Loading...
07.a Scandia-Bliss WWT Facility Plan 2023-03-03CITY OF SCANDIA WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 03-21-23-04 RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING THE FACILITY PLAN WHEREAS, a Facility Plan meeting the requirements of MN Administrative Rules 7077.0272 BLISS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLAN has been prepared by Bolton & Menk, Inc., and WHEREAS, the improvements considered in the Facility Plan include the installation of additional tankage and equipment for the purpose of nitrogen removal to meet MN Pollution Control Agency limits. WHEREAS, this report was received by Council on March 21, 2023, and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: The Council accepts the report and directs its submittal to the to the MN Pollution Control Agency. ADOPTED by the Scandia City Council for the City of Scandia on March 21, 2023. CITY OF SCANDIA ____________________________________ Christine Maefsky, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Anne Hurlburt, Interim City Administrator Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 3507 High Point Drive North Bldg. 1 Suite E130 Oakdale, MN 55128 P: 651-704-9970 Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan 0N1.123997 City of Scandia, Minnesota March 3, 2023 Page intentionally left blank. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Certification Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Certification Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan For City of Scandia, Minnesota 0N1.123997 March 2023 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature: Typed or Printed Name: Jacob Humburg, P.E. Date: March 3, 2023 License Number: 56751 Page intentionally left blank. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page i Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1 Report Organization ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. DESIGN CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3 General ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Population Projections ................................................................................................................. 3 Historical Flows and Loadings ....................................................................................................... 3 Design Flows and Loadings ......................................................................................................... 13 III. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES ................................................................................................... 15 General ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Overview of System .................................................................................................................... 15 Treatment Facility Description ................................................................................................... 15 Facility Condition ........................................................................................................................ 15 NPDES Discharge Permit ............................................................................................................. 19 Treatment Performance ............................................................................................................. 19 Future Considerations ................................................................................................................ 21 IV. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 23 General ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Alternative 1: Denitrification System ......................................................................................... 23 Alternative 2: Nitrification/Denitrification System ..................................................................... 23 V. ALTERNATIVES COST ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 27 Alternative 1: Denitrification System ......................................................................................... 27 Alternative 2: Nitrification/Denitrification System ..................................................................... 27 Operation and Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 28 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS ................................................................................ 29 Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 29 Implementation Schedule .......................................................................................................... 29 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page ii Figures Figure 2.1 – Location Map-Service Area ....