p-ear2-78b

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ST. FRANCIS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY EXPANSION CITY OF ST. FRANCIS, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT

Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) staff prepared and distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the proposed St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility (“Project”). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, 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.

St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility Project Description

1. The city of St. Francis (“City”) currently holds a National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem/State Disposal System (“NPDES/SDS”) Permit to treat domestic and industrial wastewater atits wastewater treatment facility (“WWTF”) located in St. Francis, Minnesota. The WWTF isregulated under NPDES/SDS Permit MN0021407 and includes all infrastructure and ancillaryequipment associated with the proposed Project.

2. As part of the proposed Project, the City is proposing to increase the average wet weather designflow from 0.54 million gallons per day (“mgd”) to 0.81 mgd, and to eliminate the discharge outflowto the Rum River.

3. The City plans to modify its existing WWTF by constructing a new influent lift station and a newtreatment facility at the existing location.

4. The City proposes to construct an activated sludge biological nutrient removal treatment system atthe existing treatment site.

5. The City will remove and properly close the existing outfall to the Rum River, an OutstandingResource Value Water. The City will modify the existing lift station building to house the influentvalves and piping. Biosolids generated during the treatment of the wastewater are stored onsite andland applied on the existing MPCA permitted land application sites. The City will keep the existingblower building which supplies air to the existing ponds.

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Improvements Conclusions of Law St. Francis, Minnesota (Anoka County) And Order

Environmental Review of the Project 6. The City submitted an NPDES/SDS Permit application for the proposed project on October 27, 2014.

Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18(B), the MPCA determined that the Project exceeded the mandatory EAW threshold for the expansion of a municipal WWTF. The MPCA is the Responsible Governmental Unit (“RGU”) for the EAW.

7. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1400, subp. 18(B), MPCA staff prepared an EAW on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500, the MPCA distributed the EAW to the Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) mailing list and other interested parties on April 24, 2015.

8. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for comment. The MPCA provided a

news release to the media in Anoka County and other interested parties on April 27, 2015. The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on April 27, 2015, and the MPCA made the EAW available for review on its website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.

9. The public comment period for the EAW began on April 27, 2015, and ended on May 27, 2015.

During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received comment letters from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Council. No letters were received from citizens. A list of the comment letters received and the responses to the comments are included as Appendix A to these Findings. Copies of the comment letters are included.

Standard for Decision on the Need for an EIS

10. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 1, the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement

(“EIS”) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. 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. The following factors shall be considered:

A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. B. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the

cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.

C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public

regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project.

2

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Improvements Conclusions of Law St. Francis, Minnesota (Anoka County) And Order

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 11. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is the “type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(A). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

12. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include the

following: • Water quality impacts related to stormwater runoff • Surface water quality impacts related to the wastewater discharge

13. Written comments received during the comment period did not raise any issues of concern. 14. The MPCA makes the following findings on the extent and reversibility of impacts that are

reasonably expected to occur from the Project: Findings on water quality impacts related to stormwater runoff

15. The MPCA examined the potential environmental impacts associated with stormwater runoff during and after construction of the expanded WWTF. The City will construct the expanded WWTF within the existing treatment site footprint. The City through its NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit will implement erosion prevention and sediment control measures to mitigate surface water runoff impacts to the Seelye Brook. Drainage from the Project site will flow to the City stormwater collection system and convey to Seelye Brook. Seelye Brook ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River.

16. The information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review

record is sufficient to adequately assess the impacts on water quality from stormwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

17. The MPCA finds the proposed Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of stormwater impacts reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

3

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Improvements Conclusions of Law St. Francis, Minnesota (Anoka County) And Order Findings on water quality impacts related to wastewater discharge

18. The City will obtain a MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit. The NPDES/SDS Permit regulates maximum

discharge flow and pollutant loadings allowed from the St. Francis WWTF. The NPDES/SDS Permit

19. The WWTF average wet weather design flow will increase from 0.54 mgd to 0.81 mgd to Seelye

Brook. The proposed WWTF modifications are designed to improve treatment capabilities to meet the five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (“CBOD5“), total suspended solids (“TSS”) mass limits, and total phosphorus (“TP”) effluent limits in the NPDES/SDS permit.

20. The MPCA calculated the NPDES/SDS Permit effluent discharge limits in accordance with state and

federal requirements. These limits are established to prevent degradation of Seelye Brook.

21. The City will operate the expanded WWTF to comply with the MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit and applicable rules and regulations. The expanded WWTF is not expected to exceed its permitted effluent limits; however, if effluent limits are exceeded or other noncompliance with permit conditions occur, the City will take corrective actions to improve operation of the WWTF. Permit and facility modifications could be short-term or addressed through the normal five-year permit reissuance cycle. Thus, the MPCA has determined potential impacts to surface water quality are temporary and reversible.

22. The MPCA finds the environmental review has assessed impacts to surface water quality that are

reasonably expected to occur from the Project, and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been identified or developed.

23. The MPCA finds the proposed Project does not have the potential for significant environmental

effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of surface water quality impacts reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Cumulative Potential Effects 24. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential

for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects.” In making this determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the Project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7b. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

25. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project.

4

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Improvements Conclusions of Law St. Francis, Minnesota (Anoka County) And Order Surface water quality 26. When developing effluent discharge limits for the NPDES/SDS Permit, the MPCA must consider the

cumulative sources of pollutants to receiving waters to ensure that the proposed discharge does not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. The Mississippi River is listed as impaired for turbidity.

