Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: File From: Bryan Oakley, Alison Ling Subject: Updates and Correction for Appendix C – Membrane Costs Date: April 25, 2017 Project: MMB c: Dale Finnesgaard, Don Richard, Lisa Andrews This memorandum addresses the April 15, 2017 email request from Scott Kyser, MPCA. Scott requested equations used to calculate membrane and evaporator crystallizer costs in the February 10, 2017 MMB Engineering Cost Analysis report. Figure C-4 in the report does not represent calculations used for evaporator/crystallizer costs in the final report. Figure C-4 will be replaced with the following figure which is representative of the equations used to calculate the evaporator/crystallizer costs: $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 MGD to Crystallizer Crystallizer CapEx/MGD This Estimate (Evap/Cryst) This Estimate (Evap Only) Mackey Model Evap only (2014 $) S-43 wq-rule4-15u
244
Embed
SONAR Exhibits #43 - 46 · Crystallizer CapEx/MGD. This Estimate (Evap/Cryst) This Estimate (Evap Only) Mackey Model Evap ... Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor; to begin Q4, 2012 (Clearwater
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
To: File From: Bryan Oakley, Alison Ling Subject: Updates and Correction for Appendix C – Membrane Costs Date: April 25, 2017 Project: MMB c: Dale Finnesgaard, Don Richard, Lisa Andrews
This memorandum addresses the April 15, 2017 email request from Scott Kyser, MPCA. Scott requested equations used to calculate membrane and evaporator crystallizer costs in the February 10, 2017 MMB Engineering Cost Analysis report.
Figure C-4 in the report does not represent calculations used for evaporator/crystallizer costs in the final report. Figure C-4 will be replaced with the following figure which is representative of the equations used to calculate the evaporator/crystallizer costs:
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
MGD to Crystallizer
Crystallizer CapEx/MGD
This Estimate(Evap/Cryst)
This Estimate (EvapOnly)
Mackey Model Evaponly (2014 $)
S-43
wq-rule4-15u
To: File From: Bryan Oakley, Alison Ling Subject: Updates and Correction for Appendix C – Membrane Costs Date: April 25, 2017 Page: 2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621225 Cost Analysis of Water Quality\WorkFiles\Cost Estimating Team\Treatment Technologies\RO and EvapCryst Costs\RO-NF-EC cost equation.docx
Evaporator/crystallizer and membrane cost estimates presented in the report were calculated with the following equation:
2.0 Financial Information ............................................................................................................................. 2
Field Sampling Plan for Pre-Implementation Studies
Pre-Implementation Field Studies1
Pre-Implementation Studies Report & Pilot Testing Plan
Agency review and acceptance
Construct Pilot Test1, 3
c
Monitor Pilot Test 4
c
Pilot Test Report and Recommendations
Agency review and acceptance
Design of selected system
Agency review of design
Construction of system1, 3
c c c c
System construction substantially complete
Notes:
1. Start date for activity may vary depending on seasonal field restrictions
2. Construction for this mitigation alternative (if selected) may be a multi-year program. This completion milestone applies only to the first construction season.
3. Dependent upon reciept of appropriate permits and agency approvals.
4. Progression and ultimate duration of this activity is dependent on the acquisition of sufficient data derived from pilot testing.
Agency Review and Approval Step
Floating Wetland, to begin Q4, 2012, in the event that the Sulfate-Reducing Bioreactor is not approved as an acceptable
substitute under the Consent Decree.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\69\23691072 NPDES Reissuance Area 5-Tailings Basin\WorkFiles\Long_Term_Mitigation\SD_033\Implementation Schedule SD033.xlsx
S-44
P:\Mpls\23 MN\69\23691072 NPDES Reissuance Area 5-Tailings Basin\WorkFiles\NPDES Permitting and Variance\Variance Applications -
NPDES Reissuance Area 5-Tailings Basin\WorkFiles\NPDES Permitting and Variance\Final Submittal - Mine\Att 6 - Variance SD026\SD026
Variance Application.docx
12
estimated net present values of the active treatment alternatives range from $10,700,000 for lime
softening to $22,700,000 for membrane treatment, while the net present values of the passive
treatment alternatives range from $2,600,000 for enhanced natural attenuation to $14,800,000 for a
floating wetland. These significant differences in net present value further demonstrate that a passive
treatment alternative would be more economically feasible than an active treatment alternative.
S-44
Table 2 Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for Potential Treatment Technologies at SD026
Sulfate Bicarbonate HardnessTotal Dissolved
Solids
Specific
Conductivity
Suitability for
Closed SiteInvestigations Required Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Net Present Value3
HighCan be implemented in the near future,
monitoring only790,000$ 150,000$ 2,600,000$
MediumRequires hydraulics and siting evaluations
and pilot testing prior to full scale
implementation
3,800,000$ 160,000$ 5,600,000$
MediumRequires hydraulics and siting evaluations
and pilot testing prior to full scale
implementation
11,800,000$ 220,000$ 14,800,000$
LowRequires hydraulics, siting evaluations and
bench testing prior to full scale
implementation
6,900,000$ 270,000$ 10,700,000$
LowRequires hydraulics, siting evaluations,
bench testing, and pilot testing prior to full
scale implementation
15,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 30,000,000$
Low
Requires hydraulics, siting evaluations and
pilot testing of membranes and brine
concentrate management prior to full
scale implementation
10,700,000$ 900,000$ 22,700,000$
1. Cost for this option only includes treatment of the parameters of concern (does not specifically include treatment of sulfate to 10 mg/L).
3. 20 years, 3.5%
2. Cost for this option includes treatment of sulfate in addition to the parameters of concern; however, treatment of sulfate to 10 mg/L is unproven.
5. Costs may vary from those presented in previously submitted Plans, due to additional information obtained during interim periods.
4. These cost estimates are considered conceptual level costs or Class 5 estimates (according to the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International), and should only be used for comparing the relative value of the technologies evaluated in this
Plan. The typical associated level of accuracy of Class 5 cost estimates is ±25 to 100%.
Key:
Likely to be effective in meeting the water quality standard at end-of-pipe
Ability to meet water quality standard uncertain or requires additional testing to demonstrate
Unable to meet water quality standard at end-of-pipe
Implementation Considerations Estimated Costs4,5Effectiveness in Meeting Water Quality Standards
Ion Exchange (modified Sulf-IX)1
Membrane Treatment (Reverse Osmosis)1
Alternative
Enhanced Natural Attenuation2
Surface-Flow Wetland/Lagoon2
Lime Softening1
Floating Wetland2
Notes:
S-44
P:\Mpls\23 MN\69\23691072 NPDES Reissuance Area 5-Tailings Basin\WorkFiles\NPDES Permitting and Variance\Variance Applications -
* Note: Species is tracked but not legally protected
S-44
Appendix B
EPA Interim Economic Guidance Workbook
S-44
0.0 MGD
0.0 MGD
(see previous)
(see previous)
Please describe the other pollution control options considered, explaining why each options was rejected.
As described in this Variance Application for SD026, CE has been actively pursuing alternatives to meet the
water quality standards, including completion of several studies focused on the identification and evaluation of
viable mitigation and/or treatment technologies and has developed a process to identify the most appropriate
alternative. However, additional time is required to test, evaluate and implement a viable solution. Therefore, the
type of pollution control system that will be implemented at SD026 is yet to be determined.
(Please refer to Section 1.1.6 Technological Feasibility of the Variance Application for further details)
Worksheet A
Pollution Control Project Summary Information
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Please refer to Section 1.1.6 Technological Feasibility and Appendix C of the Variance Application for further
details related to the pollution control options both currently under consideration and that have been eliminated
from consideration.
Current Capacity of the Pollution Control System
0.0%
TBD
TBD
Current Excess Capacity
Expected Excess Capacity after Completion of Project
Projected Groundbreaking Date
Projected Date of Completion
Please describe the pollution control project being proposed below.
TBD
There is not currently a pollution control system installed at SD026. This
variance is necessary to provide the time required to investigate, test and
implement a technically and economically feasible method for permanent
mitigation of the parameters of concern.
Design Capacity of the Pollution Control System
S-44
$6,900,000 (1)
3.5% (i)
10 (n)
0.1202 (2)
$829,665 (3)
$270,000 (4)
$1,100,000 (5)
Component Section Page
Verify Project Costs 3.1.a 3-2
Capital Cost to be Financed 3.1.a; 3.1.b 3-2; 3-3
Annual Cost of Operation and Maintenance 3.1.b 3-3
Interest Rate for Financing 3.1.b 3-3Time Period for Financing 3.1.b 3-3
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Costs
Worksheet G
Annual cost of operation and maintenance (including but not limited
to monitoring, inspection, permitting fees, waste disposal charges,
repair, administration and replacement) ($)2,3
Total annual cost of pollution control project [(3) + (4)]
Guidance Documentation
Capital costs to be financed ($)3
Notes:1 While actual payback schedules may differ across projects and companies, assume equal annual payments over a 10-year period for
consistency in comparing projects.
Interest rate for financing (%)
Time period of financing (Assume 10 years1)
Annualization factor = i/([(1 + i)n - 1] + i)
Annualized capital cost [(1) × (2)]
2 For recurring costs that occur less frequently than once a year, pro rate the cost over the relevant number of years (e.g., for pumps
replaced once every three years, include one-third of the cost each year).3 These costs assume treatment by lime softening as a representative of the cost of potential pollution control systems. Please
note that this does not indicate that lime softening is a viable, effective, or appropriate treatment technology for SD026;
additional time is required to test, evaluate and implement a viable solution at SD026.
S-44
Applicant Name
Three most recently completed fiscal years (most recent first): 2011 2010 2009
Revenues ($) $0 $0 $0
Cost of Goods Sold (including the cost of materials, direct labor, indirect labor,
rent and heat) ($)$0 $0 $0
Portion of Corporate Overhead Assigned to the Discharger (selling, general,
administrative, interest, R&D expenses, and depreciation on common
property) ($)
-$14,157,808 $3,994,792 $1,490,769
Net Income after Taxes ($)* $14,157,808 -$3,994,792 -$1,490,769
Depreciation ($) $0 $0 $0
Current Assets (the sum of inventories, prepaid expenses, and accounts
receivable) ($)$25,272,774 $3,983,776 $3,647,055
Current Liabilities (the sum of accounts payable, accrued expenses, taxes,
and the current portion of long-term debt) ($)$1,139,288 $3,660,827 $1,896,962
Current Debt ($) $0 $0 $0
Long-term Debt ($) $0 $0 $0
Long-term Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures, and bank
debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities such as deferred income taxes) ($)*$15,724,177 $14,986,879 $13,444,532
Owner Equity (the difference between total assets and total liabilities,
including contributed or paid in capital and retained earnings) ($)*$12,157,638 $8,080,317 $16,287,671
Component Section Page
Financial Impact Analysis (overview) 3.2 3-3
Current Assets 3.2b 3-7Current Liabilities 3.2b 3-8
Guidance Documentation
Data Needed to Calculate the Primary and Secondary Indicators (for Worksheets H, I, J, K, & L)
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Note:
* 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of significant asset sales, which was a one time ballon
payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of a typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no longer exists following
the final financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
S-44
EBT =
R =
CGS =
CO =
2009
R $0 (1)
CGS $0 (2)
CO $1,490,769 (3)
EBT [(1) - (2) - (3)] -$1,490,769 (4)
Earnings Before Taxes
Revenues
Cost of Goods Sold (including the cost of materials, direct labor, indirect labor, rent and
heat)
Portion of Corporate Overhead Assigned to the Discharger (selling, general,
administrative, interest, R&D expenses, and depreciation of common property)
2011
$0
$0
-$14,157,808
$14,157,808
Worksheet H
Calculation of Earnings Before Taxes With and Without Pollution Control Project Costs
Cliffs Erie, LLC
A. Earnings Without Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT = R - CGS - CO
Considerations: Have Earnings Before Taxes changed over the three year period? If so, what would a "typical" year's
EBT be? Explain below.
$3,994,792
-$3,994,792
2010
2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of significant asset sales, which was a one
time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of a typical year; however, they also include an income stream
that no longer exists following the final financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011. This income stream was
approximately $3.0 million annual in 2010 and $1.5 million annual in 2009, and was related to the asset sales that were
concluded in 2011. With the financial impact of these asset sales removed, Earnings Before Taxes (EBT) for each of the
years would be approximately: 2011: -$2.3 million (loss), 2010: -$7.0 million (loss), 2009: -$3.0 million (loss).
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
Where:
$0
$0
S-44
EWPR =
EBT =
ACPR =
(5)
(6)
(7)
No
ComponentProfitability 3-6
Guidance Documentation
2011
$14,157,808
3.2.a
Section
Additional comments:
Earnings will not be positive when comments in (A) above are considered.
Page
EBT (4)
ACPR [Worksheet G, (5)]
EWPR [(5) - (6)]
Considerations: Will earnings be positive after paying the annual cost of pollution control?
$1,100,000
$13,057,808
The Most Recently
Completed Fiscal
Year
Where:
B. Earnings with Pollution Control Project Costs
EWPR = EBT - ACPR
(Worksheet H cont.)
Earnings with Pollution Control Project Costs
Earnings Before Taxes (4)
Total Annual Costs of Pollution Control Project [Worksheet G, (5)]
S-44
Where: PRT =
EBT =
R =
2009
EBT [Worksheet H, (4)] -$1,490,769 (1)
R [Worksheet H, (1)] $0 (2)
PRT [(1) / (2)] 0.00 (3)
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
No, use 2010. It is more representative of a 'typical' year.Is the most recent year typical of the three years?
How do these profit rates compare with the profit rates for this line of business?
2011
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
2010
PRT = EBT ÷ R
Profit Rate Before Taxes
Earnings Before Taxes
Revenues
Considerations: How have profit rates changed over the three years?
Please Note: 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of significant asset sales, which was a
one time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of a typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no
longer exists following the final financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating mining entity. The only significant income stream for Cliffs Erie LLC in the past has
come from the sale of its assets. Once the assets of value have all been sold, much of which has already happened by
2011, Cliffs Erie will stop generating any income at all.
$0
0.00
Worksheet I
Calculation of Profit Rates With and Without Pollution Control Project Costs
Cliffs Erie, LLC
-$3,994,792$14,157,808
A. Profit Rate Without Project Costs
$0
0.00
S-44
PRPR =
EWPR =
R =
EWPR [Worksheet H, (7)] (4)
R [Worksheet H, (1)] (5)
PRPR [(4) / (5)] (6)
0%
Page
3-2
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-7
Before-Tax Earnings With Pollution Control Costs
Revenues
Effect of Pollution Control on Profit
Potential to Raise Prices
Considerations:
What would be the percentage change in the profit rate for the most recent year due to pollution control costs? [(PRPR -
How does the Profit Rate with Pollution Control Costs compare to the profit rate of this line of business?
3.2.a
3.2.a
3.2.aEarnings Before Taxes
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
2011
$13,057,808
$0
0.00
The Most Recently
Completed Fiscal Year
Where:
B. Profit Rate With Pollution Control Costs
PRPR = EWPR ÷ R
Profit Rate with Pollution Control Costs
Is there ability to raise prices to cover some or all of the pollution control costs? Explain below:
(Worksheet I cont.)
3.2.a
3.2.a
Comparison to Similar Line of Business
Interpretation of Profit Test
Guidance Documentation
Section
3.1b
3.2.a
Component
Revenues
Profitability (overview)
S-44
CR =
CA =
CL =
2010
CA $3,983,776 (1)
CL $3,660,827 (2)
CR [(1) / (2)] 1.09 (3)
No
Section
3.2.b
3.2.b
3.2b
3.2b
3.2.b
3.2.b
No, use 2010. It is more representative of a 'typical'
year's ratio.*
Considerations:
Is the current ratio (3) greater than 2.0?
How does the current ratio (3) compare with the current ratios for other firms in this line of
business?
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
Is the most recent year typical of
the three years?
*Please Note: 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of
significant asset sales, which was a one time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative
of a typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no longer exists following the
final financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
$1,896,962
1.92
2009
$3,647,055
$1,139,288
3-8
3-9
Guidance Documentation
Liquidity (overview)
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
Interpretation of Current Ratio
Comparison to Similar Lines of Business
Component Page
3-7
3-7
3-7
3-8
Worksheet J
Calculation of the Current Ratio
Cliffs Erie, LLC
22.18
CR = CA ÷ CL
Where: Current Ratio
Current Assets (the sum of inventories, prepaid expenses, and
accounts receivable)
Current Liabilities (the sum of accounts payable, accrued
expenses, taxes, and the current portion of long-term debts)
2011
$25,272,774
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
S-44
BR =
CF =
TD =
2009
Net income after taxes -$1,490,769 (1)
Depreciation $0 (2)
CF [(1) + (2)] -$1,490,769 (3)
Current debt $0 (4)
Long-term debt $0 (5)
TD [(4) + (5)] $0 (6)
BR [(3) / (6)] 0.00 (7)
No
Yes
No
Section Page
3.2.b 3-9
3.2.b 3-9
3.2.b 3-10
3.2.b 3-10
Interpretation of Beaver's Ratio
Comparison to Similar Lines of Business
2011
$14,157,808
$0
$14,157,808
$0
$0
0.00
$0
$0
$0
0.00
Component
Solvency (overview)
Beaver's Ratio
Worksheet K
Calculation of Beaver's Ratio
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
2010
How does this ratio compare with the Beaver's Ratio for other firms in the same business?
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
-$3,994,792
$0
Total Debt
No, use 2010. It is more representative of a
'typical' year's ratio.*
Is the most recent year typical of the
three years?
*Please Note: 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of
significant asset sales, which was a one time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of
a typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no longer exists following the final
financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
Guidance Documentation
Is the Beaver's Ratio greater than 0.2?
Is the Beaver's Ratio less than 0.15?
BR = CF ÷ TD
Where: Beaver's Ratio
Cash Flow
Is the Beaver's Ratio between 0.2 and 0.15?
Considerations:
-$3,994,792
$0
S-44
DER =
LTL =
OE =
2010 2009
LTL $14,986,879 $13,444,532 (1)
OE $8,080,317 $16,287,671 (2)
DER [(1) / (2)] 1.85 0.83 (3)
Section
3.2b
3.2b
3.2b
3.2.b
3.2.b
3.2.bImpact of Special Sources of Funding
Guidance Documentation
2011
$15,724,177
$12,157,638
1.29
3-10
3-11
3-11
3-11
Component
Leverage (overview)
Debt/Equity Ratio
Owner Equity
Interpretation of Debt/Equity Ratio
Comparison to Similar Dischargers
Worksheet L
Debt to Equity Ratio
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
Page
3-10
3-10
How does the debt to equity ratio (3) compare with the ratio for firms in the same business?
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
DER = LTL ÷ OE
*Please Note: 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of
significant asset sales, which was a one time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of a
typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no longer exists following the final
financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
Considerations:
Where: Debt/Equity RatioLong-Term Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures,
and bank debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities such as deferred
income taxes)Owner Equity (the difference between total assets and total liabilities,
Is the most recent year typical of
the three years?
No, use 2010. It is more representative of a 'typical' year's
ratio.*
S-44
EntityAnnual Pollution
Control Costs
Most Recently
Completed Fiscal
Year
Profit Rate
Without Pollution
Controls
Profit Rate With
Pollution Controls
Percent Change in
Profit Rate Due to
Pollution Controls
Cliffs Erie, LLC $1,100,000 2011 0.00 0.00 0.0%
Current Ratio
(Liquidity)
Beaver's Ratio
(Solvency)
Debt/Equity Ratio
(Leverage)
0.00 1.09 0.00 1.85
Section Page
3.2 3-3
3.2.a 3-6
3.2.b 3-7
3.3 3-11
Figure 3-1 3-13
Primary Measure:
Profit Test
(Profitability)
Secondary Measures
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Typical Value for Facilities/Firms in
Similar Lines of Business
Financial Analysis Summary
Primary Measure: Profit Test1
Note: 1. Based on the most recently completed fiscal year (2011)
Interpreting the Results
Measuring Substantial Impacts (flowchart)
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Guidance Documentation
Component
Financial Impact Analysis (overview)
Primary Measure (profitability)
Secondary Measures
Note: 2. Based on a typical fiscal year (2010)
Summarize and discuss financial circumstances with and without pollution controls, and compare primary and secondary
measures with the corresponding typical values for facilities/firms in similar lines of business.
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
Comparison with Typical Values for Facilities/Firms in Similar Line of Business2
Entity
S-44
Cliff Erie's Hoyt Lakes Mine Area is located
north of the City of Hoyt Lakes in Sections 1,
2, 11-16, and 21-28 of Township 59 North,
Range 14W, Saint Louis County, Minnesota.