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.2 – Historical Wastewater Flows ..................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2.3 – Historical Influent CBOD5 Concentration and Mass Loading at Sample Location WS 001 ..... 10 Figure 2.4 – Historical Influent TSS Concentration and Mass Loading at Sample Location WS 001 .......... 11 Figure 2.5 – Historical Influent TP Concentration and Mass Loading at Sample Location WS 001 ............ 12 Figure 3.2 – Caps of Drainfield Trench ........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 3.3 – Bliss Infiltration Trench C ........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 3.1 – Bliss Drainfield ......................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3.4 – Bliss Control Panel, Dosing Stations, Influent Septic Tank ...................................................... 19 Figure 3.5 – Total Nitrogen Present ............................................................................................................ 21 Figure 4.1 – Improvement Location ............................................................................................................ 25 Figure 6.1 – Nitrification/Denitrification Layout ......................................................................................... 31 Tables Table 2.1 - Historical Wastewater Flows ....................................................................................................... 7 Table 2.2 - Historical Wastewater Loadings .................................................................................................. 9 Table 2.3 - Existing and Requested Permit Influent Flow Rate ................................................................... 13 Table 2.4 - Summary of Historical and Design Parameters......................................................................... 13 Table 3.1 - Monitoring Wells Data from January 2016 – December 2022 ................................................. 20 Table 5.1 - Denitrification System ............................................................................................................... 27 Table 5.2 - Nitrification/Denitrification System .......................................................................................... 27 Table 5.3 - Additional Annual O & M Costs ................................................................................................. 28 Table 6.1 - Improvement Implementation Schedule .................................................................................. 29 Appendix Appendix A: 2016 Nitrogen Mitigation Plan Appendix B: NPDES Permit Appendix C: MPCA Permit Modifications Application Appendix D: PPL Application and MPCA Forms Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. INTRODUCTION Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION Purpose This report provides the City of Scandia, Minnesota with necessary information regarding the Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) so the city can plan, fund, and implement required WWTF improvements to address the issue of nitrates entering the groundwater from the existing facility. The Bliss WWTF is not expected to experience any significant growth over the next 20 years. This report will develop the 20-year wastewater flow and loading projections and identify the most cost-effective method of providing treatment to meet the State Disposal System (SDS) Permit, issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Background The Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is located in Scandia, Minnesota. The system was constructed in 1986. It is a soil based subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) consisting of a gravity and pressure collection system with two lift stations, three septic tanks in series totaling 7,500 gallons, one lift station that feeds the sand filters, three 15,000 square foot sand filters, one lift station that feeds the drainfields, and three drainfield trench cells at 1,210 feet of trench per cell. The facility treats wastewater from approximately 75 residential homes. There are 70 individual septic tanks and 46 shared septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) systems through which wastewater passes before entering the WWTF. Each STEP station has a 15 gallons per minute (gpm) pump. The current permit regulates the system as a Class D WWTP with a design flow of 19,800 gallons per day (gpd) and is effective from September 1, 2021, through August 31, 2026. Over the past 10 years, one of the four-ground monitoring wells surrounding the treatment system has consistently detected high nitrate + nitrite levels exceeding