waubay wwtf improvement project - fema.gov · waubay wwtf improvement project. waubay, day county,...

Draft Environmental Assessment

Waubay WWTF Improvement Project Waubay, Day County, South Dakota December 2017

Prepared for: FEMA Region VIII Denver Federal Center Building 710, Box 25267 Denver, CO 80225-0267

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE–Area of Potential Effect

BMP–Best Management Practice

CAA–Clean Air Act

CFR–Code of Federal Regulations

CDBG-Community Development Block Grant

CWA-Clean Water Act

EA–Environmental Assessment

EIS–Environmental Impact Statement

EL-Elevation

EO–Executive Order

EPA–Environmental Protection Agency

ESA–Endangered Species Act

FEMA–Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM–Flood Insurance Rate Map

FONSI–Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA–Farmland Protection Policy Act

HUD-Housing and Urban Development

IP-Infiltration and Percolation

MBTA-Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NECOG-Northeast Council of Governments

NEPA–National Environmental Policy Act

NFIP- National Flood Insurance Program

NHPA–National Historic Preservation Act

NOI–Notice of Intent

NPDES–National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS–Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP–National Register of Historic Places

NWI–National Wetlands Inventory

PAAP-Public Assistance Alternative Procedures

P.L.–Public Law

ROW–Right-of-way

SD DENR–South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources

SD GFP – South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

SHPO–State Historical Preservation Office

SRIA-Sandy Recovery Improvement Act

THPO–Tribal Historic Preservation Office

UFR-Unified Federal Review

USACE–United States Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS–United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WWTF-Waste Water Treatment Facility

i

Table of Contents

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1

1.1 Project Authority………………………………………………………………………………… 1

1.2 Project Location……………………………………………………………………………………1

1.3 Background………………………………………………………………………………………….2

1.4 Purpose and Need………………………………………………………………………………..2

1.5 Project Costs and Funding……………………………………………………………………3

SECTION TWO: ALTERNATIVES…………………………………………………………………………..4

2.1 No Action Alternative……………………………………………………………………………5

2.2 Action Alternative 1 – Site 1………………………………………………………………… 5

2.3 Action Alternative 2 – Site 2………………………………………………………………….5

2.4 Action Alternative 3 – Site 3………………………………………………………………….6

2.5 Action Alternative 4 - Combination of Sites 1 & 3 (Preferred)……………… 6

SECTION THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES……………………7

3.1 Geology and Soils………………………………………………………………………………… 7

3.2 Land Use and Planning………………………………………………………………………… 7

3.3 Zoning………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

3.4 Prime Farmland…………………………………………………………………………………… 7

3.5 Traffic……………………………………………………………………………………………………8

3.6 Public Health and Safety……………………………………………………………………….8

3.7 Socioeconomic………………………………………………………………………………………8

3.8 Environmental Justice……………………………………………………………………………9

3.9 Air Quality……………………………………………………………………………………………..9

3.10 Noise…………………………………………………………………………………………………….10

3.11 Public Services………………………………………………………………………………………10

3.12 Solid Waste…………………………………………………………………………………………..10

3.13 Water Resources…………………………………………………………………………………..10

3.13.1 Floodplain Management…………………………………………………………….10

ii

3.13.2 Surface Water…………………………………………………………………………….11

3.13.3 Drinking Water……………………………………………………………………………11

3.13.4 Ground Water…………………………………………………………………………….11

3.13.5 Wetlands…………………………………………………………………………………….11

3.13.5.1 CWA Sec.404……………………………………………………. 11

3.13.5.2 EO 11990…………………………………………………………..11

3.14 Biological Resources………………………………………………………………………………..12

3.14.1 Threatened or Endangered Species…………………………………………….12

3.14.2 Migratory Birds…………………………………………………………………………..12

3.14.3 State Species of Interest……………………………………………………………..12

3.15 Cultural Resources……………………………………………………………………………………….12

3.15.1 Historic Properties……………………………………………………………………..13

3.15.1 Tribal Coordination…………………………………………………………………….13

SECTION FOUR: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS………………………………………………………………14

SECTION FIVE: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROJECT CONDITIONS…………………...14

SECTION SIX: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT……………………………………………………………………14

SECTION SEVEN: AGENCIES CONSULTED……………………………………………………………..15

SECTION EIGHT: LIST OF PREPARERS…………………………………………………………………...15

APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures and Maps

Appendix B Agency Correspondence and Approvals

Appendix C Facility Plan (Banner Engineering)