Employees, contractors and suppliers live in
the nearby community as well as other
communities on the Iron Range, including
Aurora, Biwabik, Gilbert, McKinley, Eveleth,
and Virginia, and in unincorporated areas of
St. Louis County.
(1)
Refer to Table N-1 (2)
7.9%* (3)
Less than 10 (4)
(5)
Refer to Table N-2 (6)
Refer to Table N-3 (7)
Refer to Table N-4 (8)
Refer to Table N-5 (9)
(10)
Refer to Table N-6 (11)
Total number of households in affected
community (#)
Percent of population below the poverty line in
affected community (%)
Current expenditures on social services in
affected community ($)
Expected expenditures on social services due
to job losses in the affected community ($)
Current total tax revenues in the affected
community ($)
Median household income in affected
community ($)
Worksheet N
Factors to Consider in Making a Determination of Widespread Social and Economic
Impacts
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Define the affected community in this case;
what areas are included
Current unemployment rate in affected
community ([Current # of persons collecting
unemployment in affected community / labor
force in affected community], or, if unavailable,
current unemployment rate provided in Tab 9.)
(%)
Current national unemployment rate (%)
Additional number of persons expected to
collect unemployment in affected community
due to compliance with water quality standards
(#)
Expected unemployment rate in the affected
community after compliance with water quality
standards ([Current # of persons collecting
unemployment in affected community + (4)] /
labor force in affected community) (%)
S-44
(12)
(13)
5.8%* (14)
(15)
(16)
$8,312,488,593** (17)
(18)
Component Section Page
Affected Community 4.1 4-1
Unemployment Rates 4.3 4-3
Labor Force 4.3 4-3
Expenditures on Social Services 4.3 4-4
Tax Revenues 4.3 4-3
Multiplier Effect 4.4 4-5
Consideration of Economic Benefits of Clean Water4.5 4-6
Other current community characteristics or anticipated impacts that are not listed in the worksheet:
Guidance Documentation
** 2005 Human Services Enrollment and Services Spending
(http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/hsa.pdf; accessed December 3, 2012)
Notes:* Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted value for October 2012 (http://data.bls.gov, accessed
December 3, 2012)
Expected statewide expenditures on social
services due to job losses ($)
Tax revenues paid by the private entity to the
affected community ($)
(Worksheet N cont.)
Tax revenues paid by the private entity as a
percentage of the affected community's total
tax revenues (%) *
Current statewide unemployment rate
([Current # of persons collecting
unemployment in state] / labor force in state],
or, if unavailable, current statewide
unemployment rate provided in Tab 9.) (%)
Additional number of persons expected to
collect unemployment in the state due to
compliance with water quality standards (#)
Expected statewide unemployment rate, after
compliance with water quality standards
([Current # of persons collecting
unemployment in state + (15)]/labor force in
state)
Current expenditures on social services in
state ($)
S-44
Table N-1: Unemployment rate in affected community
Impact area Unemployment
Rate (%) Source
Aurora N/A
Biwabik 4.4 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth 11.9 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert 7.6 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes 16.3 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley 15 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White N/A
Virginia 10.5 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County
6.5 Bureau of Labor Statistics not seasonally adjusted preliminary value for December 2011 (http://data.bls.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total
5.7 Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted value for December 2012 (http://data.bls.gov, accessed February 27, 2011)
S-44
Table N-2: Median household income in affected community
Impact area
Median Household
Income (2010
Inflation Adjusted Dollars)
Year/Source
Aurora N/A
Biwabik $ 37,500 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth $ 36,755 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert $ 40,925 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes $ 45,338 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley $ 27,750 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White N/A
Virginia $ 32,664 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County $ 44,941 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total $ 55,459 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
S-44
Table N-3: Number of households in affected community
Impact area Number of households
Year/Source
Aurora
Biwabik 523 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth 1,779 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert 861 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes 912 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley 27 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White
Virginia 4,028 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County 86,561 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total 2,091,548 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
S-44
Table N-4: Percent of population living below poverty level in affected community
Impact area
Percent below poverty level (%)
Year/Source
Aurora
Biwabik 18.7 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth 18.8 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert 11.0 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes 4.5 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley 15.9 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White
Virginia 21.2 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County 17.9 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total 11.6 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
S-44
Table N-5: Expenditures on social services in affected community
Impact area Social Services Expenditures
Year/Source
Aurora $ 1,414,513
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Biwabik $ 1,201,311
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth $ 4,134,077
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert $ 2,087,466
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes $ 2,620,085
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley $ 55,428
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White
Virginia $ 9,830,928
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County $ 217,734,620
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota County Budgets 2010 Summary Budget Data Together With 2009 Revised Summary Budget Data, 2009 revised budget data for current expenditures, (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Reports/gid/2010/co_Budget/coBudget_10_report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total $ 8,312,488,593 2005 Human services enrollment and services spending(http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/hsa.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
S-44
Table N-6: Current total tax revenues in affected community
Impact area 2009 U.S. Dollars Year/Source
Aurora $ 665,617
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Biwabik $ 653,040
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth $ 871,281
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert $ 557,802
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes $ 939,945
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley $ 2,242
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White N/A
Virginia $ 2,499,175
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County $ 108,028,005
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota County Budgets 2010 Summary Budget Data Together With 2009 Revised Summary Budget Data, 2009 revised budget data for property taxes and all other taxes, (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Reports/gid/2010/co_Budget/coBudget_10_report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total $ 17,726,000,000 FY 2011 Estimate (http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/budget/report-pog/nov11.pdf, accessed February 27,2012)
S-44
Appendix C
Summary: Comprehensive Review of Potential Treatment Technologies for SD026
S-44
Appendix C
Summary: Comprehensive Review of Potential Treatment Technologies for SD026
Through the process of developing the Short-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for
SD026 (Short-Term Plan) and the Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD026
(Long-Term Plan), CE has undertaken a comprehensive review of potential treatment technologies to
achieve compliance with water quality standards for the parameters of concern at SD026.
The following potential treatment technologies were screened in development of the Short-Term
Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD026:
NPDES Reissuance Area 5-Tailings Basin\WorkFiles\NPDES Permitting and Variance\Final Submittal - Mine\Variance SD033\SD033 Variance
Application.docx
12
CE’s goal is to progress toward elimination/reduction of the source of the elevated concentrations of
the parameters of concern, providing for the potential redevelopment of the site. As stated in Section
1.1.4.3, passive (non-mechanical) long-term mitigation and source mitigation alternatives are not
only the most compatible with this site, but also the most economically feasible. While there may be
active (or mechanical) treatment alternatives that would reduce the concentration of the parameters of
concern, they would require operation and maintenance costs in perpetuity. While it is not possible
to know the financial situation of a potential redevelopment enterprise, the perpetual financial
responsibility of on-going treatment would likely render this site economically infeasible for
redevelopment.
Table 3 of this document and Section 6.4 of the Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and
Implementation Plan for SD033 presents an overview of the effectiveness, implementability,
dependability, and cost considerations relative to the alternatives to address the parameters of
concern at SD033. The estimated costs represent an estimate of the total cost of each technology as a
net present value (20 years, 3.5% discount rate) and are considered conceptual level costs or Class 5
estimates (according to the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International) and
as such should only be used for comparing the relative value of the technologies evaluated. The
estimated net present values of the active treatment alternatives range from $23,900,000 for
membrane treatment to $62,500,000 for membrane treatment (reverse osmosis), while the net present
values of the passive treatment alternatives range from $1,700,000 for natural attenuation to
$37,200,000 for a permeable reactive barrier. These significant differences in net present value
further demonstrate that a passive treatment alternative would be more economically feasible than an
active treatment alternative.
S-44
Table 3 Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for Potential Treatment Technologies at SD033
Sulfate Bicarbonate HardnessTotal Dissolved
Solids
Specific
Conductivity
Suitability for
Closed SiteInvestigations Required Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Net Present Value6
HighRequires additional cover materials
evaluation and bench or pilot testing prior
to full-scale implementation
10,400,000$ 71,000$ 10,900,000$
HighCan be implemented in the near future,
monitoring only170,000$ 105,000$ 1,700,000$
HighCan be implemented in the near future,
monitoring only890,000$ 480,000$ 7,300,000$
HighRequires hydraulics and siting evaluations
and pilot testing prior to full scale
implementation
35,800,000$ 98,000$ 37,200,000$
MediumRequires hydraulics and siting evaluations
and pilot testing prior to full scale
implementation
12,400,000$ 720,000$ 22,300,000$
MediumRequires hydraulics and siting evaluations
and pilot testing prior to full scale
implementation
3,500,000$ 120,000$ 5,100,000$
LowRequires hydraulics, siting evaluations and
bench testing prior to full scale
implementation
21,700,000$ 1,110,000$ 37,500,000$
LowRequires hydraulics, siting evaluations,
bench testing, and pilot testing prior to
full scale implementation
16,300,000$ 1,400,000$ 36,200,000$
Low
Requires hydraulics, siting evaluations and
pilot testing of membranes and brine
concentrate management prior to full
scale implementation
9,700,000$ 1,000,000$ 23,900,000$
Low
Requires hydraulics, siting evaluations and
pilot testing of membranes and brine
concentrate management prior to full
scale implementation
20,700,000$ 2,800,000$ 62,500,000$
Lime Softening (+ Floating Wetland)1,5
Notes:
3. Capital cost provided is for an 85-acre geosynthtic clay liner-type cover. Actual cost depends on size and type of cover to be implemented (e.g. capital costs for a 85-acre soil cover are estimated at $3,400,000, while capital costs for a 190-acre geomembrane-
type cover may be $32,000,000).
4. Not intended to be operated as a stand-alone process. The wetland/lagoon would be coupled with the floating wetland for removal of sulfate. Cost presented is the added cost of this process.
6. 20 years, 3.5%
1. Cost for this option only includes treatment of the parameters of concern (does not specifically include treatment of sulfate to 10 mg/L).
2. Cost for this option includes treatment of sulfate in addition to the parameters of concern; however, treatment of sulfate to 10 mg/L is unproven.
Key:
Likely to be effective in meeting the water quality standard at end-of-pipe
Ability to meet water quality standard uncertain or requires additional testing to demonstrate
Unable to meet water quality standard at end-of-pipe
Implementation Considerations Estimated Costs7,8Effectiveness in Meeting Water Quality Standards
Source Isolation2,3
Natural Attenuation2
Ion Exchange (modified Sulf-IX)1
Membrane Treatment (Reverse
Osmosis)1,10
Alternative
Enhanced Natural Attenuation2
Permeable Reactive Barrier2
Floating Wetland2
Surface Flow Wetland/Lagoon2,4
Membrane Treatment (Nanofiltration)1,9
9. Nanofiltration may be capable of achieving compliance for parameters of concern, but not capable of reducing sulfate concentrations to 10 mg/L.
10. Costs shown for reverse osmosis were developed for the Short-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033 and have not been recalculated to reflect revised (lower) flow estimates at SD033 (revised lower based on the results from
subsequent field studies.) This cost includes treatment of sulfate to 10 mg/L.
8. Costs may vary from those presented in previously submitted Plans, due to additional information obtained during interim periods.
5. Not intended to be operated as a stand-alone process. Lime softening technology would need to be coupled with another technology such as a floating wetland for removal of sulfate.
7. These cost estimates are considered conceptual level costs or Class 5 estimates (according to the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International), and should only be used for comparing the relative value of the technologies evaluated in
this Plan. The typical associated level of accuracy of Class 5 cost estimates is ±25 to 100%.
S-44
P:\Mpls\23 MN\69\23691072 NPDES Reissuance Area 5-Tailings Basin\WorkFiles\NPDES Permitting and Variance\Variance Applications -
Pale Moonwort Botrychium pallidum Endangered N/A 0 0 1
Prairie Moonwort Botrychium campestre Species of Special
Concern N/A 0 0 1
Small Shinleaf Pyrola minor Species of Special
Concern N/A 0 0 1
Woolgrass Scirpus pedicellatus Tracked* N/A 0 0 2
* Note: Species is tracked but not legally protected
S-44
Appendix B
EPA Interim Economic Guidance Workbook
S-44
0.0 MGD
0.0 MGD
Worksheet A
Pollution Control Project Summary Information
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Please refer to Section 1.1.6 Technological Feasibility and Appendix C of the Variance Application for further
details related to the pollution control options both currently under consideration and that have been eliminated
from consideration.
Current Capacity of the Pollution Control System
0.0%
TBD
TBD
Current Excess Capacity
Expected Excess Capacity after Completion of Project
Projected Groundbreaking Date
Projected Date of Completion
Please describe the pollution control project being proposed below.
TBD
There is not currently a pollution control system installed at SD033. This
variance is necessary to provide the time required to investigate, test and
implement a technically and economically feasible method for permanent
mitigation of the parameters of concern.
Design Capacity of the Pollution Control System
(see previous)
(see previous)
Please describe the other pollution control options considered, explaining why each options was rejected.
As described in this Variance Application for SD033, CE has been actively pursuing alternatives to meet the
water quality standards, including completion of several studies focused on the identification and evaluation of
viable mitigation and/or treatment technologies and has developed a process to identify the most appropriate
alternative. However, additional time is required to test, evaluate and implement a viable solution. Therefore, the
type of pollution control system that will be implemented at SD033 is yet to be determined.
(Please refer to Section 1.1.6 Technological Feasibility of the Variance Application for further details)
S-44
$9,700,000 (1)
3.5% (i)
10 (n)
0.1202 (2)
$1,166,341 (3)
$1,000,000 (4)
$2,166,000 (5)
Component Section Page
Verify Project Costs 3.1.a 3-2
Capital Cost to be Financed 3.1.a; 3.1.b 3-2; 3-3
Annual Cost of Operation and Maintenance 3.1.b 3-3
Interest Rate for Financing 3.1.b 3-3Time Period for Financing 3.1.b 3-3
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Calculation of Total Annualized Project Costs
Worksheet G
Annual cost of operation and maintenance (including but not limited
to monitoring, inspection, permitting fees, waste disposal charges,
repair, administration and replacement) ($)2,3
Total annual cost of pollution control project [(3) + (4)]
Guidance Documentation
Capital costs to be financed ($)3
Notes:1 While actual payback schedules may differ across projects and companies, assume equal annual payments over a 10-year period for
consistency in comparing projects.
Interest rate for financing (%)
Time period of financing (Assume 10 years1)
Annualization factor = i/([(1 + i)n - 1] + i)
Annualized capital cost [(1) × (2)]
2 For recurring costs that occur less frequently than once a year, pro rate the cost over the relevant number of years (e.g., for pumps
replaced once every three years, include one-third of the cost each year).
3 These costs assume treatment by membrane treatment (nanofiltration) as a representative of the cost of potential pollution
control systems. Please note that this does not indicate that membrane treatment (nanofiltration) is a viable, effective, or
appropriate treatment technology for SD033; additional time is required to test, evaluate and implement a viable solution at
SD033.
S-44
Applicant Name
Three most recently completed fiscal years (most recent first): 2011 2010 2009
Revenues ($) $0 $0 $0
Cost of Goods Sold (including the cost of materials, direct labor, indirect labor,
rent and heat) ($)$0 $0 $0
Portion of Corporate Overhead Assigned to the Discharger (selling, general,
administrative, interest, R&D expenses, and depreciation on common
property) ($)
-$14,157,808 $3,994,792 $1,490,769
Net Income after Taxes ($)* $14,157,808 -$3,994,792 -$1,490,769
Depreciation ($) $0 $0 $0
Current Assets (the sum of inventories, prepaid expenses, and accounts
receivable) ($)$25,272,774 $3,983,776 $3,647,055
Current Liabilities (the sum of accounts payable, accrued expenses, taxes,
and the current portion of long-term debt) ($)$1,139,288 $3,660,827 $1,896,962
Current Debt ($) $0 $0 $0
Long-term Debt ($) $0 $0 $0
Long-term Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures, and bank
debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities such as deferred income taxes) ($)*$15,724,177 $14,986,879 $13,444,532
Owner Equity (the difference between total assets and total liabilities,
including contributed or paid in capital and retained earnings) ($)*$12,157,638 $8,080,317 $16,287,671
Component Section Page
Financial Impact Analysis (overview) 3.2 3-3
Current Assets 3.2b 3-7Current Liabilities 3.2b 3-8
Guidance Documentation
Data Needed to Calculate the Primary and Secondary Indicators (for Worksheets H, I, J, K, & L)
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Note:
* 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of significant asset sales, which was a one time ballon
payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of a typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no longer exists following
the final financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
S-44
EBT =
R =
CGS =
CO =
2009
R $0 (1)
CGS $0 (2)
CO $1,490,769 (3)
EBT [(1) - (2) - (3)] -$1,490,769 (4)
Earnings Before Taxes
Revenues
Cost of Goods Sold (including the cost of materials, direct labor, indirect labor, rent and
heat)
Portion of Corporate Overhead Assigned to the Discharger (selling, general,
administrative, interest, R&D expenses, and depreciation of common property)
2011
$0
$0
-$14,157,808
$14,157,808
Worksheet H
Calculation of Earnings Before Taxes With and Without Pollution Control Project Costs
Cliffs Erie, LLC
A. Earnings Without Pollution Control Project Costs
EBT = R - CGS - CO
Considerations: Have Earnings Before Taxes changed over the three year period? If so, what would a "typical" year's
EBT be? Explain below.
$3,994,792
-$3,994,792
2010
2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of significant asset sales, which was a one
time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of a typical year; however, they also include an income stream
that no longer exists following the final financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011. This income stream was
approximately $3.0 million annual in 2010 and $1.5 million annual in 2009, and was related to the asset sales that were
concluded in 2011. With the financial impact of these asset sales removed, Earnings Before Taxes (EBT) for each of the
years would be approximately: 2011: -$2.3 million (loss), 2010: -$7.0 million (loss), 2009: -$3.0 million (loss).
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
Where:
$0
$0
S-44
EWPR =
EBT =
ACPR =
(5)
(6)
(7)
No
ComponentProfitability 3-6
Guidance Documentation
2011
$14,157,808
3.2.a
Section
Additional comments:
Earnings will not be positive when comments in (A) above are considered.
Page
EBT (4)
ACPR [Worksheet G, (5)]
EWPR [(5) - (6)]
Considerations: Will earnings be positive after paying the annual cost of pollution control?
$2,166,000
$11,991,808
The Most Recently
Completed Fiscal
Year
Where:
B. Earnings with Pollution Control Project Costs
EWPR = EBT - ACPR
(Worksheet H cont.)
Earnings with Pollution Control Project Costs
Earnings Before Taxes (4)
Total Annual Costs of Pollution Control Project [Worksheet G, (5)]
S-44
Where: PRT =
EBT =
R =
2009
EBT [Worksheet H, (4)] -$1,490,769 (1)
R [Worksheet H, (1)] $0 (2)
PRT [(1) / (2)] 0.00 (3)
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
No, use 2010. It is more representative of a 'typical' year.Is the most recent year typical of the three years?
How do these profit rates compare with the profit rates for this line of business?
2011
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
2010
PRT = EBT ÷ R
Profit Rate Before Taxes
Earnings Before Taxes
Revenues
Considerations: How have profit rates changed over the three years?
Please Note: 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of significant asset sales, which was a
one time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of a typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no
longer exists following the final financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating mining entity. The only significant income stream for Cliffs Erie LLC in the past has
come from the sale of its assets. Once the assets of value have all been sold, much of which has already happened by
2011, Cliffs Erie will stop generating any income at all.
$0
0.00
Worksheet I
Calculation of Profit Rates With and Without Pollution Control Project Costs
Cliffs Erie, LLC
-$3,994,792$14,157,808
A. Profit Rate Without Project Costs
$0
0.00
S-44
PRPR =
EWPR =
R =
EWPR [Worksheet H, (7)] (4)
R [Worksheet H, (1)] (5)
PRPR [(4) / (5)] (6)
0%
Page
3-2
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-7
Before-Tax Earnings With Pollution Control Costs
Revenues
Effect of Pollution Control on Profit
Potential to Raise Prices
Considerations:
What would be the percentage change in the profit rate for the most recent year due to pollution control costs? [(PRPR -
How does the Profit Rate with Pollution Control Costs compare to the profit rate of this line of business?
3.2.a
3.2.a
3.2.aEarnings Before Taxes
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
2011
$11,991,808
$0
0.00
The Most Recently
Completed Fiscal Year
Where:
B. Profit Rate With Pollution Control Costs
PRPR = EWPR ÷ R
Profit Rate with Pollution Control Costs
Is there ability to raise prices to cover some or all of the pollution control costs? Explain below:
(Worksheet I cont.)