the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) nitrate limit of 10 mg/L. Multiple minor modifications and repairs were made to try to address the issues, but ultimately none have been successful. A Nitrogen Mitigation Plan was submitted in 2016, it can be seen in Appendix A. Report Organization This report is organized into seven sections to adequately address the existing facility and proposed improvements. Section I is the introduction; Section II provides an analysis of the current and future design conditions; Section III provides an evaluation of existing wastewater facilities; Section IV discusses the improvement alternatives; Section V includes the alternative cost analysis; Section VI covers recommendations and implementations. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. INTRODUCTION Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 2 Page intentionally left blank. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 3 II. DESIGN CONDITIONS General There are approximately 75 residential homes served by the existing treatment facility. Figure 2.1 illustrates the area served by this report and improvements discussed herein. Wastewater treatment facilities are typically designed based on a 20-year planning period, as it is generally not feasible to make frequent changes in the capacity of a wastewater treatment facility. In addition, a 20-year planning period is required for the project to be eligible for funding assistance with the MN Public Facilities Authority (PFA). For this evaluation, a design year of 2043 will be used. Population Projections Normally, population projections are one of the primary factors of the design year and subsequent design flows. Other factors considered include land use development, commercial and industrial growth, and regional area development. All factors are considered in order to define a set of design conditions. In the case of the Bliss WWTF, the area is fully developed, and expansion of the service area is not anticipated within the planning period. Therefore, it is not expected that the population or land use within the Scandia Bliss service area will change within the planning period. Historical Flows and Loadings 1. Influent Monitoring The City of Scandia records daily influent flows in monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) as required by the facility’s NPDES permit. The recorded flows are used to evaluate current flow trends and develop future flow projections. A summary of average daily and monthly flows for the past seven years is presented in Table 2.1. Figure 2.2 shows the average daily maximum flow trends over the same time frame. Over the past seven years, the average annual flow has ranged from 0.0064 MGD to 0.0100 MGD after removing the outliers, which are believed to be the result of valve or other equipment failure which caused erroneous flow readings. There is no notable overall trend towards an increase or decrease in average flow. Seasonal spikes in flow can be seen during summer months. The MPCA has developed guidelines to provide a comprehensive and systematic approach to analyze I&I. These guidelines were used to determine if I&I is considered excessive in the Scandia Bliss wastewater collection system. The following are definitions of inflow and infiltration as provided by the MPCA guidelines: • Inflow – water other than wastewater that enters a sewer system directly from sources such as roof leaders, foundation drains, yard drains, manhole covers, cross connections between storm sewers and sanitary sewers, catch basins, storm water runoff and other drainage structures. • Infiltration – water other than wastewater that enters the sewer system from the ground through defective pipe, pipe joints and manholes. • Excessive Inflow – Inflow is excessive if the quantity of flow during storm events results in chronic operation problems related to hydraulic overloading of the treatment system or results in a total flow of more than 275 gpcd Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 4 (domestic and industrial base flow plus infiltration and inflow). Chronic operational problems may include surcharging, backups, bypasses, and overflows. The maximum daily day over the last seven years occurred in June of 2019. The population used in the per capita calculation is the number homes served by the WWTF and assumes 2.8 persons per household as this is the average per the 2020 Scandia Census. 41,700 gpd / 75 residential homes / 2.8 person per household = 199 gpcd • Excessive infiltration – Infiltration is excessive if the quantity of flow is more than 120 gpcd (domestic base flow and infiltration). The year 2019 was selected as it reflects the highest average gpd. The population used in the per capita calculation is the number homes served by the WWTF and assumes 2.8 persons per household as this is the average per the 2020 Scandia Census. 