27. The City WWTF is the only point of discharge to Seelye Brook; therefore, there are no cumulative

impacts from other sources to Seelye Brook.

28. The Mississippi River is listed as impaired for turbidity. The MPCA issued a draft turbidity Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”).The MPCA assigned the City’s WWTF a draft TSS waste load allocation (“WLA”) of 30 mg/L equivalent to the WWTF’s current permitted TSS effluent limit. The MPCA has determined these TMDL, WLA, and TSS limits are protective of surface water quality. The City will be required to meet this limit in its NPDES/SDS Wastewater Permit.

29. Lake Pepin is impaired for nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators. The draft Lake Pepin-Excess

Nutrients TMDL is on hold until a site specific water quality standard is approved in connection with the next iteration of Minn. R. ch. 7050. However, in addition to a 1 mg/L concentration limit for TP, the MPCA will impose a water quality based effluent limit of 2,431 kilograms per year (“kg/year”) in consideration of the downstream eutrophication impairment in Lake Pepin. The MPCA review indicates the proposed expansion will result in reduction of actual TP loads from the WWTF, and the TP concentration in the Mississippi River will improve slightly downstream from the WWTF discharge.

Enabled development 30. The availability of expanded wastewater service will allow for population growth and additional

development in the surrounding area. The MPCA is not aware of any potential significant cumulative impact effects at this time related to future development. In the future it is expected that an increase in development would be accompanied by increases in traffic, stormwater runoff, and solid waste generation. Potential impacts from future development can be mitigated through the implementation of local, state, and federal ordinances and regulations.

31. 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 result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 32. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

5

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Improvements Conclusions of Law St. Francis, Minnesota (Anoka County) And Order 33. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State

Disposal System (SDS) Wastewater Permit MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit City of St. Francis Building Permit

34. MPCA NPDES/SDS Discharge Permit to Receiving Waters. The draft NPDES/SDS Permit was placed on

public comment on April 27, 2015, and the comment period ended on May 27, 2015. Only one comment was received. The final NPDES/SDS Permit will be issued following the execution of an order for a negative declaration on the need for an EIS.

35. MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit. The City will obtain a NPDES/SDS

Construction Stormwater General Permit since the Project disturbs more than one acre. This permit requires the use of best management practices (“BMPs”) such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt revegetation to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site and control sediment that does. The City will also prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan detailing the BMPs 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 NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit also requires the City to provide adequate storm water treatment capacity to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the Project is constructed.

36. City of St. Francis. The City will obtain a building permit to ensure compliance with local ordinances,

zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses.

37. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental

effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.

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 38. 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). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

39. The MPCA reviewed the following documents as part of the environmental impact analysis for the

proposed Project:

• Data presented in the EAW • NPDES/SDS permit application

6

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Improvements Conclusions of Law St. Francis, Minnesota (Anoka County) And Order

• Anoka County Land Use Plans • City of St. Francis Comprehensive Use Plan • City of St. Francis Surface Water Management Plan

40. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relied on information provided by the City,

persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.

41. Through Project design, permit development processes, regional and local plans, the MPCA

determined the Project does not pose a potential for significant environmental effects.

42. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies or the Project proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.

43. The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Responses to Comments (Appendix A) as the

basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

44. The MPCA has jurisdiction and is the RGU for determining the need for an EIS for the Project.

45. The EAW, the permit development process, 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 the Project.

46. 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.

47. Based on a comparison of the impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project with

the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 subp. 7, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.

48. An EIS is not required. 49. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be

termed findings are hereby adopted as such.

7

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Michael J. Corbett, PE, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Letter received 05/21/2015. 2. LisaBeth Sheppeck, Metropolitan Council. Letter received May 26, 2015.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Michael J. Corbett, PE, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Letter received 05/21/2015. Comment 1-1: Commenter had no comments. Response: No response required 2. LisaBeth Sheppeck, Metropolitan Council, letter received May 26, 2015.

Comment 2-1: Commenter stated, under Minn. Stat. 473.513, all communities within the Metropolitan Council’s seven-county jurisdiction are required to develop and submit for approval a Wastewater System Plan if a community plans to expand. Alter or build a centralized wastewater collection and/or treatment system. The Council reviews all MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit applications for consistency with a community’s wastewater system plan and if found consistent with said plan, offers a non-objection findings to the MPCA for permit issuance. Response: No response required. Comment 2-2: Comment stated the city of St Francis will need to amend its comprehensive plan and include the required elements related to the modification of the treatment facilities. Requirements for community wastewater plans (Tier II) can be found in the Council’s Local Planning Handbook, Section 5. The Handbook can be found on the Council’s website at: http://www.metrocouncil.org/getattachment/Communities/Planning/Local-planning-Assistance/Local-Planning-Handbook_CobminedMay2013.pdf.aspx.Once the City has completed the above described amendment, it will need to be submitted for review and approval by the Council. Response: No response required

Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113

May 21, 2015

Kevin Kain Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Rd N St. Paul, MN 55155

SUBJECT: St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility MnDOT Review # EAW15-007 TH 47 at County Rd 24 St. Francis, Anoka County Control Section 8206

Dear Mr. Kain:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the St. Francis Wastewater Treatment Facility Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the EAW and has no comments.

If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7793.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Corbett, PE Senior Planner

Copy sent via E-Mail: Brian Kelly, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Tiffany Kautz, Right-of-Way Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council

1

2