DE Montana Depar tment -of Environmental Quali ._

June 8, 2020

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS

As required by state and federal rules for determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary, an environmental review has been performed on the proposed action below:

Project

Location Project Number Total Cost

Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise Wastewater System Improvements Paradise, Montana C303709 $4,515,000

The Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise, through its 2016 Wastewater System Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), identified the need to provide central wastewater collection and treatment to its community. Currently homes and businesses in Paradise utilize individual onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Most of these onsite systems were constructed over fifty years ago and do not meet current county or state design standards or required separation distances. Many are cesspools, or simply a septic tank structure, often made only of railroad ties or a 55-gallon drum. Where drainfield lines do exist, they might be plugged or separated from the septic tanks. These failed systems generally cannot be replaced due to insufficient lot area to locate another system. Inadequate wastewater treatment creates unsanitary conditions, negatively impacting public health and safety and the environment. Underlying groundwater is at risk of contamination. The Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise was created by community leaders to find an affordable solution to these problems and concerns.

The PER analyzed various solutions to providing Paradise with centralized wastewater treatment and disposal. The chosen alternative consists of a gravity sewer collection system with eight individual low-pressure pumps for lower-elevation residences, and one common Level II treatment system and drainfield located on 6 acres west of Paradise to serve everyone. Level II treatment consists of a recirculating trickling filter that has already been procured through a competitive bidding process. A Montana Ground Water Pollution Control System (MGWPCS) permit is required for the new community drainfield system, and permit application to the DEQ has been made. Construction of this community wastewater system, designed to county and state standards and meeting permit requirements, will resolve serious existing wastewater issues, and protect public health and underlying groundwater. Construction is scheduled to start in the fall of 2020.

Steve Bullock, Governor I Shaun McGrath, Director I P.O. Box 200901 I Helena, MT 59620-0901 I (406) 444-2544 I www.deq .mt.gov

The estimated project cost (including administration, engineering, and construction) is $4,515,000. The district will fund these project costs through a $750,000 grant from the Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP); a $561,000 grant from the Delivering Local Assistance (DLA) Program; a $450,000 grant from the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG); $102,000 in local funds; and a low-interest loan/grant funding package from the US Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD) in the amount of $2,652,000. The two grants from RD are expected to total $1,882,000 and the long-term loan (40 years) is expected to be $770,000. The RD program requires interim financing until construction is complete. Therefore, for the short term (up to 3 years), the district will borrow up to $770,00 at 1. 75% interest from the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund (WPCSRF) loan program to fund the project during construction.

Federal and State grant/loan programs will fund the project. Environmentally sensitive characteristics such as wetlands, floodplains, threatened or endangered species, and historical sites are not expected to be adversely impacted because of the proposed project. Public participation during the planning process demonstrated support for the selected alternative. No significant long-term environmental impacts were identified. An environmental assessment (EA), which describes the project and analyzes the impacts in more detail, is available for public scrutiny on the DEQ web site http://deg.mt.gov/Public/ea and at the following locations:

Department of Environmental Quality 1520 East Sixth Avenue

Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise 214 3ro St

P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 mmarsh@mt.gov

Paradise, MT 59856

Comments on the EA may be submitted to the Department of Environmental Quality at the above address. After evaluating comments received, the department will revise the environmental assessment or determine if an environmental impact statement is necessary. If no substantive comments are received during the comment period, or if substantive comments are received and evaluated and the environmental impacts are still determined to be non-significant, the agency will make a final decision. No administrative action will be taken on the project for at least 30 calendar days after release of the Finding of No Significant Impact.

Sincerely,

~/.~ Mark Smith, P.E. SRF Program Manager Water Quality Division Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Steve Bullock, Governor I Shaun McGrath, Director I P.O. Box 200901 I Helena, MT 59620-0901 I (406) 444-2544 I www.deq.mt.gov

I.

Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise

WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

EN~RONMENTALASSESSMENT

COVER SHEET

A.

8.

C.

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Applicant: Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise

Address: PO Box 208 Paradise, MT 59856

Project Number: SRF Project # C303709

CONTACT PERSON

Name: Sunny Chase, Chair

Address: PO Box 208 Paradise, MT 59856

Telephone: (406) 826-3187

ABSTRACT

The Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise, through its 2016 Wastewater System Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), identified the need to provide central wastewater collection and treatment to its community. Currently homes and businesses in Paradise utilize individual onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Most of these onsite systems were constructed over fifty years ago and do not meet current county or state design standards or required separation distances. Many are cesspools, or simply a septic tank structure, often made only of railroad ties or a 55-gallon drum. Where drainfield lines do exist, they might be plugged or separated from the septic tanks. These failed systems generally cannot be replaced due to insufficient lot area to place a drainfield meeting current design standards. Inadequate wastewater treatment creates unsanitary conditions, negatively impacting public health and safety and the environment. Underlying groundwater is at risk of contamination. Construction of an affordable community wastewater system to county and state standards would alleviate serious wastewater issues, protect public health, and prevent contamination of underlying groundwater.