10,000 gpd / 75 residential homes / 2.8 persons per household = 48 gpcd Based on the MPCA criteria, inflow and infiltration is not considered an issue at the Scandia Bliss WWTF. 18741 18925 19000 19235 19261 19453 19441 1862318631 1863318643 18657 18653 18773 10700 18339 18509 1852118526 1853318540 109961098810980109661093010914 1854318546 18553 185511097610955 10920 18569 10890 18561 18567 18590 18601 1860518602 18613 18599 18570 18629 18659 1866518681 1866718711 18687 18677 18685 18691 18782 18785 18770 18794 18804 189051118118919 18819 18814 18829 18834 18884 18855 18886 11133 1896511110 1897511155 18960 18950 11140 18997 11080 1900518990 19009 19015 19045 19025 19010 19039 19044 19067 19085 19077 19083 19091 19107 19076 19111 19123 1913519126 19151 19146 19159 19156 19169 19201 1918919166 192031921519186 1921719225 19229 19230 19120 10860 19060 11270 19301 18616 18849 10889 19130 11090 11085 18558 18941 18541 Big Marine Lake 185th St NManning Trail N192nd St N Langl yAveN187th St N L a y t o n C t NLanglyCtN190th St N 186th St N189th S t N LaytonAveN191st St N Lamar AveNLarkspurAveNMap Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\SCND\0N1123997\ESRI\Pro\SCND_BlissWWTFPlan_02192023.aprx | Username: remington.zeppelin | Date Saved: 2/19/2023 5:01 PMLegend Parcels Bliss Sanitary Sewer Service Area Bliss WWTF Dosing Stations Drainfield Piping Drainfield Features 0 350 Feet Source: City of Scandia, Washington County, PWI !I Bliss System City of Scandia Figure 2.1 Location Map - Service Area February 2023 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 6 Page intentionally left blank. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 7 Table 2.1 - Historical Wastewater Flows Scandia, Minnesota 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Month Monthly Average (MGD) Daily Max (MGD) Monthly Average (MGD) Daily Max (MGD) Monthly Average (MGD) Daily Max (MGD) Monthly Average (MGD) Daily Max (MGD) Monthly Average (MGD) Daily Max (MGD) Monthly Average (MGD) Daily Max (MGD) Monthly Average (MGD) Daily Max (MGD) January 0.0067 0.0116 0.0073 0.0116 0.0061 0.0083 0.0062 0.0118 0.0066 0.0096 0.0073 0.0092 0.0093 0.0125 February 0.0075 0.0121 0.0081 0.0141 0.0064 0.0083 0.0061 0.0079 0.0063 0.0085 0.0076 0.0094 0.0082 0.0103 March 0.0090 0.0199 0.0069 0.0182 0.0083 0.0149 0.3218 0.8918 0.0093 0.0174 0.0011 0.0262 0.0104 0.0180 April 0.0088 0.0144 0.0093 0.0149 0.0083 0.0149 0.0892 0.2333 0.0076 0.0121 0.0085 0.0099 0.0121 0.0180 May 0.0078 0.0182 0.0117 0.0287 0.0053 0.0078 0.0886 0.8808 0.0086 0.0170 0.0080 0.0131 0.0115 0.0218 June 0.0083 0.0085 0.0151 0.0058 0.0083 0.0191 0.0417 0.0072 0.0133 0.0076 0.0206 0.0108 0.0122 July 0.0070 0.0108 0.0080 0.0131 0.0059 0.0083 0.0175 0.0314 0.0099 0.0277 0.0092 0.0144 0.0091 0.0160 August 0.0085 0.0182 0.0076 0.0105 0.0051 0.0065 0.0105 0.0178 0.0063 0.0121 0.0088 0.0107 0.0078 0.0110 September 0.0099 0.0315 0.0058 0.0083 0.0059 0.0196 0.0070 0.0146 0.0052 0.0060 0.0075 0.0087 0.0055 0.0068 October 0.0078 0.0116 0.0066 0.0116 0.0071 0.0158 0.0097 0.0255 0.0081 0.0112 0.0085 0.0100 0.0062 0.0096 November 0.0073 0.0088 0.0063 0.0083 0.0063 0.0099 0.0066 0.0091 0.0082 0.0100 0.0045 0.0106 0.0059 0.0084 December 0.0073 0.0099 0.0028 0.0044 0.0066 0.0099 0.0076 0.0157 0.0082 0.0011 0.0107 0.0215 0.0054 0.0066 Yearly Average/ Max 0.0080 0.0315 0.0074 0.0287 0.0064 0.0196 0.0100 0.0417 0.0076 0.0277 0.0074 0.0262 0.0085 0.0218 *Cells highlighted in pink were determined to be outliers and will be thrown out. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 8 Figure 2.2 – Historical Wastewater Flows 2. Load Monitoring Data The City of Scandia monitors influent wastewater pollutants loadings at the sample station WS 001 as required by the facility’s NPDES discharge permit. The pollutant parameters include monitoring the 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), and pH. A summary of historical monitoring data (January 2016 to December 2022) for CBOD5, TSS, TP, and pH is presented in Table 2.2. Figures 2.3-2.5 illustrate monthly fluctuations for CBOD5, TSS, and TP, respectively. The existing facility has an influent flow design load of 170 mg/L of CBOD5 and 28 mg/L of TSS. It does not have any design criteria for influent total phosphorus or pH. The following is a short discussion on each pollutant parameter concerning historical monitoring trends: • CBOD5: The average concentration of CBOD5 has ranged from 64.5 mg/L in 2017 to 85.59 in 2022 with an average of 77.57 mg/L and 5.03 lbs/day. The average and max day CBOD5 load is within the influent design criteria. • TSS: The average concentration of influent TSS peaked in 2020 with a concentration of 46.75 mg/L. In 2022, the average concentration decreased to 27.64 mg/L. The average day demand in 2022 is within the influent design criteria of 28 mg/L, however, the max day exceeds the influent design criteria. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 9 • Total Phosphorus: Influent total phosphorus has averaged 7.04 mg/L, with an average mass loading of 0.46 lbs/day. There has not been a notable increasing or decreasing trend for phosphorus loading in the past seven years. • pH: The pH over the last seven years has stayed consistent. Table 2.2 - Historical Wastewater Loadings Bliss WWTF- Scandia, MN Parameter Unit 2016 2017 2018 2019* 2020 2021 2022 7-Year Average Average Flow MGD 0.00796 0.00740 0.00643 0.01003 0.00762 0.00744 0.00851 0.00791 CBOD5 mg/L 76.87 64.50 82.25 85.33 73.83 74.63 85.59 77.57 lbs/day 4.71 4.19 4.44 6.85 4.77 4.54 5.71 5.03 lbs/capita/day 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 TSS mg/L 37.67 31.31 35.17 38.00 46.75 37.25 27.64 36.25 lbs/day 2.24 2.03 1.91 3.22 3.01 2.31 2.03 2.39 lbs/capita/day 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Total Phosphorus mg/L 6.21 6.87 7.31 6.59 6.76 8.15 7.46 7.04 lbs/day 0.38 0.41 0.39 0.57 0.42 0.51 0.51 0.46 lbs/capita/day 0.0018 0.0020 0.0018 0.0027 0.0020 0.0024 0.0024 0.0022 pH SU 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.1 * The flows for the months March 2019 through May 2019 were deemed outliers and not included. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 10 Figure 2.3 – Historical Influent CBOD5 Concentration and Mass Loading at Sample Location WS 001 0 50 100 150 200 250 12/12/2015 4/25/2017 9/7/2018 1/20/2020 6/3/2021 10/16/2022CBOD5 mg/L0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 12/12/2015 4/25/2017 9/7/2018 1/20/2020 6/3/2021 10/16/2022CBOD5 lbs/day Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 11 Figure 2.4 – Historical Influent TSS Concentration and Mass Loading at Sample Location WS 001 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 12/12/2015 4/25/2017 9/7/2018 1/20/2020 6/3/2021 10/16/2022TSS mg/L0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12/12/2015 4/25/2017 9/7/2018 1/20/2020 6/3/2021 10/16/2022TSS lbs/day Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 12 Figure 2.5 – Historical Influent TP Concentration and Mass Loading at Sample Location WS 001 0 2 4 6 8 10 12/12/2015 4/25/2017 9/7/2018 1/20/2020 6/3/2021 10/16/2022TP mg/L0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 12/12/2015 4/25/2017 9/7/2018 1/20/2020 6/3/2021 10/16/2022TP lbs/day Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 13 Design Flows and Loadings The design flows and pollutant loadings are based on the existing population and expected design loadings per person. 1. Design Flows The design flows are expected to remain the same, as no additional users are expected. Therefore, the flow rates are not expected to exceed the existing permit influent flow rates. Table 2.3 below outlines the existing permit limits. Table 2.3 - Existing and Requested Permit Influent Flow Rate Parameter Limit Calendar Month Average 0.0198 MGD Maximum Day Demand 0.0297 MGD The MPCA has guidelines for determining design wastewater flows for new or expanded treatment facilities. As we are not increasing the flow rates in any capacity, the design determination wastewater flow worksheet is not relevant to this project. 2. Design Loadings The Bliss WWTF receives pollutant loading contribution from residential users only. a) Residential Design Loadings Design loadings from residential users are calculated by determining mass per capita (e.g., lbs/capita/day) values for CBOD5, TSS, TKN, and total phosphorus. As previously discussed, common per capita design loading rates given by the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities – 2014 Edition, are 0.17-0.22 lbs. CBOD5/capita/day, 0.20-0.25 lbs. TSS/capita/day, and a common loading range for total phosphorus, according to Metcalf & Eddy (2013), is 0.003 to 0.010 lbs. TP/capita/day. As there are no additional future expected flows, the historical loadings will be used for the design loads. b) Commercial and Industrial users There are currently no commercial or industrial users, and none are expected to connect to the Bliss WWTF. c) Summary of Design Criteria Table 2.4 summaries the 20-year design flows and loadings to the Bliss WWTF. Table 2.4 - Summary of Historical and Design Parameters Parameter Historical Monitoring (7-year average) Existing Design 2043 Design Calendar Month Average 0.00791 mgd 0.0198 mgd 0.0198 mgd Daily Max 0.0276 mgd 0.0297 mgd 0.0297 mgd CBOD5 5.04 lbs/day (77.57 mg/L) 170 mg/l 170 mg/l TSS 2.39 lbs/day (36.25 mg/L) 28 mg/L 28 mg/L TP 0.46 lbs/day - 0.46 lbs/day pH 7.12 - 7.12 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. DESIGN CONDITIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 14 Page intentionally left blank. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 15 III. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES General This section evaluates the conditions of the existing treatment system, including a discussion on NPDES discharge permit requirements, historical treatment performance, and future consideration. Overview of System The City of Scandia owns and operates the Bliss WWTF as a Class D facility that treats domestic wastewater generated by residents attached to the WWTF. The facility is monitored by four groundwater wells surrounding the treatment system, one up gradient (GW001) and three down gradients (GW004, GW006, GW008), there are also nine piezometers (GW009-GW017), in accordance with Permit No.MN0054119. The existing permit can be seen in Appendix B. Treatment Facility Description The Bliss Collector WWTF was constructed in 1986 and sits on a 7.3 acre lot. It is a soil-based subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS). It consists of a gravity and pressure sewer collection system with two lift stations, three primary settling septic tanks in series totaling 7,500 gallons, one lift station for sand filter dosing, three 15,000-square foot sand filters, one lift station for infiltration trench dosing, and three infiltration trenches with 1,210 feet of trench each. Figure 3.1 outlines the existing system process. In 2019, the internal piping and valves were evaluated. It was discovered that all of the valves directing flow from the influent lift station (LS 3) to the sand filters were in reverse configuration. Instead of flow being spread between two sand filters, flow was being directed to the sand filter that was thought to be resting. This condition obscured the actual flow moving through LS 3 in recent years, as well as the amount of flow directed to each of the sand filters. These issues were systematically isolated and corrected in the summer of 2020. A series of new restrictor plates were added to the splitter boxes of the drainfield in 2020 to try and force the incoming flow to be more evenly spread throughout the drainfield laterals. This was done because an investigation revealed that the ground was accepting flow at a faster rate than was likely anticipated by the system designers. The city removed old non-functional flow meters and installed new flow meters on the effluent lines directed to infiltration trench A, B, and C, to record the proportion of effluent distributed to each trench. Facility Condition In general, the Bliss WWTF is in fair condition. The expected lifespan of a treatment system like this is only 20-25 years; however, this system is over 35 years old. The primary reason a SSTS system fails is due to the ground immediately below the drainfield builds up a biological mat over time. The mat helps treat the wastewater as it enters the ground, but eventually this can cause failure because the ground can no longer accept flow at the rate that the system discharges. At the Bliss WWTF, it is likely due to the BOD and TSS removal rate at the existing sand filters. The sand filters and trenches appear to be in good working condition, and the system, as a whole, could last significantly longer. The orifice plates that were installed in 2020 should prolong the life of this treatment system as it will spread flow out more evenly across the drainfield area and slow the infiltration process down to better treat the effluent. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 16 The new flow meters will monitor the flow rates going to each drainfield ensuring each drainfield is going through a cycle of operating and resting. The sand filters, lift stations, and control panel are in good operating condition. Figure 3.2 through Figure 3.4 below show the Bliss drainfields. Figure 3.2 – Caps of Drainfield Trench Figure 3.3 – Bliss Infiltration Trench C D D W P P P WW W P P P P P P W !5 !5 J J J GW001 GW002 GW003 GW009 GW010 GW011 GW007 GW008 GW004GW005 GW017 GW016 GW015 GW012 GW013 GW014 GW006 Sand Filter A Sand Filter B Sand Filter C Infiltrati o n Trench CInfiltrati o n Trenc h B Inf i l t r a t i o n Tr e n c h A WS002 WS001 WS004 WS005 WS006978 974972970968966964962964 96 2 960 976974972970968982980960980980980980 Manning Trail N3" Forcemain Map Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\SCND\0N1123997\ESRI\Pro\SCND_BlissDrainfield_AppendA_02222023.aprx | Username: remington.zeppelin | Date Saved: 2/24/2023 9:40 AMSource: City of Scandia, Washington County, MnDOT 0 100 Feet Parcels Drainfield Features Drainfield Piping Forcemain D Dosing Stations W Monitoring Well P Piezometers Sealed Well J Septic Tank !5 Valve Manhole !ILegend Bliss System City of Scandia Figure 3.1 Bliss Drainfield 2023 SCANDIA Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 18 Page intentionally left blank Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 19 Figure 3.4 – Bliss Control Panel, Dosing Stations, Influent Septic Tank NPDES Discharge Permit 1. Existing Permit The treatment facility’s discharge is monitored in accordance with State Disposal System (SDS) No.MN0054119. The permit specifies the four ground water wells to monitor chloride, nitrogen, pH, phosphorus, specific conductance, and water temperature up gradient and down gradient of the system. A Nitrogen Mitigation Plan was submitted in 2016. It was submitted due to sample well GW 004 having consistently detected high nitrate + nitrite levels over the past 10 years. The existing permit issued in 2021 included a four-phase monitoring and limit implementation to address the high nitrogen. Phases 1 through 3 call out for nitrogen to be monitored while Phase 4 of the permit specifies a nitrogen limit of 10 mg/L at sample stations GW 004 and GW 006. This is the only discharge limit the current permit specifies. The existing permit expires August 31, 2026. Treatment Performance The groundwater monitoring wells monitor the treatment performance of the WWTF. Table 3.1 below outlines the seven-year average and maximum recorded value over the last seven years (January 2016 through December 2022). As can be seen in the table below, the total nitrogen at monitoring well GW 004 is significantly higher than at the other downgradient wells. There is not a substantial increase in Total Phosphorus or pH from the upgradient well to the down gradient monitoring wells. It is evident that the nitrogen levels exceed the 10 mg/L the NDPES permit requires for Phase 4 at groundwater monitoring well GW 004 and the maximum recorded valve at GW 006. The system was originally designed to treat BOD and TSS, not nutrients like nitrogen. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 20 Table 3.1 - Monitoring Wells Data from January 2016 – December 2022 Unit 7-year Average 7-year Max GW 001 Upgradient Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) mg/L 0.10 0.61 TKN mg/L 0.60 2.50 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) mg/L 0.35 1.50 Total Nitrogen mg/L 0.80 3.30 pH mg/L N/A N/A TP mg/L 0.28 1.70 GW 004 Downgradient Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) mg/L 0.15 0.55 TKN mg/L 0.95 7.30 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) mg/L 28.34 53.10 Total Nitrogen mg/L 29.02 53.10 pH mg/L 6.73 7.09 TP mg/L 1.02 5.10 GW 006 Downgradient Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) mg/L 0.11 0.35 TKN mg/L 1.51 14.00 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) mg/L 1.65 3.10 Total Nitrogen mg/L 2.80 16.20 pH mg/L 7.29 7.90 TP mg/L 0.73 5.00 GW 008 Downgradient Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) mg/L 0.12 0.55 TKN mg/L 0.97 7.40 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) mg/L 0.22 0.49 Total Nitrogen mg/L 0.96 7.53 pH mg/L 7.41 8.13 TP mg/L 0.21 0.67 Figure 3.5 below outlines the Total Nitrogen found at each groundwater monitoring well over the last seven years. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 21 Figure 3.5 – Total Nitrogen Present Future Considerations Nitrogen exists naturally in wastewater in two forms - organic nitrogen, and ammonium. Ammonium is created through the bacterial decomposition of organic nitrogen. Typically, nitrogen removal is accomplished by a two-stage process typically referred to as nitrification/denitrification. Nitrification is the conversion of ammonia into nitrate. This process is accomplished by nitrifying bacteria in an aerobic environment. Usually, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is reduced in the aerobic environment simultaneously. Full conversion from ammonia to nitrate is dependent on several variables, such as the number of nitrifying bacteria and oxygen levels. If the wastewater is placed in an anoxic tank (low dissolved oxygen levels), microorganisms convert the nitrate into inert nitrogen gas through denitrification. The nitrogen gas is dispersed into the atmosphere. Typically, external carbon sources, such as methanol, ethanol, or other proprietary carbon sources, are added to assist in promoting denitrification. Nitrate nitrogen levels range from 6.3-51 mg/L in groundwater monitoring well GW 004, with very few samples reading below 10 mg/L. Ammonia levels tend to be relatively low when compared to nitrate nitrogen levels, indicating that there may be partial nitrification that occurs naturally in the system. To help reduce total nitrogen levels, specifically nitrate nitrogen levels, it may prove advantageous to identify and evaluate systems that can promote both nitrification and denitrification. The Bliss WWTF will need to implement a nitrogen removal process to be able to reach 10 mg/L required as a part of Phase 4 of the existing permit. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1/1/2016 5/15/2017 9/27/2018 2/9/2020 6/23/2021 11/5/2022 Total Nitrogen Present GW 001 GW 004 GW 006 GW 008 Limit Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 22 Page intentionally left blank. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 23 IV. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES General Improvements for the Bliss WWTF will be presented in the following sections. Numerous wastewater treatment concepts have been reviewed and analyzed. These various alternatives have been narrowed down to two general concepts: a Denitrification System and a Nitrification/Denitrification System. Figure 4.1 outlines the location of both alternatives. Both options require a major permit modification, this can be found in Appendix C. Alternative 1: Denitrification System To meet the nitrate nitrogen level required at either the end of discharge of the treatment facility or within downstream monitoring wells, the system must consistently achieve a nitrate nitrogen limit of less than 10 mg/L. The system will be designed to treat the design flow of 19,800 gpd. A system designed only for denitrification assumes the influent BOD and TSS are low and do not require extra treatment, and the influent ammonia is nitrified. There are proprietary systems that can accomplish denitrification in fewer processes or simultaneously with other process. These systems use batch reactions and manipulate the microorganism’s environment to achieve nutrient removal to the highest level biologically possible. There will be four main components of a denitrification only system: • Denitrification reactor dosing tank • Denitrification reactor with chemical addition • Polishing tank • Drainfield dosing tank The typical layout of the tanks allows for the most efficient treatment for denitrification with the dosing tank at the head of the treatment train and the drainfield dosing tank at the end. Wastewater will flow by gravity through the denitrification and polishing tanks, but is pumped into the drainfields from the dosing tank. Alternative 2: Nitrification/Denitrification System A nitrification/denitrification system can be used to treat wastewater high in nitrogen. This system uses the same denitrification process described above, but nitrification treatment is done first. Nitrification is an important step in total nitrogen removal as it converts ammonia into nitrite then to nitrate. A typical nitrification/denitrification system includes the following: • Settling tank • Equalization basin • Nitrification reactor • Denitrification reactor dosing tank • Denitrification reactor with chemical addition • Polishing tank • Drainfield dosing tank Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 24 The size and numbers of tanks and reactors are dependent on the level of treatment necessary and the flows into the system. The systems are laid out with the settling tank at the head of the treatment train and the drainfield dosing tanks at the end. The tanks are buried underground with access through hatches for maintenance and observation. It is important to note that a typical treatment system would consist of the above components for high nitrogen removal. There are other proprietary systems that are designed to nitrify with various treatment methods. The above description represents a basic layout for nitrogen removal that is effective and keeps capital costs down. D D W P P P WW W P P P P P P W !5 !5 J J J GW001 GW002 GW003 GW009 GW010 GW011 GW007 GW008 GW004GW005 GW017 GW016 GW015 GW012 GW013 GW014 GW006 Sand Filter A Sand Filter B Sand Filter C Infiltrati o n Trench CInfiltrati o n Trenc h B Inf i l t r a t i o n Tr e n c h A WS002 WS001 WS004 WS005 WS006978 974972970968966964962964 96 2 960 976974972970968982980960980980980980 Manning Trail N3" Forcemain Map Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\SCND\0N1123997\ESRI\Pro\SCND_BlissDrainfield_AppendA_02222023.aprx | Username: remington.zeppelin | Date Saved: 2/24/2023 9:40 AMSource: City of Scandia, Washington County, MnDOT 0 100 Feet Parcels Drainfield Features Drainfield Piping Forcemain D Dosing Stations W Monitoring Well P Piezometers Sealed Well J Septic Tank !5 Valve Manhole !ILegend