3.2.a
3.2.a
Comparison to Similar Line of Business
Interpretation of Profit Test
Guidance Documentation
Section
3.1b
3.2.a
Component
Revenues
Profitability (overview)
S-44
CR =
CA =
CL =
2010
CA $3,983,776 (1)
CL $3,660,827 (2)
CR [(1) / (2)] 1.09 (3)
No
Section
3.2.b
3.2.b
3.2b
3.2b
3.2.b
3.2.b
No, use 2010. It is more representative of a 'typical'
year's ratio.*
Considerations:
Is the current ratio (3) greater than 2.0?
How does the current ratio (3) compare with the current ratios for other firms in this line of
business?
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
Is the most recent year typical of
the three years?
*Please Note: 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of
significant asset sales, which was a one time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative
of a typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no longer exists following the
final financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
$1,896,962
1.92
2009
$3,647,055
$1,139,288
3-8
3-9
Guidance Documentation
Liquidity (overview)
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
Interpretation of Current Ratio
Comparison to Similar Lines of Business
Component Page
3-7
3-7
3-7
3-8
Worksheet J
Calculation of the Current Ratio
Cliffs Erie, LLC
22.18
CR = CA ÷ CL
Where: Current Ratio
Current Assets (the sum of inventories, prepaid expenses, and
accounts receivable)
Current Liabilities (the sum of accounts payable, accrued
expenses, taxes, and the current portion of long-term debts)
2011
$25,272,774
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
S-44
BR =
CF =
TD =
2009
Net income after taxes -$1,490,769 (1)
Depreciation $0 (2)
CF [(1) + (2)] -$1,490,769 (3)
Current debt $0 (4)
Long-term debt $0 (5)
TD [(4) + (5)] $0 (6)
BR [(3) / (6)] 0.00 (7)
No
Yes
No
Section Page
3.2.b 3-9
3.2.b 3-9
3.2.b 3-10
3.2.b 3-10
Interpretation of Beaver's Ratio
Comparison to Similar Lines of Business
2011
$14,157,808
$0
$14,157,808
$0
$0
0.00
$0
$0
$0
0.00
Component
Solvency (overview)
Beaver's Ratio
Worksheet K
Calculation of Beaver's Ratio
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
2010
How does this ratio compare with the Beaver's Ratio for other firms in the same business?
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
-$3,994,792
$0
Total Debt
No, use 2010. It is more representative of a
'typical' year's ratio.*
Is the most recent year typical of the
three years?
*Please Note: 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of
significant asset sales, which was a one time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of
a typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no longer exists following the final
financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
Guidance Documentation
Is the Beaver's Ratio greater than 0.2?
Is the Beaver's Ratio less than 0.15?
BR = CF ÷ TD
Where: Beaver's Ratio
Cash Flow
Is the Beaver's Ratio between 0.2 and 0.15?
Considerations:
-$3,994,792
$0
S-44
DER =
LTL =
OE =
2010 2009
LTL $14,986,879 $13,444,532 (1)
OE $8,080,317 $16,287,671 (2)
DER [(1) / (2)] 1.85 0.83 (3)
Section
3.2b
3.2b
3.2b
3.2.b
3.2.b
3.2.b
3-10
Is the most recent year typical of
the three years?
No, use 2010. It is more representative of a 'typical' year's
ratio.*
*Please Note: 2011 was an atypical year. 2011 results include the final financial settlements of
significant asset sales, which was a one time ballon payment. 2009-2010 are more representative of a
typical year; however, they also include an income stream that no longer exists following the final
financial settlements of the asset sales in 2011.
Impact of Special Sources of Funding
Guidance Documentation
3-10
3-11
3-11
3-11
Component
Leverage (overview)
Debt/Equity Ratio
Owner Equity
Interpretation of Debt/Equity Ratio
Comparison to Similar Dischargers
Page
Debt/Equity RatioLong-Term Liabilities (long-term debt such as bonds, debentures,
and bank debt, and all other noncurrent liabilities such as deferred
income taxes)Owner Equity (the difference between total assets and total liabilities,
2011
$15,724,177
$12,157,638
1.29
3-10
How does the debt to equity ratio (3) compare with the ratio for firms in the same business?
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
Worksheet L
Debt to Equity Ratio
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Three Most Recently Completed Fiscal Years
Considerations:
DER = LTL ÷ OE
Where:
S-44
EntityAnnual Pollution
Control Costs
Most Recently
Completed Fiscal
Year
Profit Rate
Without Pollution
Controls
Profit Rate With
Pollution Controls
Percent Change in
Profit Rate Due to
Pollution Controls
Cliffs Erie, LLC $2,166,000 2011 0.00 0.00 0.0%
Current Ratio
(Liquidity)
Beaver's Ratio
(Solvency)
Debt/Equity Ratio
(Leverage)
0.00 1.09 0.00 1.85
Section Page
3.2 3-3
3.2.a 3-6
3.2.b 3-7
3.3 3-11
Figure 3-1 3-13
Primary Measure:
Profit Test
(Profitability)
Secondary Measures
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Typical Value for Facilities/Firms in
Similar Lines of Business
Financial Analysis Summary
Primary Measure: Profit Test1
Note: 1. Based on the most recently completed fiscal year (2011)
Interpreting the Results
Measuring Substantial Impacts (flowchart)
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Guidance Documentation
Component
Financial Impact Analysis (overview)
Primary Measure (profitability)
Secondary Measures
Note: 2. Based on a typical fiscal year (2010)
Summarize and discuss financial circumstances with and without pollution controls, and compare primary and secondary
measures with the corresponding typical values for facilities/firms in similar lines of business.
Not applicable. Cliffs Erie LLC is a non-operating entity.
Comparison with Typical Values for Facilities/Firms in Similar Line of Business2
Entity
S-44
Cliff Erie's Hoyt Lakes Mine Area is located
north of the City of Hoyt Lakes in Sections 1,
2, 11-16, and 21-28 of Township 59 North,
Range 14W, Saint Louis County, Minnesota.
Employees, contractors and suppliers live in
the nearby community as well as other
communities on the Iron Range, including
Aurora, Biwabik, Gilbert, McKinley, Eveleth,
and Virginia, and in unincorporated areas of
St. Louis County.
(1)
Refer to Table N-1 (2)
7.9%* (3)
Less than 10 (4)
(5)
Refer to Table N-2 (6)
Refer to Table N-3 (7)
Refer to Table N-4 (8)
Refer to Table N-5 (9)
(10)
Refer to Table N-6 (11)
Total number of households in affected
community (#)
Percent of population below the poverty line in
affected community (%)
Current expenditures on social services in
affected community ($)
Expected expenditures on social services due
to job losses in the affected community ($)
Current total tax revenues in the affected
community ($)
Median household income in affected
community ($)
Worksheet N
Factors to Consider in Making a Determination of Widespread Social and Economic
Impacts
Cliffs Erie, LLC
Define the affected community in this case;
what areas are included
Current unemployment rate in affected
community ([Current # of persons collecting
unemployment in affected community / labor
force in affected community], or, if unavailable,
current unemployment rate provided in Tab 9.)
(%)
Current national unemployment rate (%)
Additional number of persons expected to
collect unemployment in affected community
due to compliance with water quality standards
(#)
Expected unemployment rate in the affected
community after compliance with water quality
standards ([Current # of persons collecting
unemployment in affected community + (4)] /
labor force in affected community) (%)
S-44
(12)
(13)
5.8%* (14)
(15)
(16)
$8,312,488,593** (17)
(18)
Component Section Page
Affected Community 4.1 4-1
Unemployment Rates 4.3 4-3
Labor Force 4.3 4-3
Expenditures on Social
Services4.3
4-4
Tax Revenues 4.3 4-3
Multiplier Effect 4.4 4-5Consideration of Economic
Benefits of Clean Water 4.5 4-6
Other current community characteristics or anticipated impacts that are not listed in the worksheet:
Guidance Documentation
** 2005 Human Services Enrollment and Services Spending
(http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/hsa.pdf; accessed December 3, 2012)
Notes:* Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted value for October 2012 (http://data.bls.gov, accessed
December 3, 2012)
Expected statewide expenditures on social
services due to job losses ($)
Tax revenues paid by the private entity to the
affected community ($)
(Worksheet N cont.)
Tax revenues paid by the private entity as a
percentage of the affected community's total
tax revenues (%) *
Current statewide unemployment rate
([Current # of persons collecting
unemployment in state] / labor force in state],
or, if unavailable, current statewide
unemployment rate provided in Tab 9.) (%)
Additional number of persons expected to
collect unemployment in the state due to
compliance with water quality standards (#)
Expected statewide unemployment rate, after
compliance with water quality standards
([Current # of persons collecting
unemployment in state + (15)]/labor force in
state)
Current expenditures on social services in
state ($)
S-44
Table N-1: Unemployment rate in affected community
Impact area Unemployment
Rate (%) Source
Aurora N/A
Biwabik 4.4 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth 11.9 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert 7.6 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes 16.3 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley 15 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White N/A
Virginia 10.5 U.S. Census American Factfinder 2010 ACS 5-yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County
6.5 Bureau of Labor Statistics not seasonally adjusted preliminary value for December 2011 (http://data.bls.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total
5.7 Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted value for December 2012 (http://data.bls.gov, accessed February 27, 2011)
S-44
Table N-2: Median household income in affected community
Impact area
Median Household
Income (2010
Inflation Adjusted Dollars)
Year/Source
Aurora N/A
Biwabik $ 37,500 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth $ 36,755 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert $ 40,925 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes $ 45,338 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley $ 27,750 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White N/A
Virginia $ 32,664 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County $ 44,941 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total $ 55,459 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
S-44
Table N-3: Number of households in affected community
Impact area Number of households
Year/Source
Aurora
Biwabik 523 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth 1,779 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert 861 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes 912 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley 27 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White
Virginia 4,028 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County 86,561 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total 2,091,548 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
S-44
Table N-4: Percent of population living below poverty level in affected community
Impact area
Percent below poverty level (%)
Year/Source
Aurora
Biwabik 18.7 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth 18.8 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert 11.0 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes 4.5 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley 15.9 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White
Virginia 21.2 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County 17.9 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total 11.6 U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2010 ACS 5 yr estimates (http://factfinder2.census.gov, accessed February 27, 2012)
S-44
Table N-5: Expenditures on social services in affected community
Impact area Social Services Expenditures
Year/Source
Aurora $ 1,414,513
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Biwabik $ 1,201,311
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth $ 4,134,077
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert $ 2,087,466
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes $ 2,620,085
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley $ 55,428
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White
Virginia $ 9,830,928
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 16 "Classification of Expenditures for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009", data for current expenditures (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County $ 217,734,620
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota County Budgets 2010 Summary Budget Data Together With 2009 Revised Summary Budget Data, 2009 revised budget data for current expenditures, (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Reports/gid/2010/co_Budget/coBudget_10_report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total $ 8,312,488,593 2005 Human services enrollment and services spending(http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/hsa.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
S-44
Table N-6: Current total tax revenues in affected community
Impact area 2009 U.S. Dollars Year/Source
Aurora $ 665,617
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Biwabik $ 653,040
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Eveleth $ 871,281
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Gilbert $ 557,802
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Hoyt Lakes $ 939,945
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
McKinley $ 2,242
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Town of White N/A
Virginia $ 2,499,175
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota City Finances 2009 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt Table 15 "Classification of Revenues for All Governmental Funds For the Year Ended December 31, 2009" (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/reports/gid/2009/ciRed/ciRed_09_Report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
St. Louis County $ 108,028,005
STATE OFMINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor, Minnesota County Budgets 2010 Summary Budget Data Together With 2009 Revised Summary Budget Data, 2009 revised budget data for property taxes and all other taxes, (http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Reports/gid/2010/co_Budget/coBudget_10_report.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012)
Minnesota Total $ 17,726,000,000 FY 2011 Estimate (http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/budget/report-pog/nov11.pdf, accessed February 27,2012)
S-44
Appendix C
Summary: Comprehensive Review of Potential Treatment Technologies for SD033
S-44
Appendix C
Summary: Comprehensive Review of Potential Treatment Technologies for SD033
Through the process of developing the Short-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for
SD033 (Short-Term Plan) and the Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033
(Long-Term Plan), CE has undertaken a comprehensive review of potential treatment technologies to
achieve compliance with water quality standards for the parameters of concern at SD033.
The following potential treatment technologies were screened in development of the Short-Term
Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Chemical Precipitation: barium precipitation, ettringite precipitation (SAVMIN and CESR),
gypsum precipitation, and lime softening
Ion Exchange: Sulf-IX and Sulf-IXC
Membrane Treatment: microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, and
electrodialysis reversal
The following potential treatment technologies were screened in development of the Long-Term
Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Floating Wetland Treatment
Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB)
Ion Exchange (Sulf-IX or Sulf-IXC)
Reverse Osmosis
Nanofiltration
Source Isolation
Natural Attenuation
Enhanced Natural Attenuation through Nutrient Addition in the Pits
Conventional Lime Softening
Passive Softening
Aquatic System and Surface Flow Wetlands
Based on the results of these screenings, the following potential treatment technologies were evaluated
further based on effectiveness, implementability, long-term performance, and cost:
S-44
Floating Wetland
o Summary of review: After review of potential biological treatment alternatives during
development of the Short-Term Plan, a floating wetland system was selected for
further evaluation, as described in Section 5.1.1 of the Short-Term Plan. Section 5.2
of the Short-Term Plan includes a description of the floating wetland system, related
implementation considerations, a preliminary cost estimate, and a hypothesis of the
expected outcome of further evaluation. During development of the Long-Term Plan,
the floating wetland system was selected for further evaluation, as described in
Sections 4.1.1 and 5.5 of the Long-Term Plan. Section 6.0 of the Long-Term Plan
includes discussion of the effectiveness, implementability, long-term performance,
and cost of a floating wetland system. Section 7.0 of the Long-Term Plan
recommended further evaluation a floating wetland system through pre-
implementation study efforts and pilot-scale testing.
o Further details related to this review:
Short-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 5.1.1: Biological Treatment
Section 5.2: Floating Wetlands
Table 2: Treatment Screening Matrix
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 4.1.1: Floating Wetland Treatment
Section 5.5: Floating Wetland Treatment
Section 6.0: Comparison of Mitigation Alternatives
Section 7.0: Recommended Protocol
Section 7.1.2: Floating Wetland Treatment
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
Lime Softening
o Summary of review: After review of potential chemical precipitation treatment
alternatives during development of the Short-Term Plan, no chemical precipitation
alternative was deemed suitable for independent consideration due to potential
limitations, as described in Section 5.1.2 of the Short-Term Plan. However, lime
softening was selected for further consideration and potential evaluation with other
treatment technologies as either a pre- or post-treatment option. Further details
S-44
related to the potential applications and limitations of lime softening are included in
Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 of the Long-Term Plan.
Further details related to this review:
Short-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 5.1.2: Chemical Precipitation
Table 2: Treatment Screening Matrix
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 4.2.4: Conventional Softening
Section 4.2.5: Passive Softening
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
Ion Exchange (Sulf-IX)
o Summary of review: After review of potential ion exchange treatment alternatives
during development of the Short-Term Plan, BioteQ Environmental Technologies,
Inc.’s proprietary Sulf-IX ion exchange process was selected for further evaluation,
as described in Section 5.1.3 of the Short-Term Plan. Section 5.3 of the Short-Term
Plan includes a description of the Sulf-IX ion exchange process, related
implementation considerations, a preliminary cost estimate, and a hypothesis of the
expected outcome of further evaluation. During development of the Long-Term Plan,
the Sulf-IX ion exchange system was not selected for further evaluation due primarily
to concerns related to implementability, as described in Section 4.1.3 of the Long-
Term Plan.
o Further details related to this review:
Short-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 5.1.3: Ion Exchange
Section 5.3: Ion Exchange
Table 2: Treatment Screening Matrix
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 4.1.3: Ion-Exchange
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
Membrane Treatment (Reverse Osmosis or Nanofiltration)
S-44
o Summary of review: After review of potential membrane treatment alternatives
during development of the Short-Term Plan, reverse osmosis was selected for further
evaluation, as described in Section 5.1.4 of the Short-Term Plan. Section 5.4 of the
Short-Term Plan includes a description of reverse osmosis, related implementation
considerations, a preliminary cost estimate, and a hypothesis of the expected outcome
of further evaluation. During development of the Long-Term Plan, membrane
treatment by reverse osmosis or nanofiltration was not selected for further evaluation
due primarily to concerns related to implementability, as described in Section 4.1.4 of
the Long-Term Plan. However, in the MPCA’s July 25, 2012 letter to CE, “RE: April
6, 2010, Cliffs Erie, LLC Consent Decree, Review of Long Term Plans – SD033 and
SD026”, the MPCA indicated that, further evaluation of an active treatment
technology, such as membrane treatment, would be required; therefore a Work Plan
for Investigation of Membrane Treatment at SD033 was submitted to the MPCA in
September 2012. The work plan includes a proposed schedule and protocol for
conducting a pilot-scale test including evaluation of reverse osmosis technology and
evaluation of associated concentrate (brine) management approaches and the use of
concentrate volume reduction technologies.
o Further details related to this review:
Short-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 5.1.4: Reverse Osmosis
Section 5.4: Reverse Osmosis
Table 2: Treatment Screening Matrix
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 4.1.4: Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
Work Plan for Investigation of Membrane Treatment at SD033:
Section 1.2: Selection of Reverse Osmosis as Active Treatment
Technology and Testing Approach
Source Isolation
o Summary of review: After review of additional potential mitigation alternatives for
long-term implementation during development of the Long-Term Plan, source
isolation (such as covering of stockpiles in Area 5 North to isolate stockpiled rock)
S-44
was identified for further evaluation, as described in Sections 4.2.1 and 5.1 of the
Long-Term Plan. Section 6.0 of the Long-Term Plan includes discussion of the
effectiveness, implementability, long-term performance, and cost of source isolation.
Section 7.0 of the Long-Term Plan recommended further evaluation of source
isolation through pre-implementation study efforts and pilot-scale testing.
o Further details related to this review:
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033 :
Section 4.2.1: Source Isolation
Section 5.1: Source Isolation
Section 6.0: Comparison of Mitigation Alternatives
Section 7.0: Recommended Protocol
Section 7.1.1: Source Isolation
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
Natural Attenuation
o Summary of review: After review of additional potential mitigation alternatives for
long-term implementation during development of the Long-Term Plan, it was
determined that natural attenuation would not be sufficient to address sulfate loads
and thus that only enhanced natural attenuation would be evaluated further, as
described in Sections 4.2.2 and 5.2 of the Long-Term Plan.
o Further details related to this review:
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 4.2.2: Natural Attenuation
Section 5.2: Natural Attenuation
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
Enhanced Natural Attenuation
o Summary of review: After review of additional potential mitigation alternatives for
long-term implementation during development of the Long-Term Plan, enhanced
natural attenuation through nutrient addition in pits was identified for further
evaluation, most likely in combination with other treatment technologies, as
described in Sections 4.2.3 and 5.3 of the Long-Term Plan. Section 6.0 of the Long-
S-44
Term Plan includes discussion of the effectiveness, implementability, long-term
performance, and cost of enhanced natural attenuation. Section 7.0 of the Long-Term
Plan recommended further evaluation of enhanced natural attenuation as a portion of
an overall solution during pre-implementation study efforts.
o Further details related to this review:
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 4.2.3: Enhanced Natural Attenuation through Nutrient
Addition in Pits
Section 5.3: Enhanced Natural Attenuation
Section 6.0: Comparison of Mitigation Alternatives
Section 7.0: Recommended Protocol
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB)
o Summary of review: After review of additional potential mitigation alternatives for
long-term implementation during development of the Long-Term Plan, a permeable
reactive barrier (PRB) was identified for further evaluation, as described in Sections
4.1.2 and 5.4 of the Long-Term Plan. Section 6.0 of the Long-Term Plan includes
discussion of the effectiveness, implementability, long-term performance, and cost of
a PRB. Section 7.0 of the Long-Term Plan recommended further evaluation a PRB.
Additionally, in CE’s September 25, 2012 letter to the MPCA, “RE: Consent Decree
in MPCA v. Cliffs Erie, Court File No. 62CV-IO-2807 – Response to July 25, 2012
MPCA Letter (“Review of Long Term Plans – SD033 and SD026”)”, CE proposed to
conduct further evaluation of a PRB.
o Further details related to this review:
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033 :
Section 4.1.2: Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB)
Section 5.4: Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB)
Section 6.0: Comparison of Mitigation Alternatives
Section 7.0: Recommended Protocol
Section 7.1.3: PRB Site Evaluation
S-44
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
Surface-Flow Wetland/Lagoon
o Summary of review: After review of additional potential mitigation alternatives for
long-term implementation during development of the Long-Term Plan, a surface-flow
wetland system was identified for further evaluation in tandem with a floating
wetland or PRB, as described in Sections 4.2.6 and 5.6 of the Long-Term Plan.