The PER considered various collection and treatment system alternatives for serving the community of Paradise. The chosen alternative consists of a gravity sewer collection system with some individual low-pressure pumps, and a Level II treatment system and drainfield located on 6 acres west of Paradise. A Montana Ground Water Pollution Control System (MGWPCS) permit is required for the

1

new community drainfield system and permit application to the DEQ has already been made. Level II treatment consists of a recirculating trickling filter system that has already been procured through a competitive bidding process. Construction is slated to start in the fall of 2020.

The estimated project cost (including administration, engineering, and construction) is $4,515,000. The district will fund these project costs through a $750,000 grant from the Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP); a $561,000 grant from the Delivering Local Assistance (OLA) Program; a $450,000 grant from the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG); $102,000 in local funds; and a low-interest loan/grant funding package from the US Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD) in the amount of $2,652,000. The two grants from RD are expected to total $1 ,882,000 and the long-term loan (40 years) is exp.ected to be $770,000. The RD program requires interim financing until construction is complete. Therefore, for the short term (up to 3 years) , the district will borrow up to $770,00 at 1. 75% interest from the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund (WPCSRF) loan program to fund the project during construction.

Environmentally sensitive characteristics such as wetlands, floodplains , threatened or endangered species, and historical sites are not expected to be adversely impacted because of the proposed project. Additional environmental impacts related to land use, water quality, air quality, public health, energy, noise, growth, and sludge disposal were also assessed. No significant long-term environmental impacts were identified.

Under Montana law, (75-6-112, MCA), no person may construct, extend, or use a public sewage system until DEQ has reviewed and approved the plans and specifications for the project. Under the Montana Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund Act, DEQ may loan money to municipalities for construction of public sewage systems.

The DEQ, Engineering Bureau, has prepared this Environmental Assessment to satisfy the requirements of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .

D. COMMENT PERIOD

Thirty (30) calendar days.

II. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

The community of Paradise was platted in 1908, with most of the 169 lots ranging in size from 2,875 to 5,750 square feet in size. While the community of Paradise has a public water system, it does not have a community wastewater collection and treatment system. Its residents are served by individual onsite wastewater systems, most of which are highly inadequate, with many consisting of no more than a cesspool or septic tank/seepage pit design. A variety of solids settling and discharge systems have been installed, with some dating back 100 years or more. Observed and reported structures include car bodies, 55-gallon drums, and railroad tie vaults . The Sanders County Health Department reported in 2016 that roughly 93 of the 101 wastewater-generators in

2

paradise were actively using substandard on-site wastewater disposal systems. When a system fails , sewage may surface in the yard or backup into a building. This poses a health risk to residents in the community and is detrimental to the environment. Inadequately treated wastewater may be reaching, and negatively impacting, groundwater. The platted lots within Paradise are too small to meet required separation distances and to accommodate replacement drainfield systems meeting current county and state standards. A community wastewater collection and treatment system is the only viable long-term solution for Paradise residents to address the serious problems with their onsite systems. The project is supported by the Sanders County Health Department, which has consulted and worked with residents of Paradise for many years, helping them correct and replace failing systems. An MGWPCS permit would be required or the new community drainfield system. The proposed Paradise wastewater project entails:

• A combination gravity sewer collection with low pressure sanitary sewer system. • A Level II recirculating trickling filter followed by drainfield disposal.

Ill. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION AND COSTS

The Paradise community and Sanders County Commissioners are committed to installing a centralized wastewater system that will eliminate the health and safety concerns of the existing failing on-site systems. The No Action alternative was mentioned in the PER, but summarily dismissed. With the No Action alternative, no improvements would be made to the existing onsite wastewater systems in Paradise and existing drainfield systems would not be able to be adequately replaced if they failed . The risk of groundwater contamination and public health concerns would continue. Three alternatives were considered in the 2016 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for wastewater collection and eight were considered for treatment and disposal.

A. COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES

. • Low Pressure Sanitary Sewer Collection • Alternative C-1: Gravity Sewer Collection • Alternative C-2: Combined Gravity Collection and Low Pressure Sanitary

Sewer (LPSS)

LOW PRESSURE SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION -This alternative consists of a pressurized small-diameter sewer collection system with individual pumps at each home or business. Although this type of system allows for flexibility of installation with respect to surface grade, it is significantly more expensive than a gravity collection system and requires management of the individual pumps by the district and new energy costs for the homeowners. For these reasons, this alternative was not considered further in the PER.

ALTERNATIVE C-1 : GRAVITY SEWER COLLECTION - With this alternative, wastewater flows by gravity through 8-inch sewer mains and manholes to one lift station just upstream of the wastewater treatment and disposal system. The mains will be installed with open-cut trenching and located almost entirely within public rights-of-way and easements that have been previously disturbed by development. This is a viable alternative that will be considered further.