Appendix D Soil Testing (GeoTek Engineering)

Appendix E Final Public Notice

Waubay SD WWTF EA 1 12/07/2017

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Authority On May 10, 2011, Governor Dennis Daugaard requested a major disaster declaration for flooding in eastern South Dakota beginning on March 11, 2011, and continuing through July 22, 2011. On May 13, 2011, the President declared a major disaster (FEMA 1984-DR-SD) for 28 counties based on estimated damages of $7,154,975. This declaration made federal funds available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations as authorized under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (Stafford Act 42 U.S.C. § 5170 and § 5191). FEMA funding would be provided by a Public Assistance (PA) grant program Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot (PAAP) permanent work sub-grant in the amount of $415,820 based on a fixed estimate total of $489,200 (Project Worksheet #2098). In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 through 1508), and FEMA regulations for NEPA compliance (Directive 108-1), FEMA must fully understand and consider the environmental consequences of actions proposed for federal funding. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to meet FEMA’s responsibilities under NEPA and to determine whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed project. As part of this NEPA analysis, the requirements of other environmental laws and executive orders are addressed. In accordance with the Unified Federal Review (UFR) process as outlined in the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), FEMA coordinated with other federal agencies to facilitate a comprehensive strategy to address recovery and mitigation efforts. Per the UFR process, other federal agencies may adopt this document under their own authorities and implementing procedures. 1.2 Project Location The proposed project is located southeast of the City of Waubay in Day County, South Dakota in T122N R53W S27 at latitude 45.31570, longitude -97.27778 (Appendix A). During the declared event, severe flooding occurred as a result of rapid snow melt and a subsequent rise in the water table. As a result of the flooding, portions of the City of Waubay’s sanitary sewer system and waste water treatment facility (WWTF) were damaged beyond repair. Specifically, the infiltration and percolation (I/P) ponds became inundated and rendered unusable by the expanding borders of nearby Bitter Lake. The existing primary and secondary stabilization ponds are undamaged and situated above the flood elevation, well above water levels of adjacent Bitter Lake. These ponds are functioning as designed, but are inadequate to meet current needs.


Essential services were and continue to be impacted for the approximately 500 residents of Waubay. 1.3 Background Bitter Lake is a closed-basin lake and is located south of the City of Waubay and at the southern-most end of the Waubay Chain of Lakes. The lakebed was dry in the 1980’s when the original WWTF was constructed. Local residents remember when Bitter Lake was less than knee deep and was over a mile from the City limits of Waubay; thus no concerns were noted when development on the south edge of town occurred in the 1980’s and continued through the 1990’s. However, at that time lake levels began rising and continue to expand in the inundated areas. The 2011 flooding affected many residents in town; those living on the south side of town were hit especially hard by the event, as well as those living on the north side of town near Blue Dog Lake. Thirty-three of the affected homeowners participated in a major acquisition project, which was largely funded by FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). In addition to those 33 participants, 5 others were awarded funds but voluntarily withdrew from the program. There were also 16 tribal properties that were acquired and demolished during that time. HMGP grant funding for the City of Waubay’s 2012-2013 acquisition project totaled just under $4.08 million for this event. The City’s lift stations were also compromised by infiltration and inflow of lake water, thus forcing the City to undertake a $670,000 project in 2012 to correct the issues caused by flooding. In addition to flood damage at the WWTF, a South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR) compliance order was issued under their Section 401, CWA authorities, mandating that the City relocate the ponds and build a total retention facility by July, 2010 due to naturally-rising lake levels and designation of the lake as beneficial to fisheries. According to the September, 2016 Waubay Wastewater System Facility Plan Amendment (revised 10/13/17), the IP ponds were abandoned and disconnected from the treatment system in 2011. Their current Surface Water Discharge Permit expired on September 30, 2017 and controlled discharge from the facility is no longer allowed; thereby eliminating the current point of discharge into the lake. The City has requested a time extension because the new facility could not be constructed due to flooding. However, fines of $10,000 per day can be assessed to the City if they do not complete the project within the specified timeframe. 1.4 Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to restore the function of a disaster-damaged public facility and to protect the facility from future events. The project is needed because flood waters caused by rapid snow melt and rising lake levels inundated the City of


Waubay’s sanitary sewer system and WWTF, impacting the facility’s ability to function as designed. Sanitary sewer service is a vital to protecting the health, safety and welfare of residents and visitors, and system improvements are intended to prevent loss of essential services due to similar events in the future. 1.5 Project Costs and Proposed Funding: Relocating the ponds and building a total retention facility requires the City to purchase land to complete the project. An original estimate for the project was approximately $1.87 million, and the City had secured necessary funding. However, updated engineering estimates are now projecting costs at $3.35 million, which required the City to secure additional funding for the project. The current funding package for the project includes funding from the SDDENR State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan program ($1,470,000), the Consolidated Water Facilities Construction Program ($700,000) and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program ($515,000), with other sources under consideration. The SRF loan will require the City to raise their sewer rates by passing a resolution that incorporates a project surcharge into the current user rates. The surcharge will require the City to collect an additional $15.05 per user per month to bring the monthly sewer rates to approximately $46.00 per customer.


SECTION 2: ALTERNATIVES Overview: In accordance with federal laws and FEMA regulations, the EA process for a proposed federal action must include an evaluation of alternatives and a discussion of the potential environmental impacts. Appropriate Federal and State Agencies were contacted and their replies are included in Appendix B. Due to the SDDENR compliance order requiring the City to relocate the WWTF and upgrade to a total retention facility, discussion of alternatives is limited to the location of the new facility. The proposed project is a combination stabilization pond and constructed wetlands for a total retention system. Treatment would utilize two existing 5 acre stabilization ponds, one new 9 acre stabilization pond and two new 13.5 acre wetlands. New pumps are planned for the existing main lift station and force main. A gravity sewer will be extended to connect new ponds to the existing system. Additional project details are included in the Facility Plan prepared by Banner Engineering and updated October 3, 2016. (Appendix C). Constructed treatment wetlands are defined as engineered or constructed wetlands that utilize natural processes involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other water source, while also providing a final polishing function for pretreated effluent. The treated effluent is filtered by wetland plants and soils, eventually returning to the ground water system, with no point-source discharge.

The design of the proposed facility is based on 103 gallons of wastewater pumped per person per day to the treatment facility. Improvements to the collection system lift stations, inflow and infiltration from ground water, lake water, basements, etc. wastewater flows have been reduced significantly from the original design based on 319 gallons of wastewater per person per day. Current population was estimated at 500, and projected to increase by 100 for a design population of 600. Population has fluctuated since 2011 due to numerous acquisitions completed by the City using HMGP funding, therefore numbers are generalized.

The treatment plan is to designate the existing 2-cell stabilization pond as secondary treatment, and extend the force main from the current main lift station up the hill to the east to one new 9-acre stabilization pond. Two constructed wetlands of 13.5-acres each will be built near the new stabilization pond. From the new stabilization pond, water will be directed to either the existing stabilization ponds down the hill, or to the new constructed wetlands. A gravity pipe flowing under pressure will be constructed parallel to the new force main to bring water from the new primary cell and the new constructed wetlands to the two existing stabilization ponds. The existing cells will not be


discharged; flow will be directed to them only for treatment storage over the winter and to maintain adequate water levels. Alternatives for the project location are severely limited, due to the lack of suitable land available within the vicinity of the current treatment facility. Installing miles and miles of pipe is not cost effective. Additionally, finding willing sellers of land in the area has been a challenge. Once the City found landowners willing to sell, top dollar for their land was expected. Unfortunately, with the project costs nearly doubling during project engineering and design, there is not a lot of room for negotiating prices for the land. A map of the alternative sites is included in Appendix A.

2.1 No Action Alternative: The “No Action” alternative would not meet the stated purpose and need of the project, but must be considered in accordance with NEPA. The existing facility is not able to function as designed at its existing location due to ongoing inundation. FEMA funding would not be available to relocate and upgrade the WWTF to a total retention facility as required by the SDDENR compliance order. The City of Waubay would lose the ability to provide essential sanitary sewer service, necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents and visitors. The “No Action” alternative also provides a baseline comparison of potential impacts

2.2 Alternative 1: The first alternative considered was to locate the new facility at Site 1, identified as the Czmowski property, located across the road, and just east of the existing ponds. The advantages of this site are its close proximity to the existing treatment system, and remote location from permanent residences and domestic use wells. The disadvantages a new campground just south of the existing ponds, and the current owner sees this opportunity as less desirable for land sale with the intended use as a stabilization pond. According to the current owner, production of the crop land on the west side of this property has yielded 70-80 bushels/acre of soy beans, where the average crop is 50 bushels/acre. This site is also located such that prevailing winds may carry odors from the ponds into town, however this should be much the same as the existing ponds of which have not provided reason for complaint to date. Reduced infiltration and inflow (I/I) in the system may increase odors, primarily during spring thaw and turnover of the treatment facility. Discussion in November 2011 led to modifying the location further east from the originally proposed site which moved the site up the hill and further east at the owner’s request. This also moves the project out of the historically high yielding crop land.

2.3 Alternative 2: The second alternative considered is just over one mile north of the existing ponds, and 4,500 feet east of South Wayland Street on the west side of Waubay. This property is south of the railroad, meets setback limits of 1,000 feet for domestic wells, and ¼ mile (1,320 feet) setbacks from a farm home or residential building and ½ mile (2,640 feet) setback from the community. A disadvantage is its close


proximity to the City, and it may impart an odor in the spring which could impact portions of development along Blue Dog Lake. This site may also impact a number of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapped wetlands; a study would be required to determine if jurisdictional wetlands would be impacted by the project. Ultimately, the owner was not willing to work with the City and purchase of this property is not possible without condemnation. This site was not selected for treatment expansion.

2.4 Alternative 3: The third alternative considered was a site identified as the Holscher property which is adjacent to a gravel/sand quarry and just east of the first site investigated (Site 1). This property meets setback requirements for domestic wells and residential buildings. Soil borings were performed to identify the quality of clay on site for water holding capacity and for use in construction of ponds. Unsuitable sandy outwash was identified on the far southeast and northeast portions of the site. There are a few wetlands identified on the site by the US Fish and Wildlife (FWS) Service for a wildlife easement, and coordination with FWS is required to avoid and/or mitigate any impacts. Also, this site contains wetlands requiring coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers to verify the presence of wetland boundaries and whether they impact Waters of the US to be considered jurisdictional.

2.5 Alternative 4 (Preferred): After a review of the steep grade to the east and limitations identified from the soils investigation due to sandy outwash on the far southeast and northeast of the third site, it was determined that use of a combination of Alternative 1 (Czmowski property) and Alternative 3 (Holscher property) would provide adequate land for wastewater treatment expansion. Discussions with the property owner of Site 1 were renewed and determined the eastern portion to be available for the project. A Purchase Agreement has been completed.


SECTION 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Overview: Due to the SDDENR compliance order requiring the City to relocate the WWTF and upgrade to a total retention facility, discussion of affected environments and potential impacts is limited to Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative) a combination of adjacent Sites 1 and 3.

3.1 Geology and Soils The Subsurface conditions at the proposed site consist of 6 inches to 2 feet of topsoil materials overlying outwash soils and glacial till soils. The topsoil materials consist of lean clay soils. The outwash soils consist of clayey sand soils and sandy soils. The glacial till soils consist of sandy lean clay soils and sandy fat clay soils. The clays found on site are good at holding water. Sand veins are possible in the area but there is no way to quantify how effective these will be at increasing the seepage rates until the treatment pond and constructed wetlands are built. A significant factor in designing a total retention treatment facility is seepage of treated water into the ground. The original design used industry standard seepage rates, the current design incorporated soil analysis from GeoTek Engineering (Appendix D) and used a much lower seepage rate due to the soils found on the sites identified in Alternative 4. It is not anticipated that soils in the proposed project area will have significant change in properties after project construction. Best Management Practices to control erosion will be implemented.

3.2 Land Use and Planning A Conditional Use Permit is required by Day County for the proposed project. The Planning and Zoning board meets the third Tuesday of the month; advertisement and a hearing are required. Once the land is purchased, the City will move forward with this process.

3.3 Zoning The proposed project meets setback limits of one thousand feet for domestic wells; one quarter mile (1,320 feet) setback from a farm home or residential building; and a half mile (2,640 feet) setback from the community. A map of the offsets for residences and wells in included in Appendix A.

3.4 Prime Farm Land The Farmland Protection Policy Act was enacted in 1981 (P.L. 98-98) to minimize the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses as a result of federal actions. In addition, the act seeks to assure that federal programs are administered


in a manner that will be compatible with state and local policies and programs that have been developed to protect farmland. The policy of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is to protect significant agricultural lands from conversions that are irreversible and result in the loss of an essential food and environmental resource. The NRCS has developed criteria for assessing the effects of federal actions on converting farmland to other uses, including a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form AD-1066 that documents a site-scoring evaluation process to assess its potential agricultural value.

The proposed stabilization pond addition site is southeast of the City of Waubay, and east of the existing ponds. The land is currently grazed and farmed, and is situated at least 1,000 feet from existing residents. Because the property is currently open farmland, NRCS was contacted for comments on the project. On August 17, 2016 NRCS replied that, while there is no prime farmland in the project area, there would be impacts to farmland of statewide importance. At their request, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating was calculated and provided for review and comment. The total score of the completed evaluation (104 points) indicated the proposed project would have ‘no significant impact on prime farmland or farmland of statewide interest’. There is no land development planned for this property, nor the surrounding land. Development and growth within the current city and to the north of the city is expected.

3.5 Traffic Circulation, Volume and Parking Access:

The proposed project will not have traffic or parking. An access road will be constructed to ensure the City maintenance personnel have access to check the facility. The proposed project is not anticipated to change traffic patterns. The ponds will not be accessed by the public.

3.6 Public Health and Safety:

The Applicant’s intent to relocate their WWTF to a site that is outside Bitter Lake floodplain is a prudent and practicable decision that supports public health and safety. The Proposed Action would fully re-establish the Applicant’s capability to provide sewer services to the public, benefiting overall public health and safety. This facility will replace the IP cells that are non-functioning due the natural risen water level of Bitter Lake.

3.7 Socioeconomic: There are 576 residents of the City of Waubay according to the 2010 Census data. The population is predominantly White with 345 identified, with 210 American


Indian persons identified, 2 Asian persons identified and 19 of two or more races identified. Census data shows 282 male and 294 female, 118 in the age category of 50-64 and 118 in the age category above the age of 65, and 153 below the age of 18. Estimated median household income in 2015 was $42,430; estimated per capita income in 2015 was $18,512. The CDBG manual low-to-moderate (LMI) income data shows that the City of Waubay has a 56.4 percent LMI population. The American Indian population has likely decreased significantly due to the 2012-13 acquisition project that purchased 16 tribal homes in the community and demolished them. Tribal members who lived in those homes relocated to Enemy Swim, a tribal housing area located outside the City limits of Waubay.

3.8 Environmental Justice, EO 12898: On February 11, 1994, the President signed Executive Order (EO) 12898, entitled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations". The EO directs federal agencies to focus attention on human health and environmental conditions in minority and/or low- income communities. The intent is to achieve environmental justice, fostering non- discrimination in federal programs that substantially affect human health or the environment and to give minority or low-income communities greater opportunities for public participation in and access to public information on matter relating to human health and the environment. Also to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations in the United States. The increased rate for sanitary sewer service (surcharge of $15.05 per user per month) that will result as part of the funding for the project could arguably have a negative impact on residents of the City of Waubay. However this project is not optional, as the project is being mandated by DENR and EPA. The proposed project is not anticipated to disproportionally affect minorities or low-income populations and the proposed action will benefit all members of the community.

3.9 Air Quality: The Clean Air Act, 1990 as amended, requires federal agencies to assess the impact that projects will have on air quality and to take actions to prevent air quality degradation. The Clean Air Act sets forth air-quality standards and requirements to control pollutant release. Its goals are to use safe lower-emitting alternatives, employ low-emission practices, identify local air receptors, and conform to state and local requirements. The SDDENR was contacted and on 07/21/2016 stated that the project will have little or no impact on the air quality in this area. Dust control during construction will be the responsibility of the contractor


3.10 Noise: The Noise Control Act was enacted in 1972 (P.L. 92-574). Inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the nation's population and that the major sources of noise include transportation vehicles and equipment, machinery, appliances, other products in commerce, climate or recreation. Sounds that disrupt normal activities or otherwise diminish the quality of the environment are designated as noise. Noise can be stationary or transient, intermittent or continuous. There will be (short-term) noise caused during construction of the project, however, once construction is completed, there will not be any ongoing noise concerns that result due to the project.

3.11 Public Services and Utilities: The WWTF is a public service as part of the entire sanitary sewer collection and treatment system. The increased rate for sanitary sewer service that will result as part of the funding for the project could arguably have a negative impact on residents of the City of Waubay. However this project is not optional, as the project is being mandated by DENR and EPA. The project is not anticipated to adversely affect any other public services or utilities. 3.12 Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials On 07/26/2016, SDDENR provided comments indicating “It appears, based on the information provided, that this project will have little or no impact on waste management in this area. It is not anticipated that this project will produce or impact hazardous materials or waste. All project-related debris must be handled and disposed of in accordance with State and local solid waste requirements. 3.13 Water Resources Water resources evaluated in this section include floodplains, surface water, groundwater, drinking water, and wetlands. Appropriate Federal, State and local regulatory agencies were contacted and their replies are summarized below. Agency correspondence and documentation is included in Appendix B.

3.13.1 Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development. Specifically, EO 11988 prohibits federal agencies from funding construction in the 100-year floodplain (or 500 year floodplain for critical facility) unless there are no practicable alternatives. The City of Waubay participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). According to FIRM


46037C0500A, effective on 12/06/2001, the proposed project is located in unshaded Zone X, outside the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains. The existing primary and secondary ponds top of dike elevations (EL 1817; EL 1815) are above the lake level and 100-year flood plain elevation (EL 1810). The proposed ponds are approximately 37 feet above the established floodplain at EL 1847 feet on the low side of the slope of the proposed site. No impacts to the floodplain are anticipated.

3.13.2 On 07/26/2016, South Dakota DENR’s Surface Water Quality Program stated “DENR finds that this construction, using conventional construction techniques, should not cause violations of any statutes or regulations administered by the DENR….” Implementation of BMP for erosion and sediment control and a General Permit for Stormwater Discharge is required. Potential Wetland impacts were noted and coordination with USACE was recommended. 3.13.3 On 08/01/2016, South Dakota DENR’s Drinking Water Quality Program indicated no adverse impacts to drinking water quality by this project. 3.13.4 On 08/03/2016 South Dakota DENR’s Ground Water Quality Program indicated no adverse impacts to ground water quality by this project. 3.13.5 Wetlands Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires federal agencies to take action to minimize the destruction or modification of wetlands, by considering both direct and indirect impacts to wetlands that may result from federally funded actions. The Eight-Step Decision-Making Process (44 CFR part 9.6) is intended to facilitate identification of impacts to floodplains and wetlands. The process has been completed and applied through compliance with HUD and SDDENR grant requirements.

3.13.5.1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates Waters of the U.S. which includes wetlands under their jurisdiction. Activities disturbing jurisdictional wetlands require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). On 08/04/2016, USACE indicated there would be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands as a result of the project. 3.13.5.2 Impacts to non-jurisdictional wetlands under the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have been identified. USFWS was contacted regarding the proposed project and noted that there are two easement-encumbered wetlands (296X & 303X) in the project area. On


08/04/2017, their Waubay Wetland Management District approved a General Activities Special Use Permit (#RWBY0-7-7216) for the project. The two easement-encumbered wetlands have been identified for replacement due to project-related activities and are to be replaced on-site at a 1:1 ratio in order to achieve no net loss of wetlands as outlined in Executive Order 11990.

3.14 Biological Resources

3.14.1 Threatened or Endangered Species: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 establishes a federal program to conserve, protect and restore threatened and endangered plants and animals and their habitats. ESA is under the jurisdiction of USFWS and specifically charges federal agencies with the responsibility of using their authority to conserve threatened and endangered species. All federal agencies must ensure any action they authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction of critical habitat for these species. Threatened and endangered species in the area include: Whooping Crane, Piping Plover, Rufa Red Knot, Northern Long-eared Bat, Dakota Skipper, and Poweshiek Skipperling. On 07/28/2016, USFWS stated that based on the location and project scope of work they “do not expect the proposed construction of stabilization ponds and constructed wetlands will harm species that are federally listed under the Endangered Species Act.” Therefore, FEMA has determined there will be ‘no effect’ to any Threatened or Endangered species as a result of the project. 3.14.2 Migratory Birds: The project proponent is responsible for implementing the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). To avoid impacts to migratory birds and raptors, the project area must be surveyed for nesting activity prior to construction. If surveys identify birds or nests that may be affected by project activities, contact South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office at 605-224-8693.

3.14.3 State Species of Interest South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) was

contacted regarding the proposed project and 07/21/2016 stated “The project as described will have no impacts on State fish and wildlife resources.”

3.15 Cultural Resources Consideration of impacts to cultural resources is mandated under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as implemented by 36 CFR 800.13. Requirements include the need to identify significant historic properties that may be


impacted by the proposed action or alternatives within the project's area of potential effect. Historic properties are defined as archaeological sites, standing structures or other historic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 36 CFR 60.4. If adverse effects on historic, archaeological or cultural properties are identified, then agencies must attempt to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts to these resources. In the event any unanticipated discoveries are made, work in the area must be stopped and FEMA notified immediately.

3.15.1 Historic Properties A records search was completed by Jane Watts of the State Archaeological Research Center on 07/21/2016. No recorded sites or structures were identified within the project area. In addition, a Level III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey was completed on 08/11/2016 for the proposed project area. No potential archeological resources were identified or discovered in the project area.

HUD initiated consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) with a determination of ‘No Historic Properties Affected’. On 08/15/2016 SHPO replied that provided all ground disturbing activities are confined to the area surveyed…we concur with the determination of ‘No Historic Properties Affected’ for the HUD portion of the project. FEMA adopted the HUD consultation and determination for the FEMA-funded portion of the project. On 08/10/2017. SHPO concurred with FEMAs determination of ‘No Historic Properties Affected’.

3.15.2 Tribal Coordination Due to the project not being located on Tribal Lands, SHPO advised they are lead agency for historic preservation for this project. However, eleven tribes were contacted to notify the Tribes and request any information related to potential cultural resources in the project area. Only the Sisseton-Wahpeton-Oyate Tribe (SWO) indicated interest in the project. SWO THPO concluded that although the subject property lies outside the boundaries of the SWO Reservation, there may be potential Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) present on and adjacent to the subject property. However, they expressed their concern that if such properties/sites were identified by survey, that the proposed project timelines for land acquisition and subsequent construction would not allow for adequate site identification, evaluation, and possible mitigation of adverse effects. Therefore, SWO THPO has chosen not to participate in any further project review.


SECTION 4: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative Impacts: A cumulative impact is defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future action.” As noted, the level of Bitter Lake may continue to rise. Approximately 50 structures have been demolished and removed from the floodplain. The existing sewer system has been upgraded to prevent infiltration of lake water. The proposed total retention system consisting of a combination stabilization pond and constructed wetland will eliminate discharge of effluent into the lake. Long-term cumulative effects from the Proposed Action and other actions are anticipated to be beneficial to the project area and the residents of Waubay. SECTION 5: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROJECT CONDITIONS No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project provided all applicable permit and project conditions are met, including, but not limited to:

• Wetland restoration completed as required by USFWS permit #RWBYO-7-7216. • To avoid impacts to migratory birds and raptors, the project area must be surveyed

for nesting activity prior to construction. • If any unanticipated discoveries of historic or cultural resources during construction

are made, work in the area must be stopped and FEMA and the SHPO notified immediately.

• Final design plans must be submitted to SD DENR prior to construction. • Appropriate Stormwater and NPDES permits must be obtained from SD DENR. • Standard BMP for erosion and sediment control must be implemented.

SECTION 6: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A public hearing was held 02/15/2016 to discuss the proposed project to the Waste Water Treatment Facility, including potential funding sources and repayment of loans. Public Notice was published 03/04/2017 and 08/26/2017 in the Waubay Clipper advising that use of funds from Federal grants and a State revolving loan was being considered to improve the City’s Waste Water Treatment Facility; and that the Federal action was subject to compliance with NEPA and other applicable environmental laws, regulations, ordinances, etc. On xx/xx/xxxx final Public Notice of Availability of the draft Environmental Assessment for public review and comment was published in the Waubay Clipper (Appendix E). According to the project proponent no substantive comments have been received.


SECTION 7: AGENCIES CONSULTED US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Natural Resources Conservation Agency SD Game, Fish, and Parks SD DENR Ground Water Quality SD DENR Surface Water Quality SD DENR Air Quality SD DENR Solid Waste Division SD DENR Drinking Water Quality State Historic Preservation Officer Tribal Historic Preservation Officers SECTION 8: PREPARERS: City of Waubay, PO Box 155, Waubay, SD 57273 Northeast Council of Governments (NECOG) 416 Production Street North Aberdeen, SD 57401 FEMA Region VIII Denver Federal Center Box 25267 Denver, CO 80225-0267


APPENDICIES:

Appendix A: Location, Site and Reference Maps

Appendix B: Agency Correspondence and Approvals

Appendix C: Facility Plan by Banner Engineering

Appendix D: Soils Test by GEOTEK Engineering

Appendix E: Final Public Notice

waubay wwtf improvement project - fema.gov · waubay wwtf improvement project. waubay, day county,...

Documents