Section 6.0 of the Long-Term Plan includes discussion of the effectiveness,
implementability, long-term performance, and cost of a surface-flow wetland system.
Section 7.0 of the Long-Term Plan recommended potential further evaluation of a
surface-flow wetland system based on the results of floating wetland and source
isolation studies and testing.
o Further details related to this review:
Long-Term Mitigation Evaluation and Implementation Plan for SD033:
Section 4.2.6: Aquatic System and Surface Flow Wetlands
Section 5.6: Aquatic System and Surface Flow Wetland
Section 6.0: Comparison of Mitigation Alternatives
Section 7.0: Recommended Protocol
Table 7: Effectiveness, Implementation, and Cost Information for
Treatment/Mitigation Alternatives at SD033
S-44
Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes.
EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 1
GRAND PORTAGE RESERVATION
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
F. FORESTRY WATER SUPPLY ..................................…………….. 11 G. INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY ..................................……. 11
H. NAVIGATION .......................................................…………………. 11
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY .....................................................………….. 14 IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ..........……………. 14
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
page IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ..........……………. 16 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ........................................................…………………. 17 ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT,
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .................................………………. 17 GENERAL STANDARDS ....................................................................………….. 18
NUMERIC CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY.........................................…………… 21
1. NATURAL WATER QUALITY ............................................ 21
2. ADDITIVITY GENERAL .....................……………………………… 21
3. RISK LEVELS AND ADDITIVITY………...........…………………… 22 4. SITE-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA ……………………… 22 5. VARIANCES FROM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ……………. 23 6. STANDARDS THAT VARY WITH TOTAL HARDNESS …………… 23 7. STANDARD THAT VARIES WITH pH ……………………………… 23
8. CONVERSION FACTORS FOR TRANSFORMING
TOTAL METALS TO DISSOLVED METALS ……………………… 24
9. METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP OR REVISE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA ………………………………………… 24
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 4
GRAND PORTAGE RESERVATION WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
I. INTRODUCTION. The Grand Portage Band of Chippewa is a sovereign Indian nation, federally recognized and organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 984 and 25 U.S.C. Section 476, as amended. The governing body of the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa, the Reservation Tribal Council, has the inherent authority to regulate activities and natural resources of the Reservation. The Reservation Tribal Council does hereby enact the following water quality standards which apply to all waters upon, under, flowing through or bordering upon the Grand Portage Reservation including the shoreline waters of Lake Superior within the Grand Portage Zone. The Grand Portage Zone is described as follows: That part of Lake Superior begining at the intersection of the west line of Range 5 East and the shoreline of Lake Superior, thence to a point in Lake Superior one half mile south as measured along the southerly extension of the west line of Range 5 East, thence northeasterly to a point on the Minnesota-Michigan boundary line at latitude 47 degrees, 58 minutes, 40 seconds, thence northerly along the Minnesota-Michigan boundary line to a point which forms the common boundary between Minnesota, Michigan and the Province of Ontario, Canada, and thence westerly along the International Boundary line to the confluence of the Pigeon River. II. PURPOSE. The purposes of the Grand Portage Reservation water quality standards are: 1. To designate uses for which the waters of the Grand Portage Reservation will be
protected; 2. To prescribe water quality criteria imposed in order to attain and sustain the designated
uses; 3. To prevent degradation of existing water quality; 4. To promote and protect the health and welfare, the political integrity, and the economic
well-being of the Grand Portage Reservation, its members and all residents of the Reservation, and;
5. To protect and enhance the propagation of fish and other aquatic life, wildlife, and
recreation in and on the water.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 5 III. APPLICABILITY. 1. These standards apply to all waters of the Grand Portage Reservation. Waters of the
Grand Portage Reservation are defined as all waters, including wetlands, upon, under, flowing through or bordering upon the Grand Portage Reservation.
In addition, these water quality standards shall provide the basis for all water management decisions affecting water quality within the Reservation boundaries, including, but not limited to point-source permitting, non-point source controls and the physical alterations of water bodies including wetlands.
2. It is the intent of the Band that, where feasible, water quality criteria necessary to protect
designated uses must be met at all times and at all locations in all waters of the Grand Portage Reservation.
3. Water quality standards will be the basis for managing discharges attributable to point
and non-point sources of pollution. Water quality standards are not used to control, and are not invalidated by, natural background phenomena or acts of God.
4. The Grand Portage Reservation water quality standards may be revised from time to time,
as the need arises, or as the result of updated scientific information, at a minimum will be reviewed every three years.
IV. DEFINITIONS. Acute: Stimulus severe enough to rapidly induce an effect; in aquatic tests, an effect observed in 96 hours or less typically is considered acute. When referring to aquatic toxicology or human health, an acute effect is not always measured in terms of lethality. Acute Toxicity: Acute toxicity can be any “adverse effect,” which is defined as debilitating, harmful or toxic to the normal functions of the organism. Acute exposure occurs within any short observation period which begins when the exposure begins and may extend beyond the exposure period, and usually does not constitute a substantial portion of the life span of an organism. Ambient: Completely surrounding; encompassing; circulating. Antidegradation Policy: A policy that ensures that water quality is protected in order to maintain existing uses, high quality waters, and outstanding national resource waters. Background Levels: The biological, chemical, and physical conditions of a water body, upstream from the point or non-point source discharge under consideration.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 6 Best Management Practices: Methods that have been determined to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing pollution from non-point sources. Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF): The ratio (in L/Kg) of a substance’s concentration in tissue of an aquatic organism to its concentration in the ambient water, in situations where both the organism and its food are exposed and the ratio does not change substantially over time. Biological Integrity: The presence of a biological community that at a site that is indistinguishable in either structure or function from the biological community that would be expected absent anthropogenic impacts as determined based on a defined reference condition appropriate to the ecoregion in which the water body is located. Carcinogenic: A substance which causes an increased incidence of benign or malignant neoplasms, or substantially decreases the time to develop neoplasms, in animals or humans. Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC): The highest water concentration of a toxicant to which organisms can be exposed indefinitely without causing chronic toxicity. Chronic Toxicity: Concurrent and delayed adverse effects that occur as a result of chronic exposure. Clean Water Act: The Federal Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Designated Uses: Those uses set forth in these water quality standards for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained. Examples of designated uses can include coldwater fisheries and public water supply. Dissolved Oxygen: The amount of oxygen dissolved in water or the amount of oxygen available for biochemical activity in water, commonly expressed as a concentration in milligrams per liter. Escherichia coli (E. Coli): A specific bacterial species occurring as part of the normal intestinal flora in vertebrates. Also known as Colon bacillus. Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall. Epilimnion: The layer of water that overlies the thermocline of a lake and that is subject to the action of wind. Existing Uses: Uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in the water quality standards.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 7 Grand Portage Zone: The area in the Minnesota waters of Lake Superior bounded by a line as follows: beginning at the mouth of the Reservation River, thence due south to the Minnesota boundary in Lake Superior, thence northeastward along such Minnesota boundary to the Canadian boundary in Lake Superior, thence westward along such Canadian boundary to the shore of lake Superior, thence southwestward along the shore of Lake Superior to the point of beginning (See Cooperative Agreement Between the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (July 1996)). High Quality Waters: Surface waters of the Reservation in which, on a parameter by parameter basis, the quality of water exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife and recreation in and on the water. Human Health Criteria: Criteria adopted by the Tribe for the purpose of protecting human beings from adverse health effects due to consumption of contaminated water and fish. Indigenous: Originating in, and characterizing a particular region or country; native; innate; inherent. Milligrams per Liter (mg/L): The concentration at which one milligram is contained in a volume of one liter; one milligram per liter is equivalent to one part per million (ppm) at unit density. Narrative Criterion: Narrative statements representing a quality of water that supports a particular use. When criteria are met water quality will generally protect the designated use. New or Increased Discharge: Any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a “a discharge of pollutants”, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 122.2, to surface waters of the Reservation, the construction of which commenced after July 16, 1996. Non-point Source: A source of pollution that is not a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance; a diffuse source that flows across natural or manmade surfaces, such as run-off from agricultural, construction, mining or silvicultural activities or from urban areas. NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units; a measure of turbidity in water. Nutrient: A chemical taken in by organisms and used in organic synthesis. Outstanding Tribal Resource Waters - Prohibited (OTRW-P): Those waters of the highest quality that are protected for uniqueness or ecological sensitivity. Waters may be classified as OTRW-Protected because of exceptional cultural, aesthetic, recreational or ecological significance, as determined by the Reservation Tribal Council. The antidegradation section of
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 8 the standards also states that no pollutants may be discharged from point sources to a reservation water body assigned this provision. Outstanding Tribal Resource Waters - Restricted (OTRW-R): All waters of the Reservation, except those portions designated as OTRW-Prohibited. pH: The negative logarithm of the effective hydrogen ion concentration in gram equivalents per liter; a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, increasing with increasing alkalinity and decreasing with increasing acidity. Point Source: Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may be discharged into a water body. Primary Contact Recreational: Activities where a person would have direct contact with the water to the point of complete submergence, including but not limited to skin diving, swimming, and water skiing. Public Water Supply: A stream, river, lake or impoundment specifically classified by the Reservation Tribal Council as suitable to provide an adequate supply of drinking water for the continuation of the health and well-being of the residents of the Grand Portage Reservation. Reservation Tribal Council (RTC): The governing body of the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa. Secondary Contact Recreational: The recreational use of a stream, river, lake or impoundment in which contact with the water may, but need not, occur and in which the probability of ingesting water is minimal; examples are fishing and boating. Toxicity: State or degree of being toxic or poisonous; lethal or sub lethal adverse effects on organisms, due to exposure to toxic materials. Tribe: The Grand Portage Band of Chippewa. Turbidity: (1) A measure of the amount of suspended material, particles, or sediments that cause light traveling through a water column to scatter. (2) The clarity of the water expressed as nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and measured with a calibrated turbidimeter. Waters of the Reservation: Any accumulation of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, or parts thereof which are wholly or partially within, flow through, or border upon the Grand Portage Reservation; including but not limited to lakes, streams and wetlands. Wetland: Those areas that have a predominance of hydric soils, are inundated or saturated by
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 9 surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. “Normal circumstances” refers to the soil and hydrologic conditions normally present, without regard to whether the vegetation has been removed or whether the lands have been otherwise modified/manipulated by human activity. Wild Rice Areas: A stream, river, lake, or impoundment, or portion thereof, presently has or historically had the potential to sustain the growth of wild rice (also known as Zizania palustris or manoomin). V. DESIGNATED USES. Waters of the Reservation are assigned designated uses to serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act, as defined at sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c) which means that water quality standards should provide, wherever attainable, water quality for the protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, as well as considering the use and value of waters for public water supplies, industrial purposes and navigation. Certain existing uses are considered to be covered by several additional special designated uses for tribal cultural activities.
Designated uses are assigned to individual water bodies in order to protect water quality appropriate for each use. Some waters of the Reservation may have natural ambient water quality containing concentrations of parameters that exceed water quality criteria necessary for the protection of a designated use. Natural ambient water quality is defined as the quality in absence of human caused additions of a substance; and shall be determined by water quality monitoring. Designated uses will not be used to control, and are not invalidated by, natural ambient water quality. A. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY - a stream, river, lake or impoundment specifically classified
by the Grand Portage Reservation Tribal Council as suitable to provide an adequate supply of drinking water for the continuation of the health and well-being of the residents of the Grand Portage Reservation. These are waters that with conventional treatment will be suitable for human intake and meet federal regulations for drinking water.
B. AQUATIC LIFE
1. Cold Water Fisheries - a stream, river, lake or impoundment where water temperature, habitat and other characteristics are suitable for support and propagation of cold water fish and other aquatic life, or serve as a spawning or nursery area for cold water fish species. Examples of coldwater fish include brook trout, rainbow trout, and lake trout.
2. Warm Water Fisheries - a stream, river, lake or impoundment where water
temperature, habitat and other characteristics are suitable for support and
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 10
propagation of warm water fish and other aquatic life, or serving as a spawning or nursery area for warm water fish species. Examples of warm water fish species include large mouth bass and walleyed pike.
3. Subsistence Fishing (Netting Area) - that portion of Lake Superior referred to as
the Grand Portage Zone, including Grand Portage Bay, necessary to provide a sufficient diet of fish in order to sustain a healthy, on-Reservation population.
4. Wetland - an area that will be protected and maintained for some of the following
uses: maintaining biological diversity, preserving wildlife habitat, providing recreational activities, erosion control, groundwater recharge, low flow augmentation, storm water retention, and prevention of stream sedimentation.
C. WILDLIFE. - All surface waters capable of providing a water supply and vegetative
habitat for the support and propagation of all wildlife located within the Grand Portage area.
D. RECREATION
Primary Contact Recreational - the recreational use of a stream, river, lake or impoundment involving prolonged contact and the possibility of ingesting water in quantities sufficient to pose a health hazard; examples are swimming and water skiing.
1. Lake Superior Coastal Waters - high intensity use: Great Lakes coastal
waters public beaches where the majority of people swim due to the close proximity to the village, exceptionally clear water, and cobble or sand substrates.
2. Inland waters – moderate intensity use: Inland rivers or lakes with
moderate swimming use due to remote location, dense aquatic vegetation, and waters that are mildly stained.
streams surrounded by sedge meadows; and 2) inland bogs, wetlands and shallow lakes surrounded by floating sedge and peat mats where swimming is not an existing use due to highly stained waters and deep mucky substrates that create dangerous conditions for swimming.
E. CULTURAL
1. Wild Rice Areas - a stream, river, lake, wetland or impoundment, or portion thereof, presently, historically or with the potential to be vegetated with wild rice.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 11
2. Aesthetics - a stream, river, lake, wetland or impoundment, with an uncharacteristic beauty or which represents the traditional value system of the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa, as determined by the Grand Portage Reservation Water Resources Board.
F. FORESTRY WATER SUPPLY - all waters of the Reservation shall be of sufficient
quality for use in forestry applications. G. INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY - all waters of the Reservation shall be of sufficient
quality to be used as a water supply for commercial processes. H. NAVIGATION - all waters of the Reservation shall be of sufficient quality for use in
navigation.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 12 Table 1. Designated Uses
NAME
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
SECTION
DESIGNATED USES
LAKES:
CENTER LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
11
B1, B4, C, D3, E1, F, G, H
CHEVANS LAKE
T 64 N
R 5 E
35
B2, B4, C, D3, F, G, H
CUFFS LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
12 & 13
B2, B4, C, D3, E1, F, G, H
DUTCHMAN LAKE
T 63 N
R 6 E
6 & 7
B2, B4, C, D3, F, G, H
HELMER/ NELSON POND
T 63 N
R 5 E
13
B2, B4, C, D3, E1, F, G, H
LITTLE LAKE
T 63 N
R 6 E
3
B1, B4, C, D3, F, G, H
LOON LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
4
B2, B4, C, D3, E1, F, G, H
MOUNT MAUD LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
1
B2, B4, C, D3, E1, F, G, H
NORTH LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
8 & 9
B2, B4, C, D3, E1, F, G, H
SPECKLED TROUT LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
7 & 8
B1, B2, C, D2, F, G, H
SWAMP LAKE
T 63 N
R 4 E R 5 E
1 & 12 6 & 7
B1, B4, C, D2, E1, F, G, H
SWEDE LAKE
T 64 N
R 5 E
16 & 17
B2, B4, C, D3, F, G, H
TAYLOR LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
16 & 17
B1, B4, C, D2, D2, F, G, H
TEAL LAKE
T 64 N
R 6 E
27 & 34
B2, B4, C, D3, D2, E1, F, G, H
TURTLE LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
16
B2, B4, C, D2, F, G, H
UNNAMED LAKE
T 63 N
R 5 E
16
B2, B4, C, D3, F, G, H
CREEKS:
GRAND PORTAGE CREEK
T 63 N T 64 N
R 6 E R 6 E
4, 5, 6 31, 32, 33
B1, C, D1, D2, F, G, H
HOLLOW ROCK CREEK
T 63 N
R 5 E
9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25
B1, C, D1, D2, F, G, H
RED ROCK CREEK
T 63 N
R 5 E
21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 35
B1, C, D1, D2, F, G, H
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 13
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 14
VI. ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY.
Introduction: The Tribe’s existence has been dependent on the ability of the land and waters to provide natural resources for consumption, subsistence, cultural preservation, religious practice and sustainable economic development. Areas within the Reservation serve as a refuge for Tribal members to continue to practice a life that exemplifies sustainable economic development, and that preserves the resources critical to cultural integrity and survival of the Tribe. The following Antidegradation policy will be applied to waters of the Reservation in order to maintain adequate water quality to support these functions.
Protection of Existing Uses: Existing in-stream uses, as defined pursuant to 40 CFR 131, and the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses shall be maintained and protected. No further water quality degradation that would interfere with or become injurious to existing uses is allowable.
Protection of High Quality Waters: This antidegradation policy provides for the maintenance and protection of high quality waters through the classification of all waters within the exterior boundaries of the Grand Portage Reservation as Outstanding Tribal Water Resources (OTWR). Two subcategories of OTWR exist as follows:
(a) OTWR-Restricted (lowered water quality may be allowed under limitedcircumstances)
(b) OTWR-Prohibited (Discharges and permanent lowering of water quality areprohibited)
Each of the two subcategories of Grand Portage High Quality Waters has specific implementation procedures as outlined below in Section VII.
VII. IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY.
Cooperative Agreement with Minnesota: The classifications referred to above areintended to comply with terms of a cooperative agreement between the Grand Portage Band and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and approved by EPA, dated July 16, 1996. Under this agreement, the Band and MPCA will work cooperatively to plan and administer independently adopted water quality standards and certification programs under the Clean Water Act. A copy of the Agreement can be found in Attachment #1.
Protection of Designated and Existing Uses: For all waters, the Reservation Water Resources Board will ensure that the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses is maintained. In order to achieve this requirement, and consistent with 40 CFR 131.10, these water quality standards contain use designations which include all existing
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 15
uses. Controls will be established as necessary for point and non-point sources of pollutants to ensure the water quality criteria applicable to the designated uses are achieved and that any designated use of downstream water is protected. Where water quality does not support the designated use of a water body or ambient pollutant concentrations exceed water quality criteria and values applicable to the water body, the Reservation Water Resources Board must not allow a lowering of water quality for the pollutant or pollutants preventing attainment of such uses.
Thermal discharges: In those cases where the potential lowering of water quality is
associated with thermal discharge, the decision to allow such degradation shall be consistent with section 316 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Protection of endangered or threatened species: No lowering of water quality will be allowed that would threaten the continued existence of Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or listed critical habitat. Outstanding Tribal Water Resources -Restricted: In Reservation waters classified as restricted discharge areas, or OTWR-Restricted, actions resulting in a lowering of water quality cannot occur unless an antidegradation demonstration has been completed pursuant to the requirements listed below. Antidegradation Demonstration: Any person or entity proposing a new or increased discharge of any pollutant to a water body classified as an Outstanding Tribal Resource Water-Restricted must first provide the Grand Portage Water Resources Board (GPWRB) the following information in support of the proposed new or increased discharge for consideration: 1. Identify any cost effective pollution prevention alternatives and techniques that
are available that would eliminate or substantially reduce the extent to which the new or increased loading will result in lowering of water quality;
2. Identify alternative or enhanced treatment techniques that are available that would
eliminate the lowering of water quality and their costs relative to the cost of treatment necessary to achieve applicable effluent limitations;
3. Identify social or economic development and the benefits to the reservation that
will be foregone if the lowering of water quality is not allowed. The GPWRB will impose the most stringent statutory and regulatory controls for all new and existing point sources, and will impose the best management practices for non-point sources and wetland alterations. A monitoring requirement will be included in any applicable control document for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern known or
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 16
believed to be present in a point or non-point source discharge. Antidegradation Decision: Once the GPWRB determines that the information provided by the entity proposing to lower water quality is administratively complete, and after compliance with public notice requirements consistent with 40 CFR Part 25 and intergovernmental cooperation requirements consistent with 40 CFR Part 25, and due consideration of technical, economic, social and other criteria in the area in which the water is located, may decide to allow lower water quality if it has been adequately demonstrated that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives, and lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important social and economic development on the reservation. In no event may the decision reached under this section allow water quality to be lowered below the minimum level required to fully support existing and designated uses.
2. Outstanding Tribal Water Resources-Prohibited: Discharges will be prohibited in that
portion of Lake Superior north of latitude 47 degrees, 57 minutes, 13 seconds, east of Hat Point, south of the Minnesota-Ontario boundary, and west of the Minnesota-Michigan boundary. These waters will be referred to as OTWR-Prohibited. The following two exceptions are allowed:
• Exemptions for response actions pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, or similar Federal or Tribal authorities, undertaken to alleviate a release into the environment of substances which may pose imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare may be allowed by the Water Resources Board.