3

ALTERNATIVE C-2: COMBINED GRAVITY COLLECTION AND LOW PRESSURE SANITARY SEWER (LPSS) -This alternative consists of a gravity collection system of 8-inch sewer mains and manholes, with individual pumping units at services where gravity flow into the gravity main is more difficult without deeper sewer mains. The use of individual pumps at the school , church, post office and difficult residences allows for more flexibility of installation and routing around obstructions. Slope does not need to be maintained on these services and the 8-inch sewer mains can be placed at shallower depth, thereby reducing costs. Wastewater will be routed to one lift station just upstream of the wastewater treatment and disposal system. This is a viable alternative that will be considered further.

B. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

• Facultative Lagoon with Land Application at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Site

• Aerated Lagoon with Land Application at the Bischoff Site or the BNSF Site • Total Retention Ponds at the Bischoff Site or BNSF Site • Facultative Lagoon, Aerated Lagoon , or Level II Treatment with Discharge to

the Clark Fork River • Mechanical Treatment Plant with Discharge to the Clark Fork • Treatment - Disposal to Plains • Alternative TD-1: Level II Treatment and Drainfield Disposal • Alternative TD-2: Facultative Lagoon Treatment and Land Application at the

Bischoff Site

FACULTATIVE LAGOON WITH LAND APPLICATION AT THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE (BNSF) SITE - This alternative consists of construction of a three-cell lagoon with effluent disposal through spray irrigation on BNSF land west of Paradise. This alternative is relatively expensive and has high operation and maintenance requirements. Directional drilling under both the highway and the railroad for the sewer force main would be required. The very close proximity of the site to the community could cause unpleasant odors. For these reasons this alternative was not considered further in the PER.

AERATED LAGOON WITH LAND APPLICATION AT THE BISCHOFF SITE OR THE BNSF SITE - This alternative consists of construction of one aerated lagoon cell followed by two storage cells, with disposal of the treated effluent by spray irrigation on property owned either by Bischoff or BNSF. The estimated capital cost is significantly higher than that of the facultative lagoon alternatives on either property. There are added energy and operation and maintenance costs for the aeration equipment. Like the facultative lagoon alternatives, odors would be a concern giving the proximity to Paradise. This alternative was not considered further.

TOTAL RETENTION PONDS AT THE BISCHOFF SITE OR BNSF SITE-This alternative consists of construction of approximately 23 acres of shallow lagoon ponds designed for total evaporation of wastewater generated by the community of Paradise. A lagoon this size would be costly to build, occupy a large proportion of land in the confined Paradise community, and lend itself to odor issues. Because of these reasons, this alternative was not considered further.

4

FACUL TATIVE LAGOON, AERATED LAGOON, OR LEVEL II TREATMENT WITH DISCHARGE TO THE CLARK FORK RIVER - This alternative would consist of one of the treatment systems with spray irrigation listed above, except that discharge would be to the Clark Fork River. Additional needed components would be an effluent lift station and flow meter, an ultraviolet disinfection unit, and a sewer force main from the treatment plant to the river. A Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit would be required . This alternative requires compliance with an MPDES permit that is renewed every five years and has high operation and maintenance cost. Because of the added cost and complexity, a discharge to the Clark Fork River was not considered further.

MECHANICAL TREATMENT PLANT WITH DISCHARGE TO THE CLARK FORK RIVER - This alternative would consist of installation of a small mechanical wastewater package plant that would occupy a small footprint and discharge effluent meeting MPDES permit requirements to the Clark Fork River. The treatment could be as extensive as necessary. The initial capital costs and annual operation and maintenance requirements and costs are high when compared to the other alternatives. The highest level of operator certification would be required. The PER states that the community is not equipped to deal with alternatives having high operation and maintenance demands. For these reasons, this alternative was not considered viable.

TREATMENT- DISPOSAL TO PLAINS -This alternative consists of pumping raw wastewater collected in Paradise to the Town of Plains, which is located approximately 7 miles north of Paradise. A least one lift station would be needed. Currently the Town of Plains is in the process of upgrading its own wastewater system. This alternative would have high initial capital costs, but low operation and maintenance requirements for the community of Paradise. The community prefers to not be dependent on another community for their wastewater treatment needs. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further in the PER.

ALTERNATIVE TD-1: LEVEL II TREATMENT AND DRAINFIELD DISPOSAL­This alternative consists of a central system with septic tank capacity, Level II advanced treatment, and a community drainfield located north of the community. An MGWPCS permit would be required for this onsite wastewater system. Level II treatment would provide 60 percent nitrogen removal to a nitrogen concentration of 24 milligrams per liter or less. Treatment is comprised of a recirculation-blend tank where the wastewater is circulated over treatment media or textile. Approximately 6 acres of land is required for the treatment and drainfield components. Operator certification for onsite wastewater systems would be required. This is a viable alternative that was considered further in the PER.

