowners connection to the Red Rock Rural Water System (if available), or drill a new well for the homeowner. Those potential costs have been figured into the estimated cost for the project.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land in question is approximately 0.5 acres in size. Because disturbance of the area would be required for installation of a public utility, CRP easement payments would be continued and would not be changed. The proposer and participant would provide a County Committee details of the proposed use, including the timeframe for its use for that purpose. After the Committee authorizes the use, the Natural Resource Conservation Service would certify that its use would have minimal effect on the potential for erosion, on wildlife and wildlife habitat, and on water and air quality. The proposer would have to restore cover to the disturbed land at the proposer’s expense, in a timeframe set by the Committee. If Natural Resource Conservation Service determines that public use will have an adverse effect on CRP acreage, affected acreage shall be terminated and refunds assessed. If this were to occur, the proposer would then pay any lost payments to the landowner.
Any disruption to wildlife is considered temporary in nature and is addressed under Item 11 of the EAW.
4. Harriett Reed, Slayton, Minnesota. Letter received via fax on October 12, 2004.
Comment 4-1: “My concern with the Lake Shetek-Currie WWTP is based in my experiences living at this lake. This project includes 25 lift stations that are located in the shoreline area. The planning and zoning of this lakes area has been quite inconsistent and many roads are substandard and, during the winter months, not passable. Power interruptions, while not regular, are relatively frequent. Should a power interruption happen at a time when the roads are not passable, how will failing lift stations be repaired?”
Response 4-1: During power outages, the lift stations will automatically be switched to emergency generators which will prevent any sewage backups from occurring.
Comment 4-2: “If this were a metro area lake, roads would always be open and pumping of lift stations could happen on a regular basis. However, this is rural Minnesota and it is not uncommon for schools to be closed due to weather conditions and impassable roads. With the sewage problems encountered this last fall in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, with wastewater running into the river, Lake Okoboji with wastewater running onto the beach due to a faulty lift station, and the problems in Duluth, Minnesota this summer; it would seem prudent for us to know that every precaution necessary has been taken to prevent an incident in our lakes. As shallow bodies of water, it would take an immeasurable amount of time for the contamination from one leaking pipe or faulty lift station to be corrected.”
Response 4-2: Power disruptions could affect the lift stations. Each lift station will include portable generators in anticipation of power outages. The largest lift station, which pumps all of the district’s wastewater to the treatment facility, will have a standby generator permanently located next to it. Conventional gravity collection systems are more reliable and have more storage capacity in the pipes and structures than other types of systems. This should provide sufficient time for roads to be cleared for operator access to connect the portable generator(s). During the winter months, when many local residents are gone, there would be fewer homeowners using the system. This would provide additional storage within the system and allow more time for repairs or road clearing. See also Response 1-2.
7 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 4-3: “I am also concerned that as I read this EAW, I find errors in the engineer’s presentation. On the final page of the EAW, it states very clearly that this project is complete with no other projects, stages or components. However, there is indeed a Phase IV to this project. Phase IV is stated in numerous meetings since May 2004 to include four additional developments on the lake and was referenced again at the Murray County Commissioner’s meeting on October 12, 2004. Therefore, this EAW is invalid due to inaccurate representation of the project. If this very obvious portion is inaccurate, how many other flaws exist in the worksheet that will not be discovered until construction has begun?”
Response 4-3: As previously stated, the proposed project is completely consistent with the approved January 1999 Facility Plan and subsequent Facility Plan Amendments. See Response 3-1.
There were several minor errors in the EAW which have been identified by members of the public which have been corrected in the attached Errata Sheet and revised map. The maps have been corrected to be consistent with the approved January 1999 Facility Plan and subsequent Facility Plan Amendments.
These minor errors do not fundamentally change the proposed project or the project’s potential to cause significant environmental effects and do not render the EAW invalid. Given the scrutiny this project has received through the Facility Planning Process, numerous public meetings and the environmental review process, MPCA staff are comfortable that errors have been identified and responded to.
Comment 4-4: “It should also be noted that in the maps of the project, the aforementioned additions are listed as a part of the current project even though, according to reports by the engineer to the SAWS Commission, they are not.”
Response 4-4: There was, in fact, an error in the map submitted as part of the draft completed data portion provided by the proposer. This map has been revised and is included as an attachment to the Findings of Fact for this project. The corrected map will be included in the public file for review.
Comment 4-5: “The reason for this project is environmental as stated on page 6 of the EAW. 6C refers to a 1996 Diagnostic Study that estimated the potential pollutant loading from septic systems and admits that no formal study had been completed. Therefore, this is an environmental project that is proceeding eight years after the fact based on “estimates” but with no real data. Before removing trees, tearing out lawns, creating piles of dirt to wash into our lake, and disturbing what limited wildlife we have, it would seem prudent to prove an environmental need for the project.”
Response 4-5: The 1996 Diagnostic Study completed by Mankato State University was a scientific analysis of the water quality conditions in Lake Shetek and area lakes. It concluded that failing septic systems were in fact a contributing factor in the degradation of water quality. Specifically, they were implicated in contributing phosphorus, fecal coliform and nitrogen to the lakes. The study recommended that failing or nonconforming septic systems be addressed as part of a holistic watershed management strategy.
8 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The great complexity of a watershed makes it extremely difficult to predict the exact percentage of phosphorus that is being contributed by septic systems. Scientists must often rely on water quality models to determine an approximate contribution from each pollution source. Failing septic systems are believed to account for at least ten percent of phosphorus reaching area lakes. The models predict that a 30 percent reduction in phosphorus loading would be necessary to meet local water quality goals set for this watershed. It is clear that addressing septic systems alone will not result in major improvements in water quality. Other sources of phosphorus loading must also be reduced.