• Short-term, temporary (i.e., weeks or months) lowering of water quality from
sources resulting from activities meant to protect public health and welfare, or result in higher water quality in the future such as the maintenance existing roads, culverts, septic systems, boat docks and ramps, may be allowed by the Water Resources Board when there is no prudent and feasible alternative and best management practices have been imposed.
VIII. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. NPDES PERMITS
NPDES permits shall be issued by EPA to discharge to the waters of the Reservation in a manner consistent with Tribal Water Quality Standards. Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria will be applied as maximum standards not to be exceeded in waters of the Reservation.
Discharges in Tribal waters are PROHIBITED for:
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 17
The portion of the Shoreline Waters described in the 1996 Cooperative Agreement signed by the Grand Portage Band, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the US EPA, that prohibits any new or expanded discharges within Grand Portage Zone of Lake Superior from north of latitude 47 degrees, 57 minutes, 13 seconds and east of Hat Point.
IX. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS. 1. Sample collection, preservation and analysis used to determine water quality and to maintain the standards set forth in the Water Quality Standards shall be performed in accordance with procedures prescribed by the latest editions of the following authorities:
a. American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater;
b. “Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes”; and c. “EPA Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants”.
2. Bacteriological Surveys: The monthly geometric mean is used in assessing attainment of
standards when at least five samples are collected in a thirty-day period. When less than five samples are collected in a thirty day period, no single sample shall exceed the applicable upper limit for bacterial density set forth in these water quality standards.
3. AVERAGING PERIODS to assess attainment of the standards for the Chronic Aquatic
Life Criteria will be based upon a four day average. Acute Aquatic Life Criteria shall not apply due to the implicit debilitating effects and mortality rates of aquatic organisms over a short period of time. The numeric Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria in these standards will be used in place of Acute Aquatic Life Criteria, and must not be exceeded when averaged over a 1 hr period. Monitoring for the human health and wildlife criteria will be a thirty day average.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Acting under authority delegated by the Grand Portage Reservation Water Resources Board established by the Grand Portage Water Resources Ordinance as amended in 2004, the Environmental Department will implement the Grand Portage Water Quality Standards, including the anti-degradation policy, by establishing and maintaining controls on the introduction of pollutants into waters of the Reservation. The Environmental Department will have the following duties and responsibilities: 1. Monitor water quality to assess the effectiveness of pollution controls and to determine
whether water quality standards are being attained; 2. Analyze data to assess impact of effluent(s) on receiving waters, establish standards and
develop approaches for pollution control;
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 18 3. Compile information for pollution control discharge permits and determine data
collection methods to be employed in research projects and surveys; 4. Review the adequacy of the existing data base and obtain additional data when required
including; a. Collect water samples from streams, rivers, lakes, processed water or water from
other sources to assess pollution problems;
b. Prepare samples for testing, record data, and prepare summaries for review. 5. Review project operations and coordinate water pollution control activities with other
constituent agencies and other local, state and federal agencies, as appropriate; 6. Encourage voluntary implementation of best management practices to control non-point
sources of pollutants to achieve compliance with the Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards;
7. Require the highest and best degree of wastewater treatment practicable and
commensurate with protecting and maintaining designated uses and existing water quality;
8. Investigate complaints concerning water pollution problems; 9. Ensure compliance with the provisions for public participation required by the Clean
Water Act; 10. Ensure that all dischargers and all projects that have the potential to impact water quality
are in compliance with the Grand Portage Water Quality Standards. XI. GENERAL STANDARDS. The following general water quality criteria will apply to all waters of the Reservation. 1. Waters must be free from suspended and submerged solids or other substances that enter
the waters as a result of human activity and that will settle in the bed of a body of water to form foul smelling or otherwise objectionable deposits, or that will adversely affect aquatic life.
2. Waters must be free from floating debris, oil, scum and other floating materials entering
the waters as a result of human activity in amounts sufficient to be unsightly, adversely affect uses, or cause degradation.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 19 3. Waters must be free from materials entering the waters as a result of human activity
producing color, odor, taste or other conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance. 4. Waters must be free from nutrients entering the waters as a result of human activity in concentrations that create nuisance growths of aquatic weeds and algae. 5. Waters must be free from substances entering the water as a result of human activity in
concentrations that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic life.
Toxic substances must not be present in receiving waters in quantities that are toxic to human, animal, plant or aquatic life, or in quantities that interfere with normal propagation, growth and survival of the sensitive aquatic biota.
Where a numeric water quality criterion for a particular pollutant is not specified in these Water Quality Standards, the Water Resources Board will adopt EPA standards for that pollutant until a site-specific criterion for that chemical can be developed. Aquatic life will be as it naturally occurs. Ambient water quality must be sufficient to support life stages of all indigenous species. Aquatic habitat, which includes all waters of the Reservation, will not be degraded. Sediments and aquatic flora and fauna, and the use thereof, must not be impaired or endangered, the species composition will not be altered, and propagation or migration of fish and other aquatic biota normally present must not be hindered by discharge of sewage, industrial waste or other pollutants to the waters.
The biological quality of any given surface water body will be assessed by comparison to the biological integrity of reference conditions which best represent the most natural condition for that surface water body type within the geographic region. The biological quality will be determined by reliable measures of indicative communities of flora and fauna.
6. Waters capable of supporting wild rice will be of sufficient quantity and quality as to
permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy “wild rice” ecosystem in addition to the associated aquatic life and their habitats.
7. The pH of a stream, lake, bay or river will not be permitted to fluctuate in excess of 0.5
units outside the estimated natural seasonal maximum and minimum as defined by Tribal monitoring data.
8. For waters designated as coldwater fisheries, the dissolved oxygen standard will be a
minimum daily mean concentration of 9.0 mg/l when and where early life stages of cold water fish occur and 6.0 mg/l for all other coldwater aquatic life stages. For waters designated as warm water fisheries, the dissolved oxygen standard will be a minimum
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 20
daily mean concentration of 5.5 mg/l when and where early life stages of warmwater fish occur and 5.0 mg/l for all other warmwater aquatic life stages. Where natural conditions alone create dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 110 percent of the applicable criteria means or minima or both, the minimum acceptable concentration is 90 percent of the natural concentration.
9. Turbidity attributable to other than natural causes must not exceed 5 NTU over natural
conditions as defined by Tribal monitoring data.
10. Sulfates must not exceed 10 mg/l in wild rice habitats. 11. Bacteria criteria in waters protected for primary recreational contact are based on an equation
provided by USEPA. Primary contact recreational use is divided into three subcategories based upon frequency of use. If compliance is based on a monthly geometric mean than at least five samples must been collected in an equally spaced time period over thirty days. When less than five samples have been collected in a thirty-day period, the single sample shall not be exceeded. The following bacteria criteria apply to each subcategory:
(a) For high intensity use of Lake Superior Coastal waters designated as D1, the bacteriological density shall not exceed a monthly geometric mean of 126 Escherichia coli per 100 ml, or a single sample maximum of 235 cfu Escherichia coli /100 ml.
(b) For inland lakes and rivers that are used moderately for swimming due to remote location, dense vegetation, and mildly stained waters, designated as D2, the bacteriological density shall not exceed a monthly geometric mean of 126 Escherichia coli per 100 ml, or a single sample maximum of 299 cfu Escherichia coli /100 ml.
(c) Intermittent streams and streams surrounded by sedge meadows, shallow inland lakes surrounded by floating sedge and peat mats, wetlands and bogs that are infrequently used for swimming due to highly stained waters and deep mucky substrates that create dangerous conditions for swimming are designated as D3. For these waters the bacteriological density shall not exceed a monthly geometric mean of 206 cfu Escherichia coli per 100 ml, or a single sample maximum of 940 cfu Escherichia coli /100 ml.
12. Concentrations of radioactive materials must not exceed concentrations caused by
naturally occurring materials. 13. Existing mineral quality will not be altered by municipal, industrial and in-stream
activities or other waste discharges so as to interfere with the designated uses for a water body.
14. There will be no material increase in the temperature of Reservation waters other than
natural causes, based upon the average of temperatures taken from mid-depth or three (3) feet (whichever is less) for streams and taken from the surface to the bottom or surface to the bottom of the epilimnion if a lake is stratified.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 21
The normal daily and seasonal variations present before the addition of heat, from other than natural sources, must be maintained.
In no case will human-introduced heat be permitted when the maximum temperature specified for the water body (68 degrees F for cold water fisheries and 86 degrees F for warm water fisheries) would thereby be exceeded.
XIII. NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY. {GENERAL: If Water Quality Standards are exceeded in waters of the Reservation, it will be considered indicative of a polluted condition that is actually or potentially harmful, detrimental or injurious with respect to the designated uses and will therefore be considered a violation of the Grand Portage Water Quality Standards.} 1. NATURAL WATER QUALITY
The waters of the Reservation may, in a natural condition, have water quality characteristics or chemical concentrations approaching or exceeding the water quality standards. Natural conditions exist where there is no discernable impact from point or non-point source pollutants attributable to human activity or from physical alteration of wetlands. Natural background levels are defined by water quality monitoring. Where water quality monitoring data are not available, background levels can be predicted based on data from a watershed with similar characteristics. Where natural background levels do not exceed applicable standards, the addition of pollutants from human activity and resulting point or non-point source discharges shall be limited such that, in total, the natural background levels and the additions from human activity shall not exceed the standards. When reasonable justification exists to preserve the higher natural quality of a water resource, the Water Resources Board may use the natural background levels that are lower than the applicable site-specific standards to control the addition of the same pollutants from human activity. Where background levels exceeded applicable standards, the background levels may be used as the standards for controlling the addition of the same pollutants from point and non-point source discharges in place of the standards. In the adoption of standards for individual waters of the Reservation, the Water Resources Board will be guided by the standards herein but may make reasonable modifications of the same on the basis of evidence brought forth at a public hearing if it is shown to be desirable and in the public interest to do so in order to encourage the best use of the waters of the Reservation or the lands bordering such waters.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 22 2. ADDITIVITY, GENERAL.
If a discharge is composed of a mixture of more than one chemical and the chemicals have the same mode of toxic action, the Water Resources Board has the option to apply an additive model to determine the toxicity of the mixture using the following formula:
C1 + C2 + ... + Cn Equals a value of one or more; a FCV1 FCV2 FCVn toxic condition may be indicated
where : C1 ... Cn is the concentration of the first to the
nth toxicant. FCV1 ... FCVn is the Final Chronic Value (FCV), as
defined in 40 CFR 132.2, for the first to the nth toxicant.
3. RISK LEVELS AND ADDITIVITY, CARCINOGENS.
Concentrations of carcinogenic chemicals from point or non-point sources, singly or in mixtures, must not exceed risk levels of one chance in 1,000,000 in surface waters. Carcinogenic chemicals will be considered additive in their effect according to the following formula unless an alternative model is supported by available scientific evidence. The additive formula applies to chemicals that have a human health based standard calculated with a cancer potency factor.
C1 + C2 + ... + Cn Equals a value of one or more, a risk level CC1 CC2 Ccn greater than 10-6 is indicated
where: C1...Cn is the concentration of the first to nth
carcinogen. CC1...CCn is the drinking water plus fish consumption
criterion (dfCC) for the first to the nth carcinogenic chemical.
For the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs) listed in 40 CFR, part 132, appendix F, Table 1., potential adverse additive effects in effluents shall be accounted for in accordance with 40 CFR, part 132, appendix F, Procedure 4: Additivity.
4. SITE-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.
Water quality criteria may be recalculated to reflect conditions needed to protect uses of a
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 23
particular water body or segment on a case-by-case basis based on site-specific information. Site-specific water quality criteria will be consistent with local fish consumption rates. Bioaccumulation factors and the formulas used for water quality criterion will be consistent with the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great lakes System, 40 CFR 132, Appendix F, Procedure 1.
5. VARIANCES FROM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The Water Resources Board may grant variances from water quality standards on a case-by-case basis at least as protective as the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, 40 CFR 132, Appendix F, Procedure 2.
6. * STANDARDS THAT VARY WITH TOTAL HARDNESS (TH)
Total hardness is the sum of the calcium and magnesium concentrations expressed as calcium carbonate in mg/L. For ambient or effluent total hardness values greater than 400 mg/L, 400 mg/L must be used in the calculation of the standard. Exp. is the base e exponential function. Formula results are in μg/L.
CCC = exp. (0.8473[ln(TH mg/l)]+0.884) 67 120 216 304 388 7. ** STANDARD THAT VARIES WITH pH
Exp. is the base e exponential function. Formula results are in μg/L. The Chronic Standard shall not exceed the human health-based criterion of 5.5 μg/L.
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 24 8. CONVERSION FACTORS FOR TRANSFORMING TOTAL METALS TO
9. METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP OR REVISE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Human health criteria currently listed in Table 3 and the associated bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) were derived using the methodologies in 40 CFR 132, Appendices C and B. Human health criteria were recalculated using the following modified assumptions: (a) human consumption of 142.5 grams per day of fish; (b) human consumption of trophic level 3 fish is one quarter of the fish consumption total and consumption of trophic level 4 fish is three quarters of the fish consumption total; (c) a one-in-one-million cancer risk factor; and (d) the combined total of 2.01 liters per day ingestion of water (i.e. 2.0 liters per day for drinking water criteria combined with 0.01 liters per day incidental ingestion). Aquatic life criteria currently listed in Table 3 of these standards were calculated using the methodologies in 40 CFR 132, Appendix A. Wildlife criteria, and associated BAFs, listed in Table 3 of these standards were calculated using the methodology in 40 CFR 132, Appendix D and B.
For future numeric criteria development or modification, or where numeric criteria are needed to implement a narrative criterion, the Grand Portage Water Resources Board will use the methodologies required by 40 CFR 132.4(a)(2) through (5) which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this chapter:
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 25
1. Appendix A to Part 132 – Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodology for development of aquatic life criteria. However, Chronic Criteria will be used in place of Acute Criteria and shall not be exceeded in waters of the Reservation. 2. Appendix B to Part 132 - Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodology for deriving bioaccmulation factors for development of human health and wildlife criteria. 3. Appendix C to Part 132 – Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodology for development of human health criteria, with the exception of the modified assumptions as stated on page 24, in the first paragraph of number 9, shall be used to calculate new or revised criteria. 4. Appendix D to Part 132 – Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodology for development of wildlife criteria.
For pollutants listed in Table 5 of 40 CFR 132, or for any other pollutants other than those in Table 5 for which the Grand Portage Water Resources Board demonstrates that a methodology or procedure in 40 CFR 132 is not scientifically defensible, the Board shall: (a) apply methodologies or procedures acceptable under 40 CFR 131; or (b) apply alternative implementation procedures that are consistent with all applicable Grand Portage tribal laws.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 26
Table 3. Numeric Criteria for Designated Uses A, B1, B2, B3, B4 SUBSTANCE OR CHARACTERISTIC µg/l unless otherwise noted
HUMAN HEALTH
CRITERIA (FISH & WATER CONSUMPTION)
AQUATIC LIFE
CHRONIC CRITERIA (CCC)
WILDLIFE CRITERIA
Arsenic, total
5.64E-03
147.9
Benzene (c)
9.11E-01
Benzo(a)pyrene (c) (PAH)
1.35E-04
Beryllium (c) 5.18 ng/l
Cadmium
5.03 *
Chlordane (c)
9.70E-06
Chlorobenzene
5.33E+01
Chromium III, total (TH)
1.92E+05
*
Chromium VI, total 2.93E-04
10.98
Cyanides, free
1.40E+2
5.2
DDT (c) 1.56E-06
1.1E-5
Dieldrin (c)
6.88E-08
0.056
2, 4 Dimethylphenol
3.18E+02
2, 4 Dinitrophenol
4.88E+01
Dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8 TCDD) (c) 9.14E-11
3.1E-9
Endrin
1.09E+02
0.036
Hexachlorobenzene (c) (HCB)
4.78E-06
Hexachloroethane (c)
6.94E-02
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
5.25E-02
0.011
Mercury, total
1.96E-04
0.9081
1.3E-3
Methylene Chloride (c)
4.24
Parathion
0.013
Pentachlorophenol (c), (pH)
1.63E-01
*
*(c) - carcinogen
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 27
SUBSTANCE OR CHARACTERISTIC ug/l unless otherwise noted
HUMAN HEALTH
CRITERIA (FISH & WATER CONSUMPTION)
AQUATIC LIFE
CHRONIC CRITERIA
WILDLIFE CRITERIA
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total (c)
2.57E-07
1.2E-4
Selenium, total
9.78E+01
5.0
Toluene 7.40E+02 Toxaphene (c)
7.16E-07
Trichloroethylene (c)
1.80
*(c) - carcinogen XIV. ENFORCEMENT AND CIVIL PENALTIES.
These water quality standards shall be enforced in accordance with the Clean Water Act and this Chapter XIV. For any violation of these water quality standards that is not enforceable by the Band through the certification process of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1341), the following procedures shall apply: 1. Violation of the water quality standards.
Any person who acts to violate these water quality standards or who acts to cause a violation of these water quality standards shall be subject to penalties as well as any other actions set forth herein. In the event of a violation of the water quality standards, the Tribal Water Resources Board shall serve the alleged violator, in person or by certified mail, with a notice of violation. The notice of violation shall state which provisions of the water quality standards are allegedly being violated, and the action that must be taken to correct such violation (including the time within which action must be taken), as well as federal or Band provisions or regulations mandating that such action be taken.
2. Order to cease activity.
In the event of non-compliance with any notice of violation, the Tribal Water Resources Board may order the cessation of the activity causing the violation of the water quality standards without additional notice to the alleged violator. The
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 28
alleged violator shall be served with a statement of reason(s) for the cessation order, and the actions the alleged violator must take before the order will be lifted. A copy of this cessation order and a statement of reason(s) for the order shall be delivered to the Chairperson of the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa within 5 days of its issuance.
3. Remedies.
In the event an alleged violator fails to take action in accordance with the cessation order served pursuant to this Chapter, the Tribal Water Resources Board may pursue one or more of the following remedies: a. continue its cessation order; or b. assess penalties as set forth in XIV (4) herein; and take any other action
deemed appropriate, so long as the rights of due process guaranteed by the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., and the Constitution of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Article XIII (applicable to members only) are upheld.
4. Civil penalties.
Any person found violating this Chapter shall be subject to civil penalties by the Tribal Water Resources Board of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per day for each day of such violation or continued violation of a cessation order. The Tribal Water Resources Board shall personally, or via certified United States mail, first class, serve the alleged violator with notice of penalty. The penalty shall be due and payable to the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa within twenty days of such notice. Failure to pay any penalties imposed shall be considered an additional violation of this Chapter.
5. Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by any action taken by the Tribal Water Resources Board may appeal to the Grand Portage Band Tribal Court in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for that Court. The filing of an appeal shall not stay any cessation order or any order to pay penalties unless a stay is granted by the Tribal Court. The Tribal Court may reverse a decision of the Tribal Water Resources Board only if the appealing party can show by clear and convincing evidence that the Tribal Water Resources Board abused its discretion in the decision making
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 29
process, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
6. Sovereign immunity.
The Grand Portage Band of Chippewa hereby waives its sovereign immunity fromsuit for the express and limited purpose of enforcing these water quality standards.This waiver of sovereign immunity is expressly limited to the enforcementprocedures contained in this Section only, which are exclusively as follows:
a. administrative enforcement by the Tribal Water Resources Board through:
(1) the issuance of notices of violation;
(2) the issuance of cessation orders,
(3) civil penalties; and
b. judicial enforcement by the Tribal Water Resources Board through theissuance of declaratory and injunctive relief in the Grand Portage Band ofChippewa Tribal Court.
No other relief shall be available under this express and limited waiver of sovereign immunity. This waiver shall not extend to enforcement of these water quality standards in any forum other than the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa Tribal Court nor for any purpose other than the specific enforcement procedures cited in this Section XIV. The limited waiver of sovereign immunity contained in this Section XIV (6) shall extend to the agencies, departments, committees, and other sub-entities of the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa.
7. Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, Section, or part of this Chapter shall, for anyreason, be adjudicated by any court of competent jurisdiction, to be invalid orunconstitutional, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate theremainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence,paragraph, Section or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in whichthe judgment shall have rendered.
8. Construction.
This Chapter shall be interpreted and applied consistent with all other Codes,Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations of the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa.
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 30
ATTACHMENT 1
S-45
Grand Portage Reservation Water Quality Standards Final version as of May 24, 2005, with revised criteria adopted August 8, 2006, and appended variance from mercury criteria Page 31
ATTACHMENT 2
Grand Portage Variance from Human Health and Wildlife Mercury Criterion
Location Implementation Procedures
Designated Uses Mercury Criterion to Protect Designated Uses
Variance Concentration Limit
Grand Portage Bay OTWR- Restricted. B. Aquatic Life1. Cold Water Fishery
908 ng/L 4.7 ng/L
Grand Portage Bay OTWR- Restricted. B. Aquatic Life2. Subsistence Fishing
0.196 ng/L 4.7 ng/L
Grand Portage Bay OTWR- Restricted. C. Wildlife 1.3 ng/L 4.7 ng/L
S-45
Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes.