ALTERNATIVE TD-2: FACULTATIVE LAGOON TREATMENT AND LAND APPLICATION AT THE BISCHOFF SITE - This alternative consists of construction of a three-cell lagoon with effluent disposal through spray irrigation on land owned by Bischoff north of Paradise. This alternative is relatively expensive and has high operation and maintenance requirements. The very close proximity of the site to the community could cause unpleasant odors. While nearly identical to the facultative lagoon alternative with spray irrigation on BNSF property dismissed earlier in the PER, this alternative is somewhat less expensive since it does not require a force main under the railroad and highway.

5

It is a viable alternative that was considered further in the PER

C. COST COMPARISON - PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

Present worth analysis is a means of comparing alternatives in present day dollars and can be used to determine the most cost-effective alternative. A present worth analysis was conducting on the two viable collection system alternatives and the two treatment and disposal options. A 20-year life cycle period is used. The real discount rate from Appendix C of Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Bulletin A-94 was used. For a 20-year period , a real interest rate of 1.2% was in effect at the time the PER was written. Table 1 presents total project cost, annual operation and maintenance cost, salvage value, and net present worth for each alternative considered.

TABLE 1 - ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Total O&M Salvage Net Present Alternative Project ($/Year) Value Worth

Cost*

Collection Svstem Alternatives C-1 Gravity Sewer $1 ,759,000 $8,400 $443,000 $1,581 ,590 C-2 Combined Gravity

$1,734,000 Collection & LPSS $8,300 403,000 $1 ,583,982

Treatment-Disposal Alternative TD-1 Level II Treatment

$1 ,510,100 $18,300 $558,000 $1 ,419,970

- Drainfield Disposal TD-2 Facultative Lagoon/Land Application $1 ,548,900 $15,100 $469,000 $1,468,288 Bischoff

*The total project cost includes a construction contingency of 10%, engineering costs of 20%, and administration/legal costs of 5%.

D. BASIS OF SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

To assist in selection of the preferred collection system and treatment-disposal alternatives, a qualitative ranking process considering both monetary and non­monetary factors was utilized. The alternatives were compared with respect to life cycle costs, operation and maintenance, permitting , social impacts, environmental impacts, public health and safety, land acquisition, and public opinion . Each alternative was given a score ranging from Oto 10 for each criterion, with 0 representing a negative impact and 10 representing the maximum benefit to the community. The criteria were also weighted with a value between 1 and 10, with 10 having the heaviest weight and most importance. The alternatives are scored for comparison in Table 2. The decision matrix indicates that the best collection system alternative for the community of Paradise is Alternative C-2, a combined gravity collection and low pressure sanitary sewer system. The collection system alternatives' scores were essentially the same, with the deciding factor being public opinion, which was more favorable to the slightly lower capital costs of Alternative C-2. The best treatment-disposal option , according to the decision matrix, is Alternative TD-1 , Level 11 treatment with

6

drainfield disposal. The primary factors influencing this conclusion are life cycle costs, land acquisition costs, and public opinion. Land needs are about 6 acres for Alternative TD-1 and about 25 acres for Alternative TD-2, a fourfold difference. Public opinion favored the drainfield design over an aesthetically unpleasing and possibly odorous lagoon.

TABLE 2 - ALTERNATIVES DECISION MATRIX

Collection System Treatment-Disposal Alternatives Alternatives

C-1 C-2 TD-1 TD-2

Criterion Criterion Weight Score/Pts Score/Pts Score/Pts Score/Pts

Life Cycle Costs 10 5/50 5/50 6.1/61 5.8/58 Operation & Maintenance 7 10/70 9/63 8/56 9/63 Permitting 4 5/20 5/20 9/36 10/40 Social Impacts 5 5/25 5/25 5/25 5/25 Environmental Impacts 5 5/25 5/25 5/25 5/25 Public Health & Safety 10 10/100 10/100 10/100 10/100 Land Acquisition 7 5/35 5/35 9/63 2/14 Public Opinion 10 9/90 10/100 9/90 4/40 TOT AL POINTS 415 418 456 365

The total project cost is broken down into administrative/finance and engineering/construction costs in Table 3.

TABLE 3 - ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS

Components Estimated Costs

Administrative/Finance Costs $158,500 Engineering/Construction Costs $4,356,500 Total Project Cost $4,515,000

The estimated project cost (including administration, engineering, and construction) is $4,515,000. The district will fund these project costs through a $750,000 grant from the Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP); a $561,000 grant from the Delivering Local Assistance (DLA) Program; a $450,000 grant from the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG); $102,000 in local funds; and a low-interest loan/grant funding package from the US Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD) in the amount of $2,652,000. The two grants from RD are expected to total $1,882,000 and the long-term loan (40 years) is expected to be $770,000. The RD program requires interim financing until construction is complete. Therefore, for the short term (up to 3 years), the district will borrow up to $770,00 at 1. 75% interest from the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund (WPCSRF) loan program to fund the project during construction.

Currently the residents of Paradise do not pay an assessment for wastewater because they are all served by individual onsite wastewater systems that they operate and maintain by themselves. The new sewer district was created

7

independent of the existing water system and will have its own fee system. The cost to users is estimated to be between $45 and $50 per month . The debt service portion of that cost per user will be $185 per year ($15.42/month) for most users, as assessed on County taxes. Using an average monthly sewer rate estimate of $47.50 per month , the financial impact of this project on the system users is shown in Table 4. The proposed project will result in a monthly sewer cost per household that is 2.1 % of the monthly median household income. Based on EPA guidance for project affordability, the sewer rate can be characterized as placing a significant financial burden on many of the households within the community.

TABLE 4 - PROJECT AFFORDABILITY

Monthly sewer user cost $47.50 Monthly median household income (mMHl) 1 $2 ,266 User rate as a percentage of mMHI 2.1%

1 Based on 2015 MHI for Paradise CDP at DOC website

IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. PLANNING AREA AND MAPS

The community of Paradise is a census designated place in Sanders County with a total area of approximately 0.2 square miles (see Figure 1). Paradise was platted in 1908 by the Northwestern Improvement Company, a subsidiary of the Northern Pacific Railroad. The project planning area shares the same boundaries as the Sanders County Sewer District (as shown in Figure 2) . The district boundary includes the community of Paradise and its adjacent flatland . It is surrounded by foothills on its east and north edges and by Montana Highway 200 to the west. Its southern boundary is McLaughlin Creek Road. Figure 3 shows the location of the proposed wastewater collection system and treatment and disposal system. The proposed treatment scheme is shown as a line drawing in Figure 4.

B. POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS

Census data from 2000 indicated a population of 184 for the community of Paradise and 2010 data showed a population of 163. The 2016 population figure is 164. With little population data prior to 2000, it is difficult to predict a growth rate . Using the limited data available , however, a 1 % annual growth rate is assumed. The platted land within the community of Paradise is nearly fully developed, with little room for growth. Growth has been built into the treatment system to accommodate development allocated in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise and Bridger's Paradise, a Montana limited liability company, that owns land outside the Paradise community's platted lots. The MOU was executed in April of 2019 and allows Bridger's Paradise to consume wastewater treatment capacity for 75% of the planned growth for the system . It states that the wastewater treatment system shall be designed and constructed to handle flows from 15 recreational vehicle (RV) sites, 19 residential lots, a campground office, and a convenience store, which includes a laundry facility, showers, toilets , and an RV

8

Source

dump station. Considering a 1 % projected growth rate and the Bridger's Paradise development, the total design population for the year 2036 is 221 people.

Because Paradise residences are currently served by individual onsite systems, current wastewater flow data is not available. The proposed treatment and disposal system's needed capacity is therefore based on DEQ's Circular DEQ-4 residential design criteria, which is 100 gallons per capita per day, and its non­residential flow criteria. Table 5 illustrates how the 2036 design flow of 27,31 O gallons per day (gpd) was calculated.

TABLE 5 - DESIGN AVERAGE DAY WASTEWATER FLOWS

Amount Unit gpd/Unit apd Residential 221 people 100 22,100 RV Park 30 hookups 100 3,000 RV Dump Station 2 RV dumps 140 280 Convenience Store 3 washinq machines 580 1,740

4 employees 10 40 50 customers 3 150

Total Average Day Design Flow 27,310

SOURCE: Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise Wastewater System Improvements Draft Design Report, Great West Engineering, April 2020.

C. NATURAL FEATURES

The community of Paradise is located on a low terrace above and to the east of the Clark Fork River. It is located just downstream of the confluence of the Flathead and Clark Fork rivers and lies at the foot of the Cabinet Mountains, which are meta-sedimentary rocks belonging to the Belt Supergroup. The low terrace is composed of unconsolidated, fine-grained, glaciolacustrine sediments overlying alluvial sand and gravel related to the Clark Fork River. The glaciolacustrine sediments are primarily fine-grained silt deposited within Glacial Lake Missoula over 12,000 years ago. Soils within the community and at the proposed Level II treatment and drainfield sites are primarily Gird silt loam, at slopes ranging from O to 8 percent.

Paradise is located at an elevation of 2,487 feet. Nearby Patrick's Knob reaches 6,775 feet, in comparison. Paradise averages approximately 41 inches of snow per year and 17 inches of rain. There are approximately 157 sunny days annually. The July high temperature is approximately 86°F and the January low temperature is about 21 °F.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT

A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. Land Use/Prime Farmland - Soils at the proposed force main and wastewater treatment and disposal sites are designated as lands of statewide importance by the Natural Resources and Conservation

9

2.

3.

4.

5.

Service (NRCS). Specifically, the Gird silt loam at the site is considered prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated. The Level II drainfield site and the drainfield area have most recently been put to agricultural use, but are not presently irrigated. On federally funded projects, conversion of farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), to nonagricultural uses, requires submittal of Form AD-1006 to the NRCS. The form was submitted by our WPCSRF Program, and subsequently reviewed by the NRCS Missoula Office. Consideration was given to 7.6 total agricultural acres converted by the project, with 6.0 of those acres directly converted to the wastewater treatment and disposal components, and the remaining acreage indirectly converted because it is no longer capable of being farmed due to access restriction. Since the site score on Form AD-1006 was less than 160 points, the site need not be considered for further protection. NRCS comments are summarized at the end of this EA.

In addition to the purchase of the 5.96-acre parcel for the treatment and drainfield units, an easement or purchase of approximately 0.25 acres would be needed to site the lift station. The force main requires a 30-foot­wide permanent easement. The combined gravity sewer collection and LPSS system would be constructed almost completely within public rights-of-way in alleys within Paradise.

Floodplains - Due to the community's location on a terrace above the Clark Fork River, the potential for flooding from the Clark Fork is minimal and the project will not impede any floodplains associated with the river. The elevation of the Paradise community is 2,486 lineal feet above mean sea level (MSL). The 500-year floodplain elevation according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) data is 2,484 feet above MSL. The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation reviewed the proposed project and had no comments.

Wetlands - Most of the mapped riparian and wetland areas near Paradise are located along the Clark Fork River. However, there is some forested wetland along the toe of the foothills northeast of the drainfield site. That area will not be disturbed during construction. Measures will be taken to avoid sediment runoff or other negative impacts to that area. The Department of the Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the proposed project and their comments are summarized at the end of this EA.

Cultural Resources and Historical Sites - No previously recorded cultural sites occur within the project area. Disturbance of streets and alleys in Paradise and the proposed treatment and drainfield area do not appear to pose a very high risk for the disturbance of culturally-significant sites. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the proposed project and their comments are summarized at the end of this report.

Fish and Wildlife - The habitat around Paradise is Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill, and Valley Grassland, according to the Montana Natural Heritage Program. This habitat supports a wide range of mammals, from mice and shrews to elk, sheep, deer, and bear. Bird species in the area include larks, buntings, swallows, bluebirds, owls,

10

hawks, and eagles. Fish species in the nearby Clark Fork River include rainbow, brown, and cutthroat trout; sculpins; whitefish; and some warm­water species downstream. The Flathead River, which joins the Clark Fork River immediately upstream of Paradise, contains Westslope Cutthroat and Bull Trout.

According to the State of Montana's Sage Grouse Program's website , there are no general or connectivity sage grouse areas within the vicinity of Paradise. Therefore, compliance with Executive Orders 12-2015 and 21-2015 is met.

Recommendations were made by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to protect migratory birds during the breeding season. In addition, they identified a documented bald or golden eagle territory or active nest within two miles of the proposed site and noted the requirements to be followed if a nest is found within 0.5 miles of the proposed project site. Candidate, proposed, threatened or endangered species occurring in Sanders County are the Grizzly Bear, Canada Lynx, Bull Trout, Spalding 's Compion and the Wolverine.

Because the proposed project is located on land that is either developed or used for agricultural purposes immediately adjacent to the community, no significant impacts to natural habitat are expected. The FWS and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks both reviewed the

· proposed project and their responses are summarized at the end of this EA.

6. Water Quality - The Clark Fork River is the prominent surface water source near Paradise. It is located immediately to the east of the community, across both Highway 200 and the railroad. The Flathead River joins the Clark Fork River immediately upstream of Paradise. The Clark Fork River provides many recreational opportunities, including fishing and boating, and is also a source of power generation.

Groundwater in the Paradise area is found in both a shallow alluvial aquifer and a deeper bedrock aquifer. Two public water supply wells for the community of Paradise, drilled in 1988, draw from the sand and gravels of the alluvial aquifer at depths of 64 and 70 feet and are located west of the community across both the highway and the railroad. Groundwater monitoring at the proposed drainfield site indicates a depth of at least 15 feet.

A Montana Ground Water Pollution Control System (MGWPCS) permit is required for the new community drainfield system and an application has been under review by the DEQ. The application process includes a nondegradation analysis using best available hydrogeologic parameters. It is based on Level II treatment criteria being met with a recirculating trickling filter discharging a total nitrogen effluent concentration of 24 mg/I or less. Local groundwater quality will be improved by elimination of the individual onsite wastewater systems, most of which are inadequate, and construction of the new community drainfield. The treatment and disposal system will follow DEQ nondegradation and discharge permit

11

requirements; therefore, negative impacts to groundwater and surface water near the project site will be minimized.

7. Air Quality - Short-term negative impacts on air quality are expected to occur during construction from heavy equipment in the form of dust and exhaust fumes. Proper construction practices will minimize this problem. Project specifications will require dust control with either the application of water or chemicals. No long-term air quality impacts will result from the proposed project. Odors from the wastewater treatment system are not expected to be a problem.

8. Public Health - The proposed project will provide an overall benefit to public health and safety through elimination of the many inadequate and failing on-site systems in Paradise and their replacement with a community drainfield system designed in accordance with state standards and meeting MPWPCS permit requirements . Ongoing problems with surfacing sewage, sewage backups, and the migration of inadequately treated wastewater to groundwater, will be eliminated.

9. Energy - The consumption of energy resources directly associated with construction of the recommended improvements is unavoidable, but will be short-term. There will be long-term energy costs associated with the lift station and Level II treatment system that are unavoidable, but can be minimized through selection of energy-efficient equipment. The eight individual LPSS pumps anticipated in the project will also require energy, but the amount can be minimized using efficient pumps.

10. Noise - Short-term impacts from excessive noise levels may occur during construction activities. The construction period will be limited to normal daytime hours to avoid early morning or late evening construction disturbances. No significant long-term impacts from noise should occur due to the treatment or pumping equipment.

11 . Sludge Disposal - Ninety-five septic tanks will be pumped and abandoned as part of the proposed project. Septic tank contents will be disposed in accordance with county and state requirements. Sludge and scum will accumulate in the new community septic tanks and Level II treatment units over time. Their depths must be monitored on a regular basis and solids removed and disposed, as required.

12. Environmental Justice - Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898: The proposed project will not result in disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. No disproportionate effects among any portion of the community would be expected.

13. Wild and Scenic River Act - The proposed project will not impact any rivers designated as wild and scenic by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior.

14. Growth - Platted land within the community of Paradise is nearly fully developed, with little room for growth. A Memorandum of Understanding

12

(MOU) was signed in April of 2019 between the Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise and Bridger's Paradise, a Montana limited liability company, that owns land outside the Paradise community's platted lots. The MOU allows Bridger's Paradise to consume wastewater treatment capacity for 75% of the planned growth built into the system. The proposed development includes 15 recreational vehicle (RV) sites, 19 residential lots, a campground office, and a convenience store, which includes a laundry facility, showers, toilets, and an RV dump station. The residential lots would be located on the east edge of town and the recreational development would be located on the northern edge of Paradise.

15. Cumulative Effects - The proposed wastewater improvements are not expected to result in any cumulative effects. However, should any secondary and/or cumulative impacts from the project occur that are associated with housing, commercial development, solid waste, transportation, utilities, air quality, water utilization, and possible loss of agricultural and rural lands, these impacts will be managed and minimized as much as possible through proper community planning. There are several existing county and state regulations already in place (i.e. , zoning regulations, comprehensive planning, subdivision laws, etc.) that control the density and development of property with regards to water supply, sewage disposal , solid waste disposal, transportation, and storm drainage.

B. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Short-term construction-related impacts (i.e. , noise, dust, etc.) will occur, but should be minimized through proper construction management. Energy consumption during construction cannot be avoided.

VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The first public meetings for the project were held in March and April of 2016, in preparation of submittal of the PER to funding agencies for review and ranking . At the first meeting, potential wastewater collection and treatment-disposal options were presented along with their respective costs. Possible funding scenarios were offered. The meeting was attended by the County Sanitarian, a County Commissioner, community board members, and the engineer. The April meeting was a public hearing where the proposed project was explained in detail. The public was given the opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns. People attending the meeting were supportive of the project. The District intends to hold another public meeting now that the status of DLA funding is known.

VII . AGENCY ACTION, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING AUTHORITIES

All proposed improvements will be designed to meet state standards in accordance with Circular DEQ-2, and will be constructed using standard construction methods. Best management practices will be implemented to minimize or eliminate pollutants during construction. No additional permits will be required from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) section of DEQ for this project after the review of the submitted plans and specifications.

13

However, coverage under the storm water general discharge permit and groundwater dewatering discharge permit, if necessary, must be obtained from the DEQ Water Protection Bureau prior to the beginning of construction. A 124 Permit from the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, a 404 Permit from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and a 318 Authorization from the Department of Environment Quality will be obtained for any work that occurs in a streambed or Uurisdictional) wetlands, should it become necessary.

VIII. RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

[ ] EIS [ ] More Detailed EA [ X ] No Further Analysis

Rationale for Recommendation: Through this EA, DEQ has verified that none of the adverse impacts of the proposed Paradise wastewater improvements project are significant. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The environmental review was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.4.607, 17.4.608, 17.4.609, and 17.4.610. The EA is the appropriate level of analysis because none of the adverse effects of the impacts are significant.

IX. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

The following documents were utilized in the environmental review of this project and are part of the project file :

1. Sanders County Sewer at Paradise 2016 Preliminary Engineering Report Wastewater System Improvements, prepared by Great West Engineering, May 2016.

2. Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise Wastewater System Improvements Design Report (Draft), Great West Engineering, April 2020.

3. Sanders County Sewer District at Paradise Wastewater Improvements Project Recirculating Trickling Filter Packaged Treatment System Procurement (Executed Contract Documents), Great West Engineering, May 2020.

X. AGENCIES CONSULTED

As part of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) process, the following agencies were contacted regarding the proposed construction of this project:

1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) responded in May of 2017 with respect to the proposed project. They determined that there could be potential effects to migratory birds. If proposed work is to occur during the breeding season, the cutting and removal of trees and shrubs should take place between August 16th

and April 30th and the removal of swallow nests should occur as they are built. FWS records do not indicate bald or golden eagle nests or territories within the 0.5-mile circumference of the proposed project, but indicated that it may be prudent to conduct a survey and referenced the Bald and Golden Eagle

14

Protection Act. The FWS stated that given the information provided to them and the location within existing infrastructure in Paradise, they do not anticipate adverse effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species or critical habitat to result from implementation of the proposed project. If wetlands are to be impacted by the proposed project, the FWS must be notified.

2. The Montana Historical Society's State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the proposed project. They indicated that if there is no disturbance or alteration to structures over fifty years of age, there is low likelihood that cultural properties will be impacted. However, should structures need to be altered or cultural materials be inadvertently discovered during the project, SHPO must be contacted and the site investigated.

3. The U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) stated that if any work is proposed below the ordinary highwater mark of stream channels, lakes, or wetlands adjacent to these waters, then a Section 404 permit would apply and authorization from USCOE would be needed.

4. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) stated in April of 2017 that the fisheries and wildlife staff did not have any comments.

5. The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) was contacted with respect to potential floodplain impacts from the proposed wastewater improvements project. They indicated that they had reviewed the proposal and conducted a review of the mapped floodplain only, and they had no comments.

6. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Missoula Office was contacted with respect to the location of the wastewater treatment and disposal components on prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. Form AD-1006 was submitted to the NRCS by our WPCSRF Program. The NRCS responded that since the site score was less than 160 points, the site need not be considered for further protection.

EA Prepared by:

Michele Marsh, P.E.

EA Reviewed by:

Mike Abrahamson, P.E. Date

15

LOCATION MAP

16

~ SC,1,l(IN rtCT

engineering8

Planning Area and Paradise Wastewater District Boundary

COMMUNITY OF PARADISE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT

!

TMENTSITE

- -- - - - - -- -- - -,. ___ ,,.. ,.,. ___ ,_ - --- - --- - -- -- - --

BRIDGER BISCHOFF DEVELOPMENT ,, - I (DRY CAMP AREA) ~ t

BRIDGER BISCHOFF DEVELOPMENT (30 RV LOTS/15 CONNECTIONS)

I I

I I I

HIGHWAY200

PROPOSED TREATMENT SITE ACCESS (60' WIDE EASEMENT)

PROPOSED REPLACEMENT DRAINFIELD (1 .82 ACRES)

a 125 2so '---- SC!t( Il l F[Ei

BRIDGER BISCHOFF DEVELOPMENT

[]_fr::;:"· -rm]JJJJlllI1 ~.LI

GENERAL NOTE: Site layout is only to be considered a prel iminary schematic and subject to change.

PROPOSED SEWER LOCATION (TYPICAL)

PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE LOCATION (TYPICAL)

Figure 3 Sewer Collection System Plan ! ~ "' l _____ ~e:n~gi~ne~e:ri:ng~®:_ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _, SANDERS COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT AT PARADISE

F:\ 1 - 1 5250- Po rodise Wostewoter\CADD 1- 15250\Exhibils\Exhibits-Permitling\ 1- 15250-Form GW-1 - Attochment F. 1- Line Drowing.dwg

FUTURE RV PARK 3,000 GPO (30 SERVICES)

MUNICIPAL GRAVITY

COLLECTION SYSTEM

24,030 GPO

~ engineering ®

FUTURE RV DUMP STATION 280 GPO

(2,000 GALLON HOLDING TANK WI DOSE PUMP)

FUTURE SAMPLE PORT

SAMPLE PORT FUTURE FLOW MEASUREMENT VAULT WITH FLUME 90,000 GALLON TOTAL

CAPACITY

SEPTICIPRE-ANOXIC TANKS WITH

RECIRCULATION BLEND TANK

AVG. 27,310 GPO PEAK HR 112,060 GPO MAX DAY 33,900 GPO

PACKAGED SUBMERSIBLE LIFT STATION

25,000 GALLON POST-ANOXIC TANK

PACKAGED TREATMENT

RECIRCULATING TRICKLING FILTER AVG. 27,310 GPO

PEAK HR 112,060 GPO MAX DAY 33,900 GPO

PRE-ANOXIC RETURN LINE

PRESSURE PIPE TO DRAINFIELD

METER VAULT WITH FLOW METER

SAMPLE PORT

3,000 GALLON DOSE TANK

OUTFALL 001 PRESSURE

DOSED DRAIN FIELD 27,310 GPO

ALKALINITY FEED (IF NECESSARY)

CARBON FEED

Figure 4

Line Drawing WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SANDERS COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT AT PARADISE