More importantly, Murray County has determined that the majority of septic systems are not conforming with the most recent Minn. R. ch. 7080 rule requirements. State law requires that these systems be brought into compliance by whatever means are available. The Sewer District has chosen a centralized sewer as the system which would best address nonconformance with these rules.
Comment 4-6: “I am requesting an EIS to give greater assurance that our lake will not be polluted by faulty lift stations; have less wildlife due to extensive construction and experience greater runoff pollution due to the removal of mature vegetation in the shoreline. Great strides have been made in the last ten years by property owners and agricultural residents in our effort to protect our lakes from pollution. Do not remove what we have accomplished without knowing that it is absolutely necessary.”
Response 4-6: See Response 1-2 and 1-9. The MPCA Citizens’ Board will hear and consider your request for an EIS. MPCA staff believes, however, that there is no evidence that lift stations will be faulty. Thousands of lift stations operate each day without fail across the country. There is always the possibility of a lightening strike or catastrophic failure of any infrastructure such as this. However, when determining the need for an EIS, we must consider the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur (Minn. R. ch. 4410.1700, subp. 7). MPCA staff do not believe that catastrophic failure of the lift stations is a likely occurrence given the small probability of this kind of event. In addition, should such an event occur, there are numerous safeguards in place to reduce the potential for significant environmental impacts.
With respect to your concerns about impacts to wildlife, it is true that in the construction areas, some wildlife may be temporarily displaced. Some habitat (2 acres of trees over the entire 33.8 mile pipeline alignment) will be removed within the sewer alignment construction zone. This is difficult to completely avoid, however, impacts should be reduced by the proposal to put the sewer pipe within established rights-of-way and easements wherever practical. The majority of mature tree stands, most wetlands and some of the agricultural land would remain as they currently exist, therefore, habitat areas for animals would not be impacted in a significant way.
The proposer intends to employ the following measures during construction to minimize impacts:
• Utilizing dedicated road right-of-ways wherever possible; • Limiting tree removal to only when absolutely necessary; • Utilizing acceptable construction procedures and practices; and • Minimizing the disturbance of ground cover and tree root systems.
9 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Shoreline impacts should be minimal, since the directional drilling would not occur within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark. In general, the sewer alignment would be placed between 150 and 300 feet of the lakes. Best Management Practices (BMPs) must also be implemented along the entire sewer alignment to control stormwater runoff from the construction site. The DNR will be working with the proposer to ensure that trees are not removed within the shoreland area unless necessary.
5. Linda Tobias, Slayton, Minnesota. Letter received via fax October 13, 2004.
Comment 5-1: “I am requesting an EIS be done on the Shetek Central Sewer Project. I live on Keeley Island and fear the disruption of our island will be a great deterrent to our homes. I was told that we need to ferry on and off the island for a month or two. I can only imagine the destruction that will be taking place if we can not even get to our homes but by water. There are many vast old oak trees that have stood the test of time.
It was be a shame to disrupt this for a sewage system that has 72 percent of the entire lake population of Shetek opposed to it. We live in this area because of the beauty of it. Please take a look at the real impact of this project on our lake and personal property.”
Response 5-1: See Response 1-10. The contractor now intends to make transportation by car available to Keeley Island residents during the construction process. A ferry to transport people will not be required and will not be part of the project.
To limit impacts to trees, the mainline sewer will be located along the centerline of the Keeley Island Drive. Had replacement of septic systems been chosen as the alternative of choice, more disruption to trees may have actually occurred. Minn. ch. 7080 rules governing on-site septic systems, require that replacement drainfields be located in a different area than the existing systems. This would result in more surface disruption to off-street areas than the central sewer system would.
Comment 5-2: “Our area is rich in Indian culture and this appears to have been overlooked by the construction engineers. From the meetings I have attended, it appears this is nothing to be concerned about, however, I can’t help but believe the Indian culture would not support this project.”
Response 5-2: As stated in the EAW, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the potential presence of known or suspected cultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed alignment alternatives. According to the response received, SHPO believes “there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties might be present in the project area” and recommends that a survey of the area be completed.
A consultant was hired to investigate the project area for cultural resources potential. The Phase I Archaeological Survey is approximately 95 percent complete, excluding DNR property. During completion of the Phase I survey, the field study focused on the project corridor and pond locations. The potential presence of archaeological resources was assessed and shovel tests were completed in areas where lack of significant disturbance indicated the potential for resources to remain. Thus far, 21 new cultural sites have been identified and four previously-identified sites have been revisited.
10 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The high number of sites attests to what appears to be expansive and continuous use of this area and intensive use of its rich resources. Many of these sites are comprised of one or a few lithic flakes (bi-products of stone tool making) found on agricultural fields or in shovel test. These may be representative of a sparse scattering of such artifacts which exist continuously in proximity to the lakes. Other sites are dense, deep, exhibit integrity, and contain a variety of artifacts that can potentially be useful in describing early human activities in the area. These sites may be significant and potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Should it be determined that certain sites are eligible for listing on the NRHP, meetings would take place with appropriate agencies and individuals to discuss appropriate efforts to mitigate effects to eligible sites.
The proposer plans to avoid most resources by placing the sewer pipe within roads and right-of-way areas. Other significant areas could be avoided by using directional drilling techniques to install the sewer pipe or by routing the pipe around the resource location.
There are currently five sites that are unavoidable and will require further testing (Phase II Evaluation) to evaluate whether the sites are indeed eligible for listing on the NRHP. After the Phase II Evaluation is completed, a Phase I/Phase II report will be submitted to the proposer.
The cultural resources consultant is working with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC) regarding this project. MIAC also became aware of this project when they saw the archeologists consultant’s license application, submitted to the Office of the State Archeologist (OSA). The OSA forwarded it to the MIAC. Letters were also sent to the local tribes to alert them to work being done in the area.
Comment 5-3: “In regard to the informational program that was presented in Slayton, I gathered from the presenters that the majority of the pollution was coming from the watershed district not the homeowners. Could it be that we need to reevaluate what the real cause of the pollution in our lake is?”
Response 5-3: See Response 4-5.
6. Eddie and Esther DeVine, Slayton, Minnesota. Letter received via fax October 13, 2004.
Comment 6-1: “With this writing I am requesting an EIS to be done on the Shetek Central Sewer Project. I live on Keeley Island and have deep concerns with the destruction of trees and possibility of loss of wells on our island, with the forward movement of this project. Very large oak trees that have stood the test of time surround my home. Digging a projected trench of 30 feet would violate the root system of these beautiful mother oaks that make a vast statement of the greatness of Mother Nature and our island. My well, which is shared with 7 other households, is a well that has serviced us for over 50 years. The specs for the project appear to put our well in great jeopardy. The laws of nature tell me that digging a trench 30 feet underground will undoubtedly wreak havoc with the natural flow of ground water on Keeley Island.”
Response 6-1: The pipe on Keeley Island will be buried at a depth of between 8 and 24 feet deep. Approximately 500 feet of pipe will be placed at a depth greater than 20 feet. The other 4,000 feet of sewer and forcemain will be installed at depths of less than 20 feet. To limit impacts to trees, the mainline sewer is located along the centerline of the Keeley Island Drive. Some trees may have to be trimmed along Keeley Island Drive, however, the contractor will be instructed to keep impacts to an absolute minimum.
11 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Concerning impacts to wells, see Response 3-3.
Comment 6-2: “Through the educational forums that have been conducted, I understand there are many alternatives to the Central Sewer System. One example would be a filtering system that has been tested by the MN Extension that requires only 40 feet of drainfield. It is my plea that you would seriously consider an EIS for the Shetek Central Sewer Project. There are other less invasive solutions with regard to lake contamination that need to be considered for this project, if indeed, the pollution is coming from the homeowners ISTS.”
Response 6-2: It is true that many alternatives were considered during the Facility Planning phase of this project. However, the Shetek Area Water and Sewer Commission ultimately selected the central sewer system as their first choice based on a number of factors, including cost, feasibility, ease of operation and maintenance, reliability, etc. The facility planning process is a public process, where opportunities are provided for public review and comment. The Sewer Commission followed the requirements for allowing public participation during this process.
The MPCA Citizens’ Board will determine whether an EIS is needed for this project. It is the recommendation of MPCA staff that a Negative Declaration on the Need for an EIS be issued. MPCA staff cannot find evidence that the project as proposed, would result in significant environmental effects that would be likely to occur.
Ultimately, it will be a local decision as to whether this project goes forward or not. The MPCA does not judge whether the local unit of government has selected the best alternative to address wastewater problems. MPCA only has the authority to review the alternative that was chosen by the local unit of government for its potential to cause environmental impacts. At this point, we do not believe that the project, as described in the EAW, will cause significant impacts that are likely to occur.
7. Bruce Lichty, New London, Minnesota. Letter received via fax on October 12, 2004.
Comment 7-1: “For the past several years, the Murray County Commissioners have been undertaking a sewer collection system project around Lake Shetek and adjoining lakes. There are many flaws in this plan, but one of the most glaring omissions is the lack of an Environmental Impact Statement. The county board has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, however, this piece of work is severely flawed with many incorrect statements. As a long time Lake Shetek property owner, I am requesting an Environmental Impact Statement that will address the project.”
“The Environmental Assessment Worksheet incorrectly states that failing onsite systems (private septic systems) are adversely affecting the water quality of the lakes. However, their own reports indicate the opposite. Their reports indicate that 90 percent of the pollution of the lake occurs from watershed runoff not septic system failure. The remaining ten percent of the suggested pollution has never been broken down into categories of possible pollution sources and therefore their own reports cannot specifically indicate what percentage of pollution may be caused by a few failing private septic systems. With all of this reporting, which started in 1996, there has never been a report to indicate the lakes have ever come close to a pollution danger level.”
Response 7-1: Minn. R. ch. 4410 does not require the development of an EIS for this project. The rules do however, require development of an EAW for the project. The EAW was completed. To address concerns over the document’s accuracy, please see Responses 1-3, and 4-5.
12 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 7-2: “The current plan includes crossing the lakes seven times with a minimum of 6,100 feet of sewer line under the lakes. These crossings have a much larger potential of destroying the environment and lake quality than a few failing septic systems. Recent and somewhat local sewer line breakages that caused major pollution in lakes and streams are Sioux Falls, Sioux City, Lake Okoboji and others around the nation. These pipelines and lift station failures are prime examples of the probability of system failure and that aggregating raw sewage and running it under lakes and rivers for a single point of failure is less than a desirable environmental risk.”
Response 7-2: See Responses 1-2 and 4-6.
Comment 7-3: “The current plan includes the development of three additional ponds to be located adjacent to the Des Moines River just east of Currie, Minnesota. The current standards for these ponds allow leakage of 500 gallons per acre per day or in total 16,500 gallons per day leakage directly beside the Des Moines River. The Des Moines River is a dangerously polluted river which feeds Lake Talcot which is a dangerously polluted lake. This portion of the plan alone does not seem to fit the vision of Minnesota to clean up its lakes and rivers.”
Response 7-3: See also Response 16-3. Some leakage from stabilization ponds is inevitable, even when they are lined. Scientific research has been conducted to determine water quality impacts to ground water from properly designed, constructed and maintained stabilization ponds. The research concluded that water quality impacts to ground water would not be significant if leakage was allowed to be no greater than 500 gallons per acre, per day. This amount of 500 gallons per acre, per day is the state standard for new stabilization ponds. Ponds must also meet the state requirement of a four-foot separation distance between the pond liner and ground water. The bacteria in the soil between the pond and ground water act as a treatment system for any water that does leak from the ponds. For these reasons, the MPCA staff does not believe the ponds pose a significant risk to ground water or the West Fork of the Des Moines River.
Comment 7-4: “The current plan calls for 25 major lift stations, 160 manholes and 1,110 residential lift stations. There are no odor control devices included in the plan and without a plan to abate this system had the potential to be as environmentally unfriendly as feedlots and confinement units that populate the rural area.”
Response 7-4: See Response 1-8.
Comment 7-5: “The plan requires a 40-foot easement to construct the system with a statement in the plan that the contractors are given the right to remove any trees in their way. Lake Shetek and the surrounding lakes are prairie lakes and like the majority of prairie lakes in southern Minnesota they are ringed with a shallow band of trees jutting up to agricultural land. The removal of a 40 foot swath of trees in and around the lakes would leave a very visible scar that would have a devastating environmental impact in the area.”
13 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Response 7-5: The location of the main line sewer is located within established rights-of-ways and other less-sensitive environmental areas, to the greatest extent practical. This will reduce the need to remove or impact trees. In addition, the proposer has chosen to use installation technologies, such as directional boring, which will significantly reduce impacts to surface features, including waterbodies, areas of archeological value, and trees. Small diameter pressure sewers have been incorporated into the project to further reduce impacts. The overall goal of the project is to provide consistent, reliable wastewater treatment for the area residents and businesses, with minimal environmental impact.
Comment 7-6: “In the past, the lack of an Environmental Impact Statement has left permanent scars for Lake Shetek residents. In the 1970’s, the level of the lake was raised without regard to the lake environment and without an Environmental Impact Statement. The level of the lake was raised to make more lakeshore available for development of private residences. This development was driven by a few that would realize economic gain and at the cost of the lake environment. After the level of the lake was raised, the current and natural shoreline saw massive destruction with the loss of the shoreline and the natural banks that surrounded the shoreline. The erosion was tremendous and property owners rushed to save their property. The permanent scar was visible today and will continue to be visible forever. Pilings, rocks, landscape timbers and a variety of man made solution surround the once natural lakeshore. I remember the natural beauty of the lake and its shoreline as I grew up in the lake in the 1950’s. That natural beauty is no longer there as the landscape has been replaced by manmade barriers to prevent erosion. We cannot let this happen again and the potential for a repeat performance is once again upon us if we do not take the time and scientifically study what impact this proposed project will have on the environment.”
Response 7-6: While we recognize that the commenter may have valid concerns about the environmental consequences of previous lake management decisions, the destruction of shoreline, erosion and manmade solutions to those issues neither are planned nor expected to occur as the result of the current proposal to provide sewage collection and wastewater treatment services to area lakes. The number of state environmental laws and regulations have significantly increased since the 1970’s, providing greater safeguards to human health and the environment. This project, while creating some short-term impacts during the construction process, is designed to provide long-term, reliable wastewater treatment systems to area residents.
The proposed project has received careful scrutiny by MPCA staff to ensure that environmental impacts will be minimized and not be significant. In addition to ensuring that the Wastewater Treatment Facility will be constructed according to accepted engineering practices, and state regulations, MPCA’s water quality experts have reviewed the project to ensure that the facility meets state water quality standards. The Des Moines River will be protected from water quality degradation and aquatic life will also be protected.
Some environmental impacts are unavoidable, such as the removal of some mature trees. However, the proposer has committed to the implementation of mitigative measures to reduce impacts to an acceptable level. See also Response 7-9.
14 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 7-7: “Currently, there is a private development addition around Fox Lake. Fox Lake feeds Bloody Lake which is joined with Lake Shetek. The sewer collection project applies to Bloody Lake but does not apply to Fox Lake. The Fox Lake project is being serviced by private septic systems. Regardless of the connectivity of the Bloody and Fox Lake waterways, there are different standards applied to residents of each lake. Technically, this has no logic, as the waterway is common. Financially it makes sense as the fewer number of residences in the Fox Lake development would add cost above and beyond the borrowing capacity for the sewer collection project. These two facts oppose each other when viewed from the environmental perspective.”
Response 7-7: The December 1996 Feasibility Study, January 1999 Facility Plan, and subsequent Facility Plan Amendments were completed for Murray County and the Shetek Area Water and Sewer Commission to evaluate wastewater needs for the lake shore areas of Lake Shetek, Lake Sarah, Fremont Lake, and Bloody Lake. Although a portion of Fox Lake falls within the Shetek Area Water and Sewer Commission service area, it was never part of this project’s scope since it is currently not cost- effective to service this area. The County’s goal is to eventually bring all systems into compliance, regardless of their location.
Comment 7-8: “Existing campgrounds that currently have 120 septic connections and plans to grow to 160 connections have gained permission to be excluded from the sewer collection project. Comparing Bloody property owners to this campground, we find the equivalency of 4 Bloody Lake septic connections is approximately equal to 120 campground septic connections and Bloody Lake must comply with the sewer collection project and the campground is exempt from the sewer collection project. Again, protecting or improving the environment is not what the sewer collection project is all about.”
Response 7-8: The January 1999 Facility Plan concluded that serving the Schreiers Campground is not economically feasible. The approved facility plan concluded that servicing this area with central sewer was not cost-effective. The Facility Plan recommended that it be excluded from the project scope.
Comment 7-9: “The current sewer collection project is once again all about lakeshore development and not at all about the quality of the lake. I do not object to progress and the development around the lake as long as the environment is protected. I cannot imagine that again we are subject to a few developers who want to independently propose enough that they would push this project forward under the cloak of protecting the environment when they have not asked the experts to study the impact this project would have on the environment. The possibility of destroying the environment is extremely high and the possibility of improving the environment is virtually nonexistent.”
“I am asking you to please take the time and study what the potential failure of this system could do to the environment along with the permanent scars left around what is left of the beautiful lakeshore.”
Response 7-9: The design of the proposed project has been carefully scrutinized by MPCA engineers since the Facility Planning Process in 1999. An MPCA engineer will also review the final plans and specifications for the entire facility before construction begins. This will ensure that all appropriate engineering standards are met and that all necessary safeguards are in place prior to the beginning of operation.
15 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The project is planned so that disturbances to the landscape are kept to a minimum and are temporary in nature. The contractor will be required to restore disturbed landscapes to their original condition. Visual impacts should not last more than one to two seasons in most cases. Some trees will be impacted, however, the contractor is doing what it can to avoid impacting them. Major public works projects, such as this, all result in some temporary impacts to the landscape. However, it is the goal to make them as unobtrusive, benign, and temporary as possible. Directional drilling of the sewer in many areas will ensure that most sensitive areas are avoided completely. This should help to preserve the natural beauty of the area surrounding the lakes.
8. Diane Anderson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received via fax on October 13, 2004.
Comment 8-1: “The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the EAW for the Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project. DNR staff appreciates the coordination efforts with MPCA staff to meet and discuss this project. From a natural resources perspective, the proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.”
Response 8-2: Comment noted.
9. Steve Harms, Shetek Baptist Camp, Slayton, Minnesota. Letter received via fax on October 13, 2004.
Comment 9-1: “I feel that an EIS should be done because of this project and all of the underwater crossings. Also, I have attended all but one of the sewer meetings since August of 2003 and feel that the engineer in charge has not developed a level of confidence in my mind that all precautionary measures will and have been taken concerning safety and the environment.”
Response 9-2: The pipes will be directionally drilled a minimum of eight feet below the lakebed. All sections of pipe will be pressure tested to ensure water tightness prior to operation. Shutoff valves are located upstream and downstream of each crossing to isolate a forcemain break, in the unlikely event that would occur. “Caution – Buried Sewage Forcemain” signs will be placed near these valves so that the operator can find them easily during emergency situations and people working near these areas know where they are. The entire system is designed in accordance with industry standards and is subject to the MPCA review and approval. All required permits from the various regulatory agencies will be acquired prior to construction. See also Response 1-2.
10. Daryl Nelson, Slayton, Minnesota. Letter received via fax on October 13, 2004.
Comment 10-1: “I am writing to voice my view about the Shetek Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It is my feeling that this is not necessary. I favor the central sewer system. I believe it will add lasting value to my lake property (78 Southshore Drive – Lake Shetek). I also believe in light of this previous statement that the cost estimates are reasonable and that figured over the life expectancy of the central these expenses will be less than for each individual to have their own septic system.
I believe that with the central system there will be far fewer chances for sewer and or septic to enter the lake. Holding tanks would be a very risky option and drain fields also keep the potential pollutants next to and possibly eventually in the lake.”
16 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Response 10-1: No response needed.
11. John Nelson, Garvin, Minnesota. Letter received via fax on October 13, 2004.
Comment 11-1: “I object to the project because of some of these circumstances:
The potential failure of pumps in land to get to locations could create a very bad effect on homes and possibly bodies of water.”
Response 11-1: There are contingencies in place should lift station pumps fail. See Responses 1-2 and 1-9.
Comment 11-2: “The figure of percent of failing ISTS systems is not correct, nor is it accurate when the analysis was done. Many of the homes were not tested, but the Environmental Office assumed that they were failing.”
Response 11-2: Murray County conducted their own study of on-site septic systems within the service area and concluded that the majority of systems are nonconforming with the requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7080. This rule includes very specific requirements for the design, operation and maintenance of septic systems in Minnesota.
See Comment 2 for further information regarding how and why the county came to the conclusions they did. Nonconforming systems will have to be addressed in some manner, per state regulations governing wastewater treatment. The Shetek Area Water and Sewer Commission has selected a central sewer system as the most viable and cost effective way of addressing this issue. See also Response 4-5.
Comment 11-3: “Much has happened in the watershed in the last few years that has effected the water quality in a positive way – some examples – many buffer strips by farmers – pastures now growing up to tall grasses and trees – home owners not applying phosphate fertilizer – conservation farming around the lake area – many bad ISTS systems have been replaced with new compliant systems. These are only a few of my concerns and therefore, request a detailed Environmental Impact Statement be executed before any further action is taken.”
Response 11-3: MPCA agrees with the commenter that it is important to recognize recent accomplishments within the watershed that may be improving water quality. However, this does not negate the need for a conforming wastewater treatment system. All communities must have a viable wastewater treatment system, whether it is a central sewer, conforming on-site septic systems, or some other approved means of successfully treating sewage.
In order to recommend the development of an EIS, the MPCA must first show that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are likely to occur. In this case, we have not been able to show that to be a likely possibility.
Comment 11-4: “The EAW does not agree with the planned system that is being proposed by the engineer. The EAW shows all areas to be serviced, which is not the case proposed by the Sewer and Water Commission and the engineer.”
17 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Response 11-4: See Response 4-3.
Comment 11-5: “Significant damage will be done to wetlands and natural wildlife areas.”
Response 11-5: Most wetlands will be avoided completely by directionally boring the sewer pipe underneath them. No impacts to the wetlands should occur in these cases. In a few other cases, minor, temporary impacts to some undelineated wetlands may occur, particularly in depressions and low areas. In these areas, the pipe will be installed using a trenching method of excavation. It is estimated that impacts may affect a total of approximately 0.25 acres of land. In these cases, excavation in these areas would occur as follows:
If good quality wetland plant species are present, a minimum of one foot of bottom sediment will be salvaged and re-spread over disturbed wetland areas during restoration to replace the native seedbed. If wetland areas are highly disturbed and are dominated by invasive species, the topsoil would not be reused; instead, the restored wetland areas would be seeded with a native wetland seed mix. In either case, the original grade contours would be restored after construction, and therefore, pre-construction drainage patterns would not be altered by the project. Prior to construction through any wetland areas, a Wetland Conservation Act Certificate of Exemption would be required as approval for the temporary impacts to the wetlands due to the utility construction.
Comment 11-6: “A large amount of additional phosphorus and other pollutants will be discarded to the Des Moines River which will go to Talcot Lake, which will add to an already polluted body of water.”
Response 11-6: Talcot Lake is not listed on Minnesota’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. The additional phosphorus load to Talcot Lake from the proposed WWTF, is a very small portion of the total load to Talcot Lake (approximately two percent during a dry year and even less during higher flow years). The discharge also occurs in spring during high flows and in fall when optimal growing conditions for algae have passed. The facility will not discharge during July and August which are the peak months for algal growth.
MPCA staff carefully reviewed whether effluent discharged from this facility would cause phosphorus- related impacts downstream. Staff concluded that imposing a one milligram per liter (mg/L) phosphorus limit on the facility will minimize the impact of the expanded discharge as a portion of the cumulative load to the West Fork of the Des Moines River and Talcot Lake.
In the future, as a Total Maximum Daily Load is developed for the Des Moines River, which is the ultimate receiving water for the effluent, tighter restrictions may be placed on all point source discharges within the watershed. Until then, MPCA believes that the one mg/L is adequate to protect receiving waters.
In addition, the effluent limits that have been proposed for the project are consistent with 122.44 (d) (1) and will not cause or contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.
Comment 11-7: The chance that a pipe breaking under the water in so many places is a serious concern.
Response 11-7: See Response 1-2.
Comment 11-8: “The loss of many mature trees that take a lifetime to grow (oak for example).”
18 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Response 11-8: See Responses 4-6, 7-5 and 7-9.
12. JoAnn Biren and Dennis Branch. Letter received via fax on October 13, 2004.
Comment 12-1: “I feel strongly an EIS is not needed regarding the Lake Shetek Sewer Project. The information obtained at the meeting in Slayton was beneficial and gave a clear indication that a system is needed. I am a seasonal resident on the lake, with a small cabin used by family throughout the summer months. To us, the protection of, as well as the improvement of the lake is not an issue that can be debated pro and con. The lake belongs to all people and protecting it should be of utmost importance.
The need for a sewer project has become increasingly more evident throughout the years we have owned the cabin. For example, we, along with our neighbors, do not have many options when it comes to sewer. We need the centralized sewer system. Our system and the systems of 99 percent of our neighbors will not be in compliance. What are we to do? Is it fair not to us, but for future generations not to enhance the environment as much as humanly possible? A centralized sewer system, I feel, would best handle the needs of many.”
Response 12-1: The comment is noted. No response needed.
13. Elmer and Judy Brake, Wilmont, Minnesota. Comment received at public meeting on September 29, 2004.
Comment 13-1: “Sewage in Lake Shetek? We were under the impression that all sewers not in compliance had been brought up to code. A lot of people around the lake spent a lot of money in the last two years bringing their systems up to code. We have a cabin in a 19 unit complex, with a central drainfield in complete compliance. This complex is used from May until Labor Day, 60 percent occupied on weekends. I do a lot of fishing on Lake Shetek – the last two years the clarity of the water could hardly have been more perfect – great fishing – great tasting fish.”
Response 13-1: Recent construction projects have septic systems that meet the requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7080. However, Murray County Environmental Services has stated that the majority of septic systems are not in compliance with these regulations. This necessitated action by the local unit of government. All communities must be in conformance with state water quality standards and must develop whatever treatment system is appropriate to effectively treat wastewater within their jurisdiction. See comment 2-1.
Comment 13-2: “If there is a high phosphorus level in the lake from sewage, why weren’t all these systems brought into compliance?”
Response 13-2: As stated earlier, phosphorus can come from untreated wastewater as well as from land use practices within a watershed. With respect to nonconforming systems, the local unit of government (SASWC and Murray County) has been grappling with this issue for many years. Once Murray County completed the facility planning process, officials were able to select the alternative that seemed to make the most sense considering the cost of construction, reliability, operation and maintenance concerns, etc. This was a public process.
19 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Environmental review exists to ensure that the alternative that was selected by the local unit of government does not cause significant impacts to the environment. Once the environmental review process is completed and if a negative declaration on the need for an EIS is issued, the project can move forward to bring systems into compliance.
Comment 13-3: “A few years ago, a local community with a lake checked their systems with a dye flushed down the toilets. This exposed a fluorescent green area in the lake if the sewage was entering – the treated areas were monitored by boats and planes to detect sewage leaks. But we wouldn’t want to do this – it would only cost a few thousand dollars. You want to spend millions.”
Response 13-3: The cost of conducting a similar study was estimated to be between $15,000 and $30,000, depending upon the work actually completed. The Shetek Area Sewer and Water Commission did consider doing this type of study at one point, however, they concluded that the need for a community wastewater collection and treatment system had already been firmly established during the December 1996 Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study and the January 1999 Facility Planning Process.
The Commission also considered the age of the majority of the on-site septic systems in the service area, the soil types and saturated soil conditions in some portions of the proposed project area, and the number of lots which could not accommodate a new drainfield that would meet state standards. In addition, the Commission considered that it would be very difficult to acquire enough land to accommodate other decentralized wastewater treatment systems for residents, especially those that live on the three fully developed islands, those that are surrounded by State-owned DNR land, or are located adjacent to unwilling sellers of undeveloped land. These are some of the factors which resulted in the selection of a centralized sewer system for the project area.
Comment 13-4: “Algae bloom is normal in small shallow dishpan lakes in southern Minnesota. Phosphorus in the lake is probably from local farmland runoff. Why isn’t some of the land around the lake terraced to prevent this? Where is the local soil and water conservation? Did all the corn stalks come from the sewers? After a 5 and 3 ½ inch rainfall, the lake was full of this trash and that was not from sewers. This project is not feasible for the amount of money that it is going to cost.
Response 13-4: The corn stalks reaching the lake were undoubtedly washed off area farm fields into surface waters during these rain events. Agricultural runoff is the major contributor of pollution to Lake Shetek. At this point in time, installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce agricultural runoff to surface water is purely voluntary. It is up to individual farmers whether to implement them or not. Collection and treatment of municipal and industrial wastewater, however, is not voluntary, but is mandated by federal and state law. MPCA does have the authority to ensure that municipal wastewater is collected and treated in a manner that will maintain the quality of aquatic ecosystems. That is ultimately the aim of this project.
Regarding the commentor’s concerns about the cost of the project, the Shetek Area Water and Sewer Commission and the Murray County Board will ultimately determine whether this project is affordable for homeowners, or not.
20 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
14. Daryl Miller, Slayton, Minnesota. Comment received at public meeting on September 29, 2004.
Comment 14-5: “The water table is at 8 feet and the sewer at 20 feet. Where are you going to pump all of that water? Our well is 41 feet from the middle of the road. Will they put in a new well and pay for it?”
Response 14-5: See Response 3-3. The project’s plans and specifications include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP must be drafted and submitted to the MPCA for approval before construction activities begin. The SWPPP requires that the contractor submit a dewatering plan for all applicable excavations to MPCA’s engineer. All dewatering discharges must be appropriately managed by the contractor so that no erosion and no contamination of surface waters occur.
If proper setbacks to private wells cannot be achieved or if a well is negatively impacted as a result of the project, then the homeowners must be connected to the Red Rock Rural Water System (RRWS) (if available). If RRWS is not available, a new well must be drilled and paid for by the project proposer.
Comment 14-6: “Why go through the lake from Keeley Island to Baptist Bible Camp instead of down the west side of the lake where there are new lots already developed that were to be incorporated in the fourth phase?”
Response 14-6: The project addresses the wastewater needs of the developed areas of the lake. The proposed plan is preferred by the Sewer Commission because the lineal feet of pipe, number of lift stations, energy requirements, capital costs, cost of operation and maintenance, and environmental impacts are lower than the approach the commenter has described.
The Shetek Commission previously requested cost estimates to sewer other areas. No formal feasibility studies or plans have been authorized. The feasibility of serving other areas (Phase IV) is of a concern because these areas are either sparsely populated or there are better means of treating the area’s wastewater. It has been demonstrated that extending service to these areas would require the Sewer Commission to increase every proposed system user’s costs, which lessens the feasibility of the project. Service may not ever extend into these areas.
Comment 14-7: “Going through the lake -- will it not cause trouble if there is a breakage in the pipe.”
Response 14-7: See Response 1-2.
Comment 14-8: “Roadway is 18 feet wide on Keeley with digging 28 feet deep. We will lose all of our trees along the road.”
Response 14-9: The Keeley Island pipe varies from between 8 feet deep to 24 feet in depth. Approximately 500 feet of this pipe would be buried deeper than 20 feet. The other 4000 feet of sewer and forcemain would be installed at depths of less than 20 feet. To limit impacts to trees, the mainline sewer is located along the centerline of the Keeley Island Drive where impacts would be minimal.
21 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
15. Dennis Gimmestad, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received October 12, 2004.
Comment 15-1: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above referenced document. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Filed Archaeology Act and through the process outlined in Minn. R. 4410.1600.
We note that the response to question 25a summarizes the cultural resources survey work currently underway, and we look forward to working with you in reviewing the results of the survey and developing any appropriate avoidance or treatment measures.
We note one incorrect statement in the EAW. The bottom of page 27 indicates that our office is in contact with the MIAC regarding burial mounds. That coordination is not a responsibility of our office.
Response 15-1: We appreciate your pointing out the inaccurate statement concerning coordination on burial mounds issues. The EAW should state that the proposer and their consultant are in contact with the MIAC regarding burial mounds. The EAW will be corrected and a copy placed in the final public file for the project.
16. Authors unidentified. Comments received at public meeting on September 29, 2004.
Comment 16-1: “How long can the system be shut down before it starts to affect the homeowner?”
Response 16-2: How long the system can be shut down before it starts to affect the homeowner is primarily dependant upon the system operator and the reason why the system is inoperable?
The system will be operated and maintained by a licensed operator who will be trained in the proper procedures to follow should there be a power outage. A power outage would impact the operation of the lift station and the approximately 100 system users that are served by an individual grinder station. These homes would be impacted almost immediately and the impact would last until power is restored. The Sewer Commission will purchase portable generators for each lift station in anticipation of potential power outages. The main lift station that pumps all of the district’s wastewater to the treatment facility includes a permanently mounted standby generator for any backup power needs.
It is important to note that in general, conventional gravity collection systems are more reliable, have more storage capacity in the system, and have a lower potential for negative impacts to affect homeowners than other types of systems.
Comment 16-2: “What measures can be done to hold sediment during construction?”
Response 16-2: There are a number of viable soil erosion control practices available to construction contractors that are designed to protect surface water during typical storm events. The proposer for this project has stated that they may use silt fences, sedimentation basins, check dams, erosion control blankets, and prompt re-vegetation of disturbed areas using seed and mulch. They will likely use a combination of these accepted BMPs. They must be properly implemented and maintained during construction in order to provide appropriate protections to surface waters. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Stormwater Permit requires that no sediment reach surface waters during the construction process.
22 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The proposer will be responsible for overseeing implementation of the BMPs and ensuring that water quality is protected over the length of the alignment and for the duration of the construction season.
After construction, a number of permanent sedimentation ponds will be constructed within the easements and right-of-ways near the sewer alignment to control runoff rates and quality. All disturbed areas will be reseeded and stabilized once work in a particular area is completed.
Comment 16-3: “Why does there have to be any leakage from the ponds?”
Response 16-3: Some leakage from stabilization ponds is unavoidable. This is true whether the ponds have a synthetic (plastic) or clay liner. The MPCA has developed a statewide standard which establishes an acceptable leakage rate from stabilization ponds. The state standard sets an acceptable leakage rate at 500 gallons per acre per day. This leakage rate has been determined, through scientific tests, to protect ground water from contamination.
Under each stabilization pond, there must be a four foot separation distance between the pond liner and ground water. The four feet of soil and the bacteria it contains, serve to remove contaminants from the water that is lost from the ponds.
Comment 16-4: “Why has the visual water quality of Shetek been so good the last two years (better than it has been for a long time if there are so many supposed sewer pollutants entering the lake)?”
Response 16-4: Climate (wind, rainfall and temperature) can have a strong impact on year-to-year variability when it comes to water clarity in lakes. The cold summer of 2004, for example, suppressed algae growth in many lakes, though severe blooms were common in September, with the onset of unseasonably warm temperatures.
Comment 16-5: “How much pollution comes from the septic systems of Shetek vs. the runoff of farming ground into streams?”
Response 16-5: Based on the results of the Lake Shetek Area MPCA Phase I Diagnostic Study completed in 1996, it is believed that the pollution from septic systems comprises approximately ten percent of the total loading of phosphorus and nitrogen to Lake Shetek. The vast majority of nutrients, however, are believed to be coming from agricultural areas within the 3,351-acre watershed that surrounds the lake. Agricultural runoff likely contributes 80-90 percent of the nutrients that cause impairment in the lakes.
While the majority of pollution is not caused by failing septic systems, MPCA has required that communities address failing sewage treatment systems where they are known to exist. State regulations, programs, policies and funds have been directed to this purpose for over 40 years. Compliance with state and federal wastewater treatment (point source) regulations is mandatory. Each community must determine the wastewater treatment system that is best suited to meet their needs, however, it must also meet state and federal requirements.
Comment 16-6: “Are the septic systems the number one cause of the pollution of Shetek and Sarah?”
Response 16-6: No. See Response 4-5.
23 Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project Responses to Comments on the Currie, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 16-7: “What is the current water quality in comparison to the six foot to ten foot lakes of the same size in Minnesota?”
Response 16-7: The MPCA's 2004 Lake Water Quality Assessment Report provides a frame of reference for comparing Lake Shetek to other lakes in the same ecoregion. Lake Shetek, has a Total Phosphorus level of 118(+/- 14) parts per billion. Based on 30 other lakes the MPCA has assessed in that ecoregion, approximately 75 percent of the lakes in that ecoregion have higher Total Phosphorus. Lake Shetek’s long-term Secchi Disc reading (a measure of water clarity), of 0.6 meters is low (poorer clarity). Approximately 75 percent of the lakes in this ecoregion have a deeper Secchi reading (or better water clarity). However, these readings for individual years will vary to some degree.
RECEIVED AFTER THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD
17. The Southwest Regional Development Commission. Letter received October 18, 2004.
Comment 17-1: “The Board of Directors of the Southwest Regional Development Commission (SRDC), on October 14, 2004, reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Shetek Area Wastewater Collection and Treatment Project. The SRDC Board found the EAW consistent with Regional Policies.”
Response 17-1: The comment is noted.
Comment 17-2: “The EAW indicated that the proposed routing of the mains come within 50 feet of existing water wells, in which case, the SAWSC proposes to drill new wells, abandon and seal at SAWSC cost. Staff recommends the proposal also consider hooking up to rural water if available. In 1997, the SRDC identified existing and former dump sites in southwest Minnesota. One was identified in Section 1 T107N R41 W (Valhalla Island). This should be identified so the routing of the sewer lines avoids the former dump.”
Response 17-2: See Response 3-3. According to discussions with the Southwest Regional Development Commission and the County, the old dump is located in the middle of the island. The collection system that would serve Valhalla Island would be located along roadways and is not expected to disturb the suspected dumpsite.
24