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CBIPPEWA
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OF THE FOND DU LAC RESERVATION
ORDINANCE # 12/98, as amended
Adopted by Resolution # 1403/98 of the Fond du Lac ReservationBusiness Committee on December 10, 1998
Amended by Resolution # 1286/01 of the Fond du Lac ReservationBusiness Committee on September 11. 2001
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
CSAPTJZRl
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER3
CHAPTER4
CHAPTER5
cBApTER6
CRAPTER7
CHAPTER8
CRAPTERS
CHAPTER10
APPENDIX1
APPENDIX2
APPENDIX3
TABLE OFCONTENTS
AUTBORITY, PURPOSE AND SCOPE . . . .
DEFINITIONS _ _ _ . . _ . . - . .
GENERAL STANDARDS AND DESIGNATED USES
. . . . . 2
. . . . . 9
. . . . _ 1 6
DESIGNATED USES APPLICABLE TO RESERVATIONNATER8 *...................21
SAMPLINGANDANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . 25
WATERQUALITY STANDARDSANDCRITERIA. . . . . . 26
SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDSANDCRITERIA..................~~
MIXING ZONES AND VARIANCES.. _ _ . . _ . ...33
ENFORCRMEWT 6 PROSECUTION . . , . . . . . . 41
AMEWDMENTSANDSFWF.RABILITY . . . . . . . ...42
STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO DESIGNA!FED USES . . . . . . 43
STANDAPDSTtiTVARYWITHTOTALBARDNESS . . . . 46
BAClWlIOLOGICALSTAND~S . . . . . . . . ...48
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CBIPPEWA
WATER QUALITY SThDARDS OF THE FOND DU LAC RESERVATION
ORDINANCE # 12/98
CHAPTER1
AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Section 101 Authority
This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the inherent sovereignauthority of the Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee(Reservation Business Committee), as the.governing body of the Fonddu Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, as granted by Article VI ofthe Revised Constitution of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, and asrecognized under the Treaty of LaPointe, 10 Stat. 1109, underSection 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5 476, andunder sections 303 and 518 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 551313 & 1377.
Section 102 Pllmse
The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the health andwelfare of.the Fond du Lac Band and other residents of the Fond duLac Reservation through:
a. The designation of uses for which the waters of the Fonddu Lac Reservation shall be protected;
b. The establishment of water quality criteria in order toattain and sustain those designated uses; and
C . The protection and enhancement of fish and other aquaticlife and wildlife on and near the Fond du LacReservation.
Section 103 ssc?ER
The water quality standards established under this Ordinanceshall apply to all waters of the Fond du Lac Reservation, includingwetlands. The standards will be applied to activities on theReservation which may impact the quality of waters upon, under,flowing through or adjacent to the Fond du Lac Reservation, andshall be the primary basis for managing discharges attributable topoint and non-point sources of pollution.
2
S-46
Section 104 Reservation of Rights
The Reservation Business Committee reserves the right to amendor repeal all or any part of this Ordinance at any time. All therights, privileges, or immunities conferred by this Ordinance or byacts done pursuant thereto shall exist subject to the power of theReservation Business Committee. Nothing in this Ordinance shall beconstrued to constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity of theFond du Lac Band or a consent to jurisdiction by any forum notexpressly authorized to exercise jurisdiction under this Ordinance.The water quality standards established under this Ordinance arenot intended to control, and shall not be invalidated by, naturalbackground phenomena or acts of God.
Any proposed changes or revisions to these standards shall bepreceded by a public notice in a local newspaper and a minimumforty-five consecutive day comment period. During this commentperiod, any Band member or other interested persons may request apublic hearing prior to adoption of such changes or revisions bythe Reservation Business Committee. Upon approval of a publichearing request, the Reservation Business Committee shall by publicnotice in a local newspaper announce the date, time and location ofsuch public hearing and said public notice shall be published atleast forty-five consecutive days prior to the public hearing. Anyreports, documents and data relevant to the discussion at thepublic hearing shall be available at least thirty days before thehearing.
These standards shall be revrewed and updated, as necessaryand appropriate, by the Reservation Business Committee at leastonce every three years. Prior to such action, any proposed changesor revisions to these standards shall be preceded by a publicnotice in a local newspaper and a minimum forty-five consecutiveday comment period. In addition, the Reservation BusinessCommittee shall conduct a public hearing to obtain comments onthese standards and there shall be public notice in a localnewspaper to announce the date, time and location of such publichearing. The public notice shall be published at least forty-fiveconsecutive days prior to the public hearing. Any reports,documents and data relevant to the discussion at the public hearingshall be available at least thirty days before the hearing.
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
Section 105 Antidearadation Policy and Wlementation
The Reservation Business Committee hereby declares thefollowing anti-degradation policy for all waters on or adjacent tothe Fond du Lac Reservation:
a . Policy
1. Existing instream water uses, as defined pursuantto 40 C.F.R. Part 131, and the level of waterquality necessary to protect existing uses shall bemaintained and protected. No further water qualitydegradation which would interfere with or becomeinjurious to existing or designated uses shall bepermitted.
2. Waters in which the existing quality surpasses, ona pollutant by pollutant basis, the standardsprescribed under this Ordinance, and unequivocallyattains those levels necessary to supportmaintain existing water uses,
and
habitats,aquatic and wetland
water,and wildlife and recreation in and on the
ofare considered high quality for the purposes
this antidegradation policy and implementationprocedures.
3. Degradation of water quality shall not be permittedwhere it will bedesignated
injurious to existing oruses. The Reservation Business
Committee or appropriate permitting authority shallimpose the most stringent regulatory controls forall newimpose
and existing point sources, and shallcost effective and reasonable best
management practices for non-point sources andwetland alterations.
4. For waters identified as high quality under 105.a.2of this Ordinance,Business Committee,
the Fond du Lac Reservationafter appropriate public notice
and intergovernmental coordination requirements andafter due consideration of sucheconomic,
technical,social and other criteria in the area in
which the water is located, may choose to allowlower water quality, where lower water quality isdetermined to be necessary to support importantsocial and economic development.
5. Waters proposed in this Ordinance as OutstandingReservation Resource Waters (ORRW) shall bedesignated as such upon approval of this Ordinanceand maintained and protected. Waters may bedesignated an ORRW because of exceptional cultural,aesthetic, recreational or ecological significance.Upon approval of this Ordinance, other waters may
4
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
I
I
I
b.
be designated ORRW as determined by the ReservationBusiness Committee after at least one publichearing. Water quality in ORRWs shall be maintainedand protected without degradation.
6 . In situations giving rise to potential waterquality impairment due to a thermal discharge, theReservation Business Committee shall implement theanti-degradation policy through regulationsconsistent with Section 316 of the Clean Water Act,as amended, 33 U.S.C. 5 1326.
Implementation
1. Lowerina of Water Quality
A significant Lowering of Water Quality is defined as: 1)the projected or observed diminished chemical orbiological integrity of Reservation surface waters asestablished by the Fond du Lac Environmental Programthrough the collection and analysis of baselinebiological data, and the determination of referenceconditions for such surface waters; or, 2) a new orincreased loading of a pollutant from any regulatedexisting or new facility, either point source or nonpointsource, for which there is a control document orreviewable action, as a result of any activity including,but not limited to:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Construction of a new regulated facility ormodification of an existing regulated facilitysuch that a new or modified control documentis required;
Modification of an existing regulated facilityoperating under a current control documentsuch that the production capacity of thefacility is increased;
Addition of a new source of untreated orpretreated effluent containing or expected tocontain any pollutant to an existingwastewater treatment works, whether public orprivate;
A request for an increased limit in anapplicable control document; and
Other deliberate activities that, based on theinformation available, could be reasonablyexpected to result in an increased loading ofany pollutant to any waters of the Fond du LacReservation.
5
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
I
2 . Review of Antideuradation Demonstrations
For all waters, the Reservation Business Committeeshall ensure that the level of water qualitynecessary to protect existing uses is maintained.In order to achieve this requirement, andconsistent with 40 C.F.R. Part 132, water qualitystandards use designations must include allexisting uses. Controls shall be established asnecessary on point and nonpoint sources ofpollutants to ensure that the criteria applicableto the designated use are achieved in the water andthat any designated use of a downstream water isprotected. Where water quality does not supportthe designated uses of a waterbody or ambientpollutant concentrations exceed water qualitycriteria applicable to the waterbody, theReservation Business Committee shall not allow alowering of water quality for the pollutant orpollutants preventing the attainment of such usesor exceeding such criteria.
For water designated as ORRW, the ReservationBusiness Committee or appropriate permittingauthority shall ensure, through the application ofappropriate controls on point and non-pointpollutant sources, that water quality is maintainedand protected. A short-term, temporary exemptionmay be permitted. Any regulated activity that hasthe potential to cause or contribute to anylowering of water quality in a water designated bythe Reservation Business Committee as an ORRW isinconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance.
4 . Eiah Oualitv Waters
For high quality waters, the Reservation BusinessCommittee shall ensure, or request the appropriatepermitting authority to ensure, that no actionresulting in a lowering of water quality occursunless an antidegradation demonstration has beencompleted and the information thus provided isdetermined by the Reservation Business Committee toadequately support the lowering of water quality.
The Reservation Business Committee or appropriatepermitting authority shall establish conditions inthe control document applicable to the regulatedactivity that prohibit the regulated activity fromundertaking any deliberate action, such that therewould be an increase in the rate of mass loading ofany BCC or other pollutant, unless an
6
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
antidegradation demonstration is provided to theReservation Business Committee and approved.Imposition of limits due to improved monitoringdata or new water quality criteria or values, orchanges in loadings of any BCC within the existingcapacity and processes, and that are covered by theexisting applicable control document, are notsubject to an antidegradation review.
For BCCs known or believed to be present in adischarge, from a point or nonpoint source, amonitoring requirement shall be included in thecontrol document. The control document shall alsoinclude a provision requiring the source to notifythe Reservation Business Committee and appropriatepermitting authority of any increased loadings.Upon notification, the Reservation BusinessCommittee or appropriate permitting authority shallrequire actions as necessary to reduce or eliminatethe increased loading.
0. Antidearadation Demonstration
Any entity seeking to lower water quality in a highquality water or create a new or increased discharge ofbioaccumulative substances of immediate concern mustfirst submit an antidegradation demonstration forconsideration and approval or disapproval by theReservation Business Committee. The antidegradationdemonstration shall include, but may not be limited, tothe following:
1. Pollution Prevention Alternative Analysis.Identify any cost-effective pollution preventionalternatives and techniques that are available toeliminate or significantly reduce the extent towhich the increased loading results in a loweringof water quality;
2. Alternative or Enhanced Treatment Analysis.Identify alternative or enhanced treatmenttechniques that are available that would eliminatethe lowering of water quality and their costsrelative to the cost of treatment necessary toachieve the applicable effluent limitations; and
3. Social and Economic Analysis. Identify the socialand economic development benefits to the area inwhich the waters are located that will be foregoneif the lowering of water quality is not allowed.
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
I
I
d . Antidearadation Decision
Once the Reservation Business Committee determines theinformation provided in an antidegradation demonstrationis administratively complete, the Reservation BusinessCommittee shall use that information to determine whetheror not the lowering of water quality is necessary and, ifnecessary, whether or not the lowering of water qualitywill support important social and economic developmentgoals. If the proposed lowering of water quality iseither not necessary, or will not support importantsocial and economic development goals, the ReservationBusiness Committee shall deny the request to lower waterquality. If the lowering of water quality is necessary,and will support important social and economicdevelopment goals, the Reservation Business Committee mayapprove all or part of the proposed lowering to occur asnecessary.
Prior to issuing a decision, the Reservation BusinessCommittee shall publish a notice in a local newspaper andprovide a minimum forty-five consecutive day commentperiod. During this comment period, any Band member orother interested persons may request a public hearing ofsuch changes or revisions by the Reservation BusinessCommittee. Upon approval of a public hearing request,the Reservation Business Committee shall by public noticein a local newspaper announce the date, time and locationof such public hearing and said public notice shall bepublished at least forty-five consecutive days prior tothe public hearing. The Reservation Business Committeeshall send a notice of the public hearing to allidentified interested and affected persons and parties atleast forty-five consecutive days prior to the publichearing. Any reports, documents and data relevant to thediscussion at the public hearing shall be available atleast thirty days before the hearing. In no event maythe decision reached by the Reservation BusinessCommittee allow the water quality to be lowered below theminimum level required to fully support existing anddesignated uses. Final decisions on requests to lowerwater quality shall be issued by the Reservation BusinessCommittee within 90 days of the public comment period.
S-46
CHAPTER2
DEFINITIONS
Section 201 General Definitions
The following definitions shall apply to the terms of thisOrdinance:
a . Acute toxicity shall mean concurrent and delayed adverseeffect(s) that results from an acute exposure and occurswithin any short observation period which begins when theexposure begins, may extend beyond the exposure period,and usually does not constitute a substantial portion ofthe life span of the organism.
b. Aesthetics shall mean a stream, reach, lake orimpoundment with an exceptional beauty or foundrepresenting the traditional value system of the Fond duLac Band of Chippewa as determined by the Fond du LacReservation Business Committee.
c. Antidearadation shall mean the policy set forth in thewater quality regulations under the Clean Water Act, asestablishedbythe United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, whereby existing and future uses and the level ofwater quality necessary to maintain those uses ismaintained and protected. (See 40 C.F.R. 5 131.12).
d . Aauatic biota shall mean animal and plant life in thewater.
e. Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF) shall mean the ratio (inL/kg) of a substance's concentration in tissue of anaquatic organism to its concentration in the ambientwater, in situations where both the organism and its foodare exposed and the ratio does not change substantiallyover time.
f . Bioaccumulative Chemical of Concern IBCC1 shall mean anychemical that has the potential to cause adverse effectswhich, upon entering surface waters, by itself or as itstoxic transformation product, accumulates in aquaticorganisms by a human health bioaccumulation factorgreater than 1000, after considering metabolism and otherphysicochemical properties that might enhance or inhibitbioaccumulation, in accordance with the methodology inappendix B of 40 C.F.R. Part 132. Chemicals with half-lives of less than eight weeks in the water column,
9
S-46
sediment, and biota are not BCCs. The minimum BAFinformation needed to define an organic chemical as a BCCis either a field-measured BAF or a BAF derived using theBSAF methodology. The minimum BAF information needed todefine an inorganic chemical, including an organometal,as a BCC is either a field-measured BAF or a laboratory-measured BCF. BCCs include, but are not limited to, thepollutants identified as BCCs in Section A of Table 6 of40 C.F.R. Part 132.
g. Bioaccuumlative Substances of Immediate Concern (BSIC)shall mean the list of substances identified in theSeptember, 1991 Bi-National Program to restore andprotect the Lake Superior Basin. They include: 2, 3, I,8-TCDD; octachlorostyrene; hexachlorobenzene; chlordane;dieldrin, DDT, DDE, and other metabolites;PCBs; and mercury.
toxaphene;Other chemicals may be added to the
list following assessments of environmental effects andimpacts after public review and comment.
h. Bioconcentration factor (BCF) shall mean the ratio inL/kg of a substance's concentration in tissue of anaquatic organism to its concentration in the ambientwater, in situations where the organism is exposedthrough the water only and the ratio does not changesubstantially over t i m e .t i m e .
1.1. Biolouical intearity shall mean a balanced, integrated,adaptive community of organismscomposition,
having a speciesdiversity, and functional organization
comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region.
j. Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factor (BSAF) shall mean theratio (in kg of organic carbon/kg of lipid) of asubstance's lipid-normalized concentration in tissue ofan aquatic organism to its organic carbon-normalizedconcentration in surface sediment, in situations wherethe ratio does not change substantially over time, boththe organism and its food are exposed, and the surfacesediment is representative of the average surfacesediment in the vicinity of the organism.
k. Carcinocren shall mean a substance which causes anincreased incidence of benign or malignant neoplasms, orsubstantially decreases the time to develop neoplasms, inanimals or humans.
1 . Chronic standard tCS) shall mean the highest waterconcentration of a toxicant to which organisms can beexposed indefinitely without causing chronic toxicity.
m.m. Chronic toxicitv shall mean the concurrent and delayedadverse effect(s) that occurs only as a result of achronic exposure.
10
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
n. Cold water fisheries shall mean a stream, reach, lake orimpoundment where water temperature, habitat and othercharacteristics are suitable for support and propagationof cold water fish and other aquatic life, or serving asa spawning or nursery area for cold water fish species.Examples of cold water fish include brook trout andrainbow trout.
0. Control Document shall mean any authorization issued bythe Reservation Business Committee or appropriatepermitting authority to any source of pollutants towaters under its jurisdiction that specifies conditionsunder which the source is allowed to operate.
P- Desisnated uses shall mean those uses set forth in thewater quality standards herein.
9. Dissolved oxvcen shall mean the amount of oxygendissolved in' water expressed as a concentration inmilligrams per liter.
r. Effluent shall mean discharges into surface waters fromother than natural sources.
5. Existina Discharcer shall mean any building, structure,facility or installation from which there is or may be a"discharge of pollutants," as defined in 40 C.F.R. 5122.2, to the Lake Superior Basin, that is not a newdischarger.
t . Excanded Discharae shall mean a discharge of a pollutantto a Reservation surface water in the Lake Superior Basinthat changes in volume, quality, location, or any othermanner after either: the effective date the water wasdesignated as an Outstanding Reservation Water; or theeffective date of this Ordinance if the water wasdesignated as a High Quality Water. In determiningwhether an increased loading would result from the changein the discharge, the Reservation Business Committeeshall compare the loading that would result from thechange with the loading that exists as of the effectivedate specified above, whichever applies.
u. Final acute val& (FAV) is (a) a calculated estimate ofthe concentration of a test material such that 95 percentof the genera (with which acceptable acute toxicity testshave been conducted on the material) have higher GenusMean Acute Values (GMAVs), or (b) the Species Mean AcuteValue (SMAV) of an important and/or critical species, ifthe SMAV is lower than the calculated estimate.
v. Fishery shall mean a balanced, diverse community offishes controlled by the water quality, quantity andhabitat of a waterbody.
11
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II.
x.
Y-
a.
aa.
bb.
cc.
dd.
ee.
ff.
Genus mean acute value (Q4AV) shall mean the geometricmean of the SMAVs for the genus.
GLI Pollutant shall mean a toxic pollutant listed as apollutant of initial focus in the Great Lakes Initiative(GLI) Guidance, 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Table 6, as amendedthrough March 12, 1997.
GLI Guidance shall mean the Water Quality Guidance forthe Great Lakes System, 40 C.F.R. Part 132, as amendedthrough March 12, 1997.
Hiuh Oualitv Waters shall mean surface waters of theReservation in which, on a parameter by parameter basis,the quality of the waters exceeds levels necessary tosupport propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife andrecreation in and on the water.
Human cancer value (ECV) is the maximum ambient waterconcentration of a substance at which a lifetime ofexposure from either: drinking the water, consuming fishfrom the water, and water-related activities: orconsuming fish from the water, and water-relatedrecreation activities, will represent a plausible upper-bound risk of contracting cancer of one in 100,000 usingthe exposure assumptions specified in the Methodologiesfor the Development of Human.Health Criteria and Valuesspecified in appendix C of 40 C.F.R Part 132.
Human noncancer value UINV) is the maximum ambient waterconcentration of a substance at which adverse noncancereffects are not likely to occur in the human populationfrom lifetime exposure via either: drinking the water,consuming fish from the water, and water-relatedactivities: or consuming the fish from the water, andwater-related activities, using the Methodologies for theDevelopment of Human Health Criteria and Values inappendix C of 40 C.F.R Part 132.
Indiaenous shall mean produced, growing or livingnaturally in a particular region or environment.
Maximum standard (MS) shall mean the highestconcentration of a toxicant in water to which aquaticorganisms can be exposed for a brief time with zero toslight mortality. The MS equals the FAV divided by two.
Milligrams pet liter (mu/l) shall mean the concentrationat which one milligram is contained in a volume of oneliter; one milligram per liter is equivalent to one partper million (ppm) at unity density.
tixina zone shall mean a limited area or volume of waterwhere initial dilution of a discharge takes Place and
12
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
w.
hh.
ii.
jj.
kk.
11.
mm.
nn.
00.
PP.
where numeric water quality criteria can be exceeded butacutely toxic conditions are prevented.
Narrative standard shall mean a standard or criterionexpressed in words rather than numerically.
Natural backaround shall mean characteristics that arenot man induced that relate to water quality; the levelsof pollutants present in ambient water that are fromnatural, as opposed to human-induced, sources.
New Discharue shall mean a discharge that was not inexistence on the effective date of this Ordinance.
Nephelometric turbiditv units (WTU) shall mean a measureof turbidity in water.
Non-Point source shall mean a source of pollution that isnot a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance; adiffuse source which flows across natural or manmadesurfaces, such as run-off from agricultural,construction, mining or silvicultural activities or fromurban areas.
Nutrient shall mean a chemical element or inorganiccompound taken in by green plants and used in organicsynthesis.
Outstandinu reservation resource raters (ORRW) shall meanthose waters of the highest quality that are designatedby the Reservation Business Committee for theiruniqueness or ecological sensitivity. Waters may bedesignated as ORRW because of their exceptional cultural,aesthetic, recreational or ecological significance.
a shall 'mean the negative logarithm of the effectivehydrogen ion concentration in gram equivalents per liter;a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution,increasing with increasing alkalinity and decreasing withincreasing acidity.
Point source shall mean any discernible, confined anddiscrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may bedischarged into a water body.
Pollutant, shall mean dredged spoil, solid waste,incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage,sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biologicalmaterials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock,sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal andagricultural waste discharged into water.
Primarv contact recreational shall mean the recreationaluse of a stream, reach, lake or impoundment involving
13
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
rr.
55.
t t .
vv.
ww.
xx.
YY.
prolonged contact and the risk of ingesting water inquantities sufficient to pose a health hazard. Examplesare swimming and water skiing.
Public water SUDD~V shall mean a stream, reach, lake orimpoundment specifically designated by the Fond du LacReservation Business Committee as suitable to provide anadequate supply of drinking water for the continuation ofthe health and well-being of the residents of the Fond duLac Reservation.
Reservation Business Committee shall mean the governingbody of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
Secondarv contact Recreational shall mean therecreational use of a stream, reach, lake or impoundmentin which contact with the water may, but need not, occurand in which the probability of ingesting water isminimal. Examples are fishing and boating.
Species mean acute value (SMAVl is the geometric mean ofthe results of all acceptable flow-through acute toxicitytests (for which the concentrations of the test materialwere measured) with the most sensitive tested life stageof the species. For a species for which no such resultis available for the most sensitive tested life stage,the SMAV is the geometric mean of the results of allacceptable acute toxicity tests with the most sensitivetested life stage.
Total Maximum Dailv Loan CI%5XI shall mean the sum of theindividual wasteload allocations for point sources andload allocations for nonpoint sources and naturalbackground. A TMDL sets and allocates the maximum amountof a pollutant that may be introduced into a water bodyand still assure attainment and maintenance of waterquality standards.
Toxic shall mean harmful to living organisms.
Toxicity shall mean the state or degree of being toxic orpoisonous, lethal or sub-lethal adverse effects onrepresentative sensitive organisms, due to exposure totoxic materials.'
Toxic unit means a measure of acute or chronic toxicityin an effluent. One acute toxic unit (Tua) is thereciprocal of the effluent concentration that causes 50percent effect of mortality to organisms for acuteexposures (lOO/LCSO); one chronic toxic unit (Tut) is thereciprocal of the effluent concentration that causes noobservable effect concentration on test organisms forchronic exposures (lOO/NOEC).
14
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
zz. Turbidity shall mean a measure of the amount of suspendedmaterial, particles or sediment which has the potentialEar adverse impacts on aquatic biota.
aaa. Warm water fisheries shall mean a stream, reach, lake orimpoundment where water temperature, habitat and othercharacteristics are suitable for support and propagationof warm water fish and other aquatic life, or serving asa spawning or nursery area for warm water fish species.Examples of warm water fish species include large mouthbass and bluegills.
bbb. Waste Loadina Allocation (WLA) shall mean the portion ofa receiving water's loading capacity that is allocated toone of its existing or future point sources of pollution.A WLA is the allocation for an individual point sourcethat ensures that the level of water quality to beachieved by the point source is derived from and complieswith all applicable water quality standards.
ccc. Water aualitv monitoring shall mean an integratedassessment of water quality that incorporates physical,chemical and biological components.
ddd. Whole-effulent toxicity (WET) shall mean the total toxiceffect of an effulent measured directly with a toxicitytest.
eee. Wild rice areas shall mean a stream, reach, lake orimpoundment, or portion thereof, presently, historicallyor that has the potential to sustain the growth of wildrice.
fff. WQBEL shall refer to water quality-based effluent limits.
15
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
CHAPTER3
GENERAL STANDARDS AND DESIGNATED USES
Section 301 General Standards
To every extent practical and possible, as determined by theReservation Business Committee, the following general water qualitycriteria shall apply to all waters of the Fond du Lac Reservation;provided, however, that where more stringent standards fordesignated water bodies are set,the general standards:
the stricter standards supersede
a. Reservation waters shall be free from suspended andsubmerged solids or other substances that enter thewaters as a result of human activity and that will settlein the bed of a body of water or be deposited upon theshore of that body of water to form putrescent orotherwise objectionable deposits, or that will adverselyaffect aquatic life.
b. Reservation waters shall be free from floating debris,oil, scum and other floating materials entering thewaters as a result of human activity in amountssufficient to be unsightly or cause degradation.
C . Reservation waters shall be free from material enteringthe waters as a result of human activity producing color,odor, taste or other conditions in such a degree as tocreate a nuisance.
d. Reservation waters shall be free from nutrients (nitrogenand phosphorus) entering the waters as a result of humanactivity in concentrations that create nuisance growthsof aquatic weeds and algae.
e . Reservation waters shall be free from substances enteringthe waters as. a result of human activity inconcentrations that are toxic.
For toxic substances lacking a published numeric criteriain these water quality standards, criteria will bederived as necessary using the procedures contained inthe Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great LakesSystem, 40 C.F.R. Part 132. Where there are insufficientdata to derive a criterion, the procedures in the FinalWater Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, 40C.F.R. Part 132, shall be used to derive a secondaryvalue to protect aquatic life and human health. The
16
S-46
followingmethodologies, including future amendments, fordeveloping, criteria (Tier I and Tier II) to protectaquatic life, human health, and wildlife, and thebioaccumulation factors for calculating human health andwildlife standards, are adopted and incorporated byreference into this chapter:
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
5 .
6.
I.
;;;at Lakes Water Quality Initiative MethodologyDevelopment of Aquatic Life Criteria and
Values, 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix A, as amendedthrough March 12, 1997, except that the daily humanconsumption of fish by Fond du Lac band members isassumed to be 0.060 kg/day.
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodologyfor Deriving Bioaccumulation Factors, 40 C.F.R.Part 132, Appendix B, as amended through March 12,1997, except that for human health standards andcriteria, the baseline BAF is multiplied by thefollowing lipid fractions which apply to fish inboth trophic levels 3 and 4: 0.06 for Class A, B,and Cl waters, and 0.015 for Class C2.
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodologyfor Development of Human Health Criteria .andValues, 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix C, as amendedthrough March 12, 1997.
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodologyfor Development of Wildlife Criteria, 40 C.F.R.Part 132, Appendix D, as amended through March 12,1997.U.S. EPA "Technical Support Document for WaterQuality Based Toxics Control;"
U.S. EPA Region V "Permitting Strategy;" and
U.S. EPA "Quality Criteria for Water, 1986." Forsubstances where numeric criteria have not beenadopted for the public water supply use, thesenarrative water quality criteria shall beimplemented considering any drinking waterstandards or health advisories issued by the U.S.Environment-d1 Protection Agency under the SafeDrinking Water Act.
f. The pH of a stream, lake or reservoir shall not bepermitted to fluctuate in excess of 1.0 unit over aperiod of twenty-four (24) hours for other than naturalcauses.
g. If a stream or lake is capable of supporting aquaticlife, the dissolved oxygen standard will be a dailyminimum of 5 mg/l for other than natural causes. For
17
S-46
IIIIIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h .
1.
j.
k.
1 .
m.
waters designated as cold water fisheries, the dissolvedoxygen criterion will be a daily minimum of 8 mg/l toProtect early life stages of cold water fish (enabling arequired intergravel dissolved oxygen concentration of 5mg/l) . This criterion applies only when and where theseearly life stages occur.
Settleable and suspended solids (turbidity) should notreduce the depth of the compensation point forphotosynthetic activity by more than 10 percent from theseasonally established norm for aquatic life
Concentrations of radioactive materials shall not exceedconcentration caused by naturally occurring materials.
Existing mineralmunicipal,
quality shall not be altered byindustrial and in-stream activities or other
waste discharges so as to interfere with the designateduses for a water body.
The introduction of heat by other than natural causesshall not increase the temperature of Reservation watersby more than three degrees Fahrenheit from ambienttemperatures for Reservation lakes, and five degreesFahrenhei.t from ambient temperatures for Reservationstreams above that which existed before the addition ofheat, based upon the monthly average of daily maximumtemperature.
The normal daily and seasonal variations that werepresent before the addition of heat from other thannatural sources, and which are outside the mixing zone,shall be maintained.
No material increase in temperature shall be allowed fromman-introduced heat for receiving waters classified as Clcoldwater, applied as a matter of practice at the edge ofthe mixing zone.
~11 naturally occurring biological communities and thehabitat needed to support them, as determined bysampling, data analysis and establishment of referenceconditions shall be maintained and protected in allwaterways and wetlands of the Reservation.
my lake or stream which supports wild rice growth shallnot exceed instantaneous maximum sulfate levels of 10milligrams per liter.
18
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.I
Section 302 Standards of Desianated Use
The following standards of designatedwaters of the Fond du Lac Reservation:
a.
b.
c.
d.
use shall apply to the
Public water supply: A s c r e a m , reach, lake orimpoundment specifically designated by the ReservationBusiness Committee as suitable to provide an adequatesupply of drinking water for the continuation of thehealth and well-being of the residents of the Fond du LacReservation.
Wildlife: All surface waters capable of providing awater supply, vegetative habitat and prey for the supportand propagation of wildlife located within the Fond duLac Reservation.
Aouatic life:
1. Cold Water Fisheries: A stream, reach, lake orimpoundment where water temperature, habitat andother characteristics are suitable for support andpropagation of cold water fish and other aquaticlife, or serving as a spawning or nursery area forcold water fish species. Examples of cold waterfish include brook trout and rainbow trout.
2. Warm rater fisheries: A stream, reach, lake orimpoundment where water temperature, habitat andother characteristics are suitable for support andpropagation of warm water fish and other aquaticlife, or serving as a spawning or nursery area forwarm water fish species. Examples of warm waterfish species include large mouth bass andbluegills.
3 . Subsistence fishinu (nettinq): That portion of theFond du Lac Reservation necessary to provide asufficient diet of fish in order to sustain ahealthy, current, on-Reservation population,including any stream, reach, lake or impoundmentwhere spearing, netting or bow fishing is allowedas provided under applicable Band conservationlaws.
Recreation:
1. Primam contact recreational.: The recreational useof a stream, reach, lake or impoundment involvingprolonged contact and the risk of ingesting waterin quantities sufficient to pose a health hazard.Examples are swimming and water skiing.
19
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2. Secondarv contact recreational: The recreationaluse of a stream, reach, lake or impoundment inwhich contact with the water may, but need not,occur and in which the probability of ingestingwater is minimal. Examples are fishing andboating.
8. Cultural:
1 . Wild rice areas : A stream, reach, lake orimpoundment, or portion thereof, presently,historically or with the potential to be vegetatedwith wild rice.
2 Aesthetic waters: A stream, reach, lake orimpoundment which has been determined by theReservation Business Committee to possessexceptional beauty or be significant to thepreservation or exercise of the traditional valuesystem of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake SuperiorChippewa, which may include but is not limited toprimary (direct) contact with water or thepreservation of wetlands for the maintenance oftraditional medicinal plants.
f. Aaricultural: The water quality is adequate for uses inirrigation and livestock watering.
Q- Naviaation: The water quality is adequate for navigationin and on the water.
h. Commercial: The water quality is adequate for use(s) ascommercial water supply for business processes.
20
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
CHAPTER4
DESIGNATED USES APPLICABLE TO RESERVATION WATERS
TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION DESIGNATEDUSE
Bang 48N 19w
Big Lake 49N 18W
Cedar 49N 18W
Dead Fish*I
49N
East Twin 50N 18W 23, 24,25, 26
First Lake 49N 17w 21
Hardwood
Jaskari*
Lac
49N 18W
48N 19w49N 19w
49N 19w
LostI
SONI
18W
Martin (JoMartin)
50N 19w
21
1, 2
20, 21,28, 33
10, 15
1, 12
5, 6
1, 2,36
12, 13
9, 30
12
13, 14,23
6
B, C2, Dl,D2, El, F,G, H
B, C2, C3,Dl, D2, F,G, H
B, C2, Dl,El, F, G, H
B, C2, Dl,El, F, G, H
B, C-2, Dl,El, F, G, H
B, F, G,C2, Dl, H
B, C2, Dl,El, Fr G, H
B, C2, Dl,El, F, G, H
B, C2, Dl,E2, F, G, H
B, C2, C3,Dl, D2, F,G, H
B, Cl, C2,C3, Dl, D2,E2, F, G, H
B, C2, Dl,El, F, G, H
B, C2, C3,Dl, El, F,G, H
S-46
Perch*
Rice Portage*
Simian
Sofie
Spring
Spruce
Third Lake
West Twin
Wild Rice*
TOWNSBIP RANGE SECTION DESIGNATEDUSE
48N 18W 6 B, c2, c3,48~ 19w 1 Dl, El, E2,49N 18W 29, 30, F, G, H
* Potential Outstanding Reservation Resource Water
Waters not listed above will have the following designated uses:B, C2*, Dl, F*, G*, H* (*if open water present).
24
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
CHAPTER5
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Section 501 Sample Collection. Preservation and Analysis
Sample collection, preservation and analysis used to determinewater quality and to maintain the standards set forth in the WaterQuality Standards shall be performed in accordance with proceduresprescribed by the latest editions of any of the followingauthorities
a. Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria.Technical Guidance Document, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Aaencv, Mav, 1995;
b. Bioloaical Criteria. Technical Guidance for Streams andSmall Rivers. Revised Edition, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Aaencv, Mav 1996. EPA 822-B-96-001;
c . Raoid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams andRiver, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S.Environmental Protection Aoencv. Mav, 1989, EPA/440-4-89/001; and
d. EPA Guidelines Establishina Test Procedures for theAnalvsis of Pollutants, Clean Water Act, 40 C.F.R. 136.
25
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
C - 6
WATERQUALITY STANDARDSAND CRITERIA
Section 601 Awlicabilitv
If the maximum permissible levels of a substance as set forthin Appendix 1, Water Quality Standards Applicable to A, B, Cl, Dland D2 Designated Waters are exceeded in any waters of the Fond duLac Reservation, it shall be considered indicative of a pollutedcondition which is actually or potentially harmful, detrimental orinjurious with respect to the designated uses and shall thereforebe considered a violation of this Ordinance.
The ambient water quality standards in Appendix 1 arestandards for the protection of aquatic life, human health, andwildlife from the GLI pollutants. The standards for a GLIpollutant include the CS, MS, and FAV. Some pollutants do not havean MS or an FAV because of insufficient data. For thesepollutants, Tier II numeric criteria will be calculated accordingto GLI methodology. The daily human consumption of fish caught byFond du lac Band mambers is assumed to be 0.060 kg/day. Inaddition to these standards, the standards contained in 40 C.F.R.Part 141, subparts B & G and Part 143 shall be applicable to thesurface waters of the Reservation.
Some of the GLI pollutants listed in this Chapter have bothaquatic life and human health standards and four of the GLIpollutants have wildlife standards, as provided in tables 1 to 4 ofthe GLI Guidance. The most stringent chronic aquatic life, humanhealth, or wildlife standard listed is the applicable standardexcept when a less stringent chronic or maximum standard applieswhen setting an effluent limitation. For any aquatic life, humanhealth, or wildlife chronic standard, a blank space in thefollowing tables means no GLI standard is available and the moststringent listed chronic standard is applicable. For the aquaticlife MS and FAV, blank spaces mean the GLI guidance lists no MS orFAV.
Standards for metal are expressed as total metal but must beimplemented as dissolved metal standards, using appropriateconversion factors. Standards for GLI pollutants followed by (TH)or (pH) vary with total hardness or pH. The formulas for thesestandards are found in Appendix 2.
Bacteriological standards can be found in Appendix 3.
2 6
S-46
CHAPTER7
SITE-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR CRITERIA
Section 701 Applicability
This Section applies when a discharger requests a site-specific criterion or a site-specific modification to a standard,or the Reservation Business Committee determines that a site-specific criterion or modification is necessary to protectendangered or threatened species under Section 705, or highlyexposed subpopulations under Section 707. Site-specific criteriaor modifications to standards must be protective of designated useand aquatic life, wildlife and human health. Site-specificcriteria or modifications must be preceded by a site-specific studyof the effects of local environmental conditions on aquatic life,human health, or wildlife toxicity, and how these effects relate tothe calculation of standards or bioaccumulation criteria. Aquaticlife impact analysis must be conducted according to the EPA methodsin Chapter 3 of the U.S. EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook,Second Edition (EPA-823-B-94-005a, August 1994), which is adoptedand incorporated by reference. The Reservation Business Committeeshall approve the site-specific study and, upon approval, theReservation Business Committee shall use the study data to developeach site-specific criterion or standard, which then shall besubmitted to EPA for approval.
Section 702 Endanaered and Threatened Snecieq
The Reservation Business Committee shall apply the provisionsin items A to C when modifying a standard or developing a site-specific criterion:
a . Any site-specific modifications that result in lessstringent standards or site-specific criteria must notjeopardize the continued existence of endangered orthreatened species listed or proposed under Chapter 6134or Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16U.S.C. 5 1533, or result in the destruction or adversemodification of such species' critical habitat.
b. More stringent modifications or site-specific criteriamust be developed to protect endangered or threatenedspecies listed or proposed under Chapter 6134 or Section4 of the ESA where the water quality jeopardizes thecontinued existence of such species or results in the
27
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
destruction or adverse modification of such species'critical habitat.
C. More stringent modifications or site-specific criteriamust also be developed to protect candidate (Cl) speciesbeing considered by the U.F. Fish and Wildlife Servicefor listing under Section 4 of the ESA, where suchmodifications are necessary to protect such species.
Sect ion 703 Auuatic L i f e
The Reservation Business Committee shall modify an aquaticlife standard to a more stringent or less stringent site-specificstandard, or determine a site-specific criterion, based upon theresults of a site-specific study completed according to Section 701if the study demonstrates that:
a. The local water quality characteristics, such as pH,hardness, temperature, and color, alter the biologicalavailability or toxicity of a pollutant;
b. Local physical and hydrological conditions exist thatalter the toxicity of a pollutant; or
C . The sensitivity of the aquatic organisms that occur atthat site differs from the species actually used indeveloping the standards or criteria. The taxa thatoccur at the site cannot be determined merely by samplingdownstream and/or upstream of the site at one point intime. The phrase "occur at the site" does not includetaxa that were once present at the site but cannot existat the site now due to permanent physical alteration ofthe habitat a the site. It does include the species,genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla that:
1. Are usually present at the site;2. Are present at the site only seasonally due to
migration;3. Are present intermittently because they
periodically return to or extend their rangesinto the site;
4. Were present. at the site in the past, are notcurrently present at the site due to degradedconditions, and are expected to return to thesite when conditions improve; or
5. Are present in nearby bodies of water, are notcurrently present at the site due to degradedconditions, and are expected to be present atthe site when conditions improve.
If items A, B or C indicates that thepollutant is more toxic at the site ororganisms are more sensitive, or if additional
28
S-46
protection is necessary to maintain designatedaquatic life uses, the Reservation BusinessCommittee shall calculate a more stringentsite-specific standard or criterion. If itemA, B or C indicates that the GLI pollutant isless toxic at the site or organisms are lesssensitive than those used in the calculationof the standard or criterion, and neither item
A, B nor C indicate greater toxicity, theReservation Business Committee shall calculatea less stringent site-specific standard orcriterion.
Section 704 Wildlife
The Reservation Business Committee shall modify a wildlifestandard to a more stringent or less stringent site-specificstandard, or determine a site-specific criterion, based upon theresults of a site-specific study completed according to Section701. More stringent site-specific water quality standards orcriteria shall be developed when a site-specific bioaccumulationfactor is derived which is higher than the systemwide BAF. Lessstringent site-specific water quality standards or criteria shallbe developed when a site-specific BAF is derived which is lowerthan the systemwide RAF. The Reservation Business Committee'smodification evaluation shall evaluate both the mobility of theprey organisms and wildlife populations in defining the site forwhich the criteria or modified standards are developed. Inaddition, for less stringent site-specific water quality standardsor criteria to be applied in a permit there must be a demonstrationby either the discharger or the Reservation Business Committeethat:
a. Any increased uptake of the toxicant by prey speciesutilizing the site will not cause adverse effects inwildlife populations; and
b. Wildlife populations utilizing the site or downstreamsurface waters of the state will continue to be fullyprotected.
Section 705 Site-SPecific Modifications to Protect Threatenedor Endsnaered SPecies
The Reservation Business Committee shall modify both aquaticlife and wildlife standards or develop criteria on a site-specificbasis to protect threatened or endangered species where the waterquality jeopardizes the continued existence of such species orresults in the destruction or adverse modification of such species'critical habitat. The provisions in items A and B apply to site-
29
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
specific standards or criteria to protect endangered or threatenedspecies:
a. Site-SpeCifiCmodifications to aquatic life standards, orsite-specific criteria, shall be calculated by theReservation Business Committee when one of the followingmethods is applicable:
1. If the species mean acute value for a listedor proposed species, or an applicablesurrogate of such species, is lower than thecalculated FAV, the lower species mean acutevalue must be used instead of the calculatedFAV in developing the site-specific criterionor standard.
2 . The site-specific criterion or standard mustbe calculated using the recalculationprocedure for site-specific modifications whenthe sensitivities of organisms used to derivethe GLI pollutant standard or criterion aredifferent from the sensitivities of theorganisms that occur at the site. Therecalculation procedure is described inChapter 3 of the U.S. EPA Water QualityStandards Handbook, Second Edition (EPA-823-B-94-005a), August 19941, which is adopted andincorporated by reference.
3 . If the methods in items (1) and (2) are bothapplicable, the Reservation Business Committeeshall follow both methods to calculate site-specific modifications to aquatic lifestandards or site-specific criteria, thencompare the results and apply the morestringent standards or criteria.
b. For any modifications to wildlife standards or criteria,the Reservation Business Committee shall evaluate boththe mobility of prey organisms and wildlife populationsin defining the site for which standards or criteria aredeveloped and must use the following method to calculatesite-specific standards criteria:
1.
2 .
Substitute appropriate species-specifictoxicological, epidemiological or exposureinformation including changes to the BAF usedin the GLI Guidance methodology;
Use an interspecies uncertainty factor of 1where epidemiological data are available forthe species in question. If applicable,species-specific exposure parameters must bederived using the GLI Guidance methodology;
30
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I,I
3 . Apply an intraspecies sensitivity factor tothe denominator in the effect part of thewildlife equation in the GLImethodology in
Guidanceaccordance with the other
uncertainty factors described in the method;and
4. Compare the resulting wildlife criterion orstandard for the species in question to theclass-specific avian and mammalian wildlifevalues previously calculated 40 C.F.R. PartPart 132, Appendix A, entitled "Great LakesWater Quality Initiative MethodologiesDevelopment of Aquatic
forLife Criteria
Values,"and
as amended through March 12, 1997and apply the lowest of the three as the site:specific standard or criterion.
Section 106 Bioaccumulation Fac,tors
The Reservation Business Committee shall modify the BAFs on asite-specific basis to larger values if data from the site-specificstudy show that a bioaccumulation value derived from localbioaccumulation data is greater than the systemwide value. Site-specific BAFs must be derived using the GLI Guidance methodology.The Reservation Business Committee shall modify BAFs on a site-specific basis to lower values if:
a. The fraction of the total chemical freely dissolved inthe ambient water is less than that used to derive thesystemwide BAFs;
b. Input parameters of the Gobas model, such as the inputstructure of the aquatic food web and the disequilibriumconstant, are different at the site than those used toderive the systemwide BAFs;
C . The percent lipid of the aquatic organisms that areconsumed and occur at the site is lower than that used toderive the systemwide BAFs; or
d. Site-specific, field measured BAFs or biota-sedimentaccumulation factors are determined.
Section 707 Human Heal*
The Reservation Business Committee shall modify human healthstandards or determine criteria on a site-specific basis to provideadditional protection necessary for highly exposed subpopulations.A subpopulation is highly exposed if the dosage of the GLIpollutant is greater for the subpopulation due to increased fishconsumption rates, increased water ingestion rates, or an increased
31
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
BAF. The Reservation Business Committee shall develop lessstringent site-specific human health standards or criteria if thestudy approved under Section 701 demonstrates that:
a. Local fish consumption rates are lower than the rate usedin deriving human health standards or criteria using themethodology provided by 40 C.F.R. Part 132, Appendix C,entitled "Great Lakes Water Quality InitiativeMethodology for Development of Human Health Criteria andValues," as amended through March 12, 1997; or
b. A site-specific BAF is derived under Section 706 which islower than that used in deriving human health standardsor criteria using the methodology provided by 40 C.F.R.Part 132, Appendix C, entitled "Great Lakes Water QualityInitiative Methodology for Development of Human HealthCriteria and Values," as amended through March 12, 1997.
32
S-46
CHAPTER8
MIXING ZONES AND VARIANCES
Section 801 Applicability
For acute and chronic mixing zones,to C shall apply:
the conditions in items A
a . At the edge of an acute mixing zone approved underSection 802, acute aquatic life toxicity must not exceedthe maximum standard or criterion, or 0.3 TUa for WET.If the discharger does not have an approved acute mixingzone demonstration, the Reservation Business Committeeshall apply the FAV, or 1.0 TUa for WET, directly to thedischarge. If acute mixing zones from two or moreproximate sources interact or overlap, the combinedeffect must be evaluated to ensure that applicablestandards and criteria will be met in the area ofoverlap.
b. At the edge of a chronic mixing zone, chronic toxicitymust not exceed the chronic standard or criterion, or 1.0TUc for WET. A chronic mixing zone must equal:
1. Not more than 25 percent of the applicablestream design flows using dynamic models foundin Chapter 4 of the EPA Technical SupportDocument for Water Quality Based ToxicsControl (EPA-505-2-90-001, March,l991), unlessan alternate chronic mixinq zone demonstration
2.
C. Acute andcontinued
is approved under Section-802; or
For lakes, the area of 1O:l dilution ofreceiving water volume to effluent volume,unless a chronic mixing zone demonstrationapproved under Section 802 identifies analternate dilution ratio in which case thechronic mixing zone must equal the areacorresponding to the alternate dilution ratio.The mixing zone in lakes must not exceed thearea of discharge-inducing mixing.
chronic mixing zones must not jeopardize theexistence of endangered or threatened specific. P..~
listed or proposed under Chapter 6134 or Section 4 or meEndangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1533, or result inthe destruction or adverse modification of such species'critical habitat.
33
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Section 802 Demonstration Recruirements
The Reservation Business Committee shall approve an acute orchronic mixing zone demonstration if the discharger proposing amixing zone completes a demonstration that complies with items A toN :
a.
b.
C.
d .
e .
f .
g*
h.
1.
j.
k.
1 .
Define the mixing zone size, shape, location of the areaof mixing, manner of diffusion and dispersion, and amountof dilution at the boundaries;
Determine the discharge-induced mixing area for lakedischarges;
For discharge. to a lake, determine the dilution ratio ofreceiving water volume to effluent volume. If thisdilution ratio is other than 10 to 1 and results in amixing zone that is no greater than the area ofdischarge-induced mixing, the calculated ratio must beused in the WLA calculation for lakes;
Document the substrate character and geomorphology of themixing zone;
Ensure that the mixing zone will maintain a zone ofpassage for mobile aquatic life, protect spawning,nursery areas, and migratory routes, and not intersectriver mouths;
Ensure the mixing zone will protect the existence ofthreatened or endangered species;
Document that the mixing zone does not affect drinkingwater intakes;
Document background water quality concentrations;
Show the mixing zone does not promote undesirable aquaticlife or dominance of nuisance species;
Ensure that the mixing zone will not result in thefollowing:
1. . Objectionable deposits formed by settling;2. Floating debris, oil or scum;3. Objectionable taste, odor, color or turbidity;
or4. Attraction of organisms to the area of
discharge.
Prevent or minimize overlapping mixing zones;
Document the ability of the habitat to support endemic ornaturally occurring species;
34
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
m. Assume no GLI pollutant degradation unless both of thefollowing conditions are met:
1. field studies or other information demonstrate thatdegradation of the GLI pollutant is expected tooccur under the full range of environmentalconditions expected to be encountered; and
2. field studies or other information address otherfactors that affect the level of GLI pollutants inthe water column including sediment resuspension,chemical separation, and biological and chemicaltransformation.
n. Show that the mixing zone will not interfere with thedesignated or existing uses of the receiving water ordownstream surface waters.
Section 803 BCC Mixina Zones
After the effective date of this Ordinance, acute and chronicmixing zones shall not be allowed for new and expanded dischargesof BCCs to Reservation waters. Acute and chronic mixing zones forexisting discharges of BCCs must be phased out by March 23, 2007,except under the provisions of items A to E. After the effectivedate of this Chapter for new and expanded discharges and March 23,2007, for existing discharges, WLAs developed under Sections 801and 802 for discharges of BCCs must be set equal to the moststringent applicable water quality standard or site-specificcriterion for the BCC in question. The provisions for exceptionsto the acute and chronic mixing zone phase-out for existingdischarges of BCCs are in items A to E:
a. Mixing zones for BCCs shall be allowed for existingdischarges after March 23, 2007, if the dischargerdemonstrates that the failure to maintain an existingmixing zone would preclude water conservation measuresthat would lead to overall load reductions in BCCsdischarges;
b. Mixing zones shall be allowed for existing dischargesafter March 23, 2007, upon the request of the dischargerif the Reservation Business Committee determines that:
1. The discharger is in compliance with and willcontinue to implement technology-basedtreatment and pretreatment requirements underSections 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 401 and 402of the Clean Water Act, 33 U-S-C. §§ 1311,1312, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1341, and 1342, and isin compliance with its existing permit WQBBLS,including those based on a mixing zone; and
35
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2 . The discharger has reduced and will continueto reduce the loading of the BCC for which amixing zone is requested to the maximum extentpossible by the use of cost-effective controlsor pollution prevention alternatives that havebeen adequately demonstrated and arereasonably available to the discharger.
C . In making the determination in item B, the ReservationBusiness Committee must consider:
1.
2 .
3 .
The availability and feasibility, includingcost effectiveness, of additional controls orpollution prevention measures for reducing andultimately eliminating BCCs for thatdischarge, including those used by similardischarges;
Whether the discharger of affected communitieswill incur unreasonable economic effects ifthe mixing zone is eliminated; and
The extent to which the discharger willimplement an ambient monitoring plan to ensurecompliance with water quality standards andcriteria at the edge of any authorized mixingzone or to ensure consistency with anyapplicable TMDL or assessment and remediationplan.
d. Any exceptions to the mixing zone phase-out provision forexisting discharges of BCCs granted under this Sectionmust:
1.
2 .
3 .
4 .
Not result in any less stringent effluentlimitations than those existing on theeffective date of this Ordinance in theprevious permit;
Not jeopardize the continued existence of anyendangered or threatened species listed underChapter 6134 or Section 4 of the EndangeredSpecies Act, 16 U.S.C. 5 1533, or result inthe destruction or adverse modification ofsuch species' critical habitat;
Be limited to one permit term unless theReservation Business Committee makes a newdetermination in accordance with this Sectionfor each successive permit. application inwhich a mixing zone for the BCCs is sought;
Reflect all information pertaining to the sizeof the mixing zone considered by the
3 6
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Reservation Business Committee under Section2;
5. Protect all designated and existing uses ofthe receiving water;
6. Meet all applicable aquatic life, wildlife,and human health standards and criteria at theedge of the mixing zone for a WLA in theabsence of a TMDL, or, if a TMDL has beenestablished, be consistent with any TMDL orsuch other strategy consistent with thisOrdinance;
7. Ensure the discharger has developed andconducted a GLI pollutant minimization programfor BCCs if required to do so.
8. Ensure that alternative means for reducingBCCs elsewhere in the watershed are evaluated.
e. For each draft permit that would allow a mixing zone forone or more BCCs after March 23, 2007, the fact sheet orstatement of basis for the draft permit, required to bemade available through public notice must:
1. Specify the mixing provisions used incalculating the effluent limitations;
2. Identify each BCC for which a mixing zone isproposed.
Section 804 Variancea
This part applies to pollutant specific variance requests fromindividual point source dischargers to surface waters for WQBELSwhich are included in a permit. This part does not apply to newdischargers, unless the proposed discharge is necessary toalleviate an imminent and substantial danger to public health andwelfare. A water quality standards or criteria variance shall notbe granted if any of the following conditions exist:
a. If it would jeopardize the continued existence of anyendangered or threatened species listed under Chapter6134 or Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, 16U.S.C. 5 1533, or result in destruction or adversemodification of such species' critical habitat; or
13. If standards or criteria will be attained by implementingeffluent limitations required under Sections 301(b) and306 of the Clean Water Act, 33 USC §§ 1311(b) and 1316,and by the permittee implementing cost-effective and
31
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
reasonable bestmanagementpractices for non-point sourcecontrol.
Section 805 Maximum Time Framq
A variance shall not exceed five years or the term of thepermit, whichever is less.
Section 806 Conditions to Grant
Noting that all variances and site-specific criteria requireapproval by USEPA, the Reservation Business Committee shall granta variance if the following conditions are met:
a. The permittee demonstrates to the Reservation BusinessCommittee that attaining the water quality standards orcriterion is not feasible because:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Naturally occurring pollutant concentrationsprevent attainment of the water qualitystandard or criterion;
Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low-flowconditions or water levels prevent theattainment of water quality standards orcriteria, unless these conditions may becompensated for by discharging sufficientvolume of effluent to enable water qualitystandards or criteria to be met withoutviolating water conservation requirements;
Human-caused conditions or sources ofpollution prevent the attainment of waterquality standards or criteria and cannot beremedied, or would cause more environmentaldamage to correct than to leave in place;
Dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologicmodifications preclude the attainment of waterquality standards or criteria, and it is notfeasible to restore the waterbody to itsoriginal condition or to operate themodification in a way that would result inattainment of the water quality standard;
Physical conditions related to the naturalfeatures of the waterbody, such as the lack ofa proper substrate cover, flow, depth, pools,riffles and the like, unrelated to chemicalwater quality, preclude attainment of waterquality standards or criteria: or
38
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
I
I
6 . Controls more stringent than those requiredunder Sections 301(b) and 306 of the CleanWater Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b) and 1316,would result in substantial and widespreadeconomic and social impact;
b. The permittee shows that the variance conforms withReservation Business Committeeprocedures; and
antidegradation
c. The permittee characterizes the extent of any increasedrisk to human health and the environment associated withgranting the variance, such that the Reservation BusinessCommittee is able to conclude that any increased risk isconsistent with the protection of the public health,safety and welfare.
Section 807 ADDlication and Public Notice
Preliminary determinations regarding variance applicationsubmittals shall be preceded by a public notice in a localnewspaper and a minimum of forty-fiveperiod.
consecutive day commentThe Reservation Business Committee shall also notify other
Great Lakes Tribes and states regarding suchdeterminations.
preliminaryDuring the comment period, any Band member or
other interested persons may request a public hearing prior toadoption of such changes or revisions by the Reservation BusinessCommittee. Upon a public hearing request, the Reservation BusinessCommittee shall by public notice in a local newspaper announce thedate, time and location of such public hearing and said publicnotice shall be published at least forty-five consecutive daysprior to the public hearing. The Reservation Business Committeeshall send a notice of the public hearing to all identifiedinterested and affected persons and parties at least forty-fiveconsecutive days prior to the public hearing. Any reports,documents and data relevant to the discussion at the public hearingshall be available at least thirty days before the hearing.
Section 808 Final Decision
The Reservation Business Committee shall issue a finaldecision regarding variance applications submittals within 90 daysof the public comment period. If a variance is granted, theappropriate permitting authority shall include and incorporate intothe permit the following conditions:
a. An effluent limitation representing currently achievabletreatment conditions based on discharge monitoring whichis no less stringent than that achieved under theprevious permit;
3 9
S-46
Ib. A schedule of compliance activities which indicates
reasonable progress will be made toward attaining waterquality standards or criteria;
c. An effluent limitation sufficient to meet the underlyingwater quality standards or criterion, upon the expirationof the variance, when the duration of theshorter than the duration of the permit;
variance is
d. A provision allowing the appropriate permitting authorityeither independently or at the request of the ReservationBusiness Committee to reopen and modify the permit basedon the Reservation Business Committee triennial waterquality standards revisions applicable to the variance:and
The renewal of a variance is subject to the requirements ofSections 801 to 805.
The Reservation Business Committee shall list all variances tothese standards in a public notice.
e. For BCCs, a GLI pollutant minimization program.
Section 809 Renewal of Variance
Section 810 Notice of Variancea
40
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
I
I
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
CHAPTER 9
ENFORCEMENT 6 PROSECUTION
Section 901 Enforcement
The Environmental Protection Office of the Fond du Lac Bandshall be responsible for the identification of violations of thisOrdinance, and enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinanceshall be achieved through the issuance of a summons and complaintthrough the Fond du Lac Division of Resource Management.
Section 902 Prosecution
Prosecution for violations of this Ordinance shall be broughtin Fond du Lac Tribal Court by the prosecutor of the Fond du LacBand pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance and the Fond duLac Civil Code, FDL Ord. #04/92, as amended.
Section 903 Remedieq
a. Civil nenalties. Violation of any provision of thisOrdinance may be punished or remedied by a civil penaltynot to exceed $500. Each day of any continuing violationmay be charged as separate violation, and a separatepenalty may be imposed.
b. Seizure and Forfeiturg. In addition to civil penalty,any personal property which has been used in connectionwith a violation of this Ordinance, including vehiclesand other equipment, may be seized and forfeited insatisfaction of any judgment entered pursuant to thisOrdinance, pursuant to the Fond du Lac Civil Code.
C. Moneterv Damaaes and Iniunctive Relief. In addition tocivil penalty, seizure and forfeiture, the ReservationBusiness Committee may seek, and the Fond du Lac TribalCourt may grant, money damages or injunctive reliefagainst any violator of this Ordinance to compensate fordamages to, or to prevent imminent harm against, any Bandresource caused by the violation.
S-46
CHAPTER10
AMENDMENTS AND SEVERABILITY
Section 1001 Amendraents
The provisions of this Ordinance may be amended by separateordinance and resolution of the Reservation Business Committee.
Section 1002 Severabilitv
If any section, provision, or portion of this Ordinance isadjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competentjurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance will not be affectedthereby.
CERTIFICATION
We do hereby certify that .he foregoing Ordinance was dulypresented and adopted by Resolution #1403/98, by a vote of 4 for,Q against, Q silent, with a quorum of 2 being present at a SpecialMeeting of the Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee held onDecember 10, 1998 on the Fond du Lac Reservation, and subsequentlyamended by Resolution #1286/01, on September 11, 2001.
ChXSARobert B. Peacock, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
42
S-46
-T he.%? do not reflect $ lipid adjustment
Appendixl. Standards Specific to Designated Use
Water Quality Standards Applicable to A, B, Cl, Dl and D2 Designated Use
IWater Quality Standards Applicable to A, B, C2, Dl and D2Waters
substanceII
Units A q u a t i c Aquatic AquaticL i f e
Ii u m a nLife Life
ChronicH e a l t h
Maximum Final ChronicStandard Standard Acute Standard
I I I I I II
* These do not reflect % lipid adjustment
S-46
Water Quality Standards Applicable to B, C2, 123, Dl and D2 Designated use
.rsenic, total
enzene
S-46
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Appendix 2. Standarfs that vary with Total Hardness (TH) or pH
a. Designated use A, B, Cl, C2, C3, Dl and D2 standards that vary with total hardness (TB)applicable to all surface waters of the Reservation, are listed in this subsection.Total hardness is the sum of the calcium and magnesium concentrations expressed ascalcium carbonate in mg/l. For ambient or effluent total hardness values greater than400 mg/l, 400 mg/l must be used in the calculation of the standard.e exponential function.
c . Conversion factors for transforming total metals to dissolved metals.
I Metal Conversion FactorsAcute Chronic
I Arsenic I 1.000 I 1.000
41
S-46
I:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
Appndi* 3. Bacteriological standards
For designated use Dl,'(primary contact recreational) and D2 (secondarycontact recreational) waters of the Reservation, density criteria forthe indicator species E.coli will be used. In bacteriological surveys,the monthly geometric mean is used in assessing attainment of standardswhen a minimum of five samples are collected in a thirty day period.The monthly geometric mean for E.coli shall not exceed 126 organisms/100ml*. When fewer than five samples are collected in a month, densitiesof E.coli shall not exceed 235 organisms per 100 ml in any singlesample.
*source: USEPACalculated to nearest whole number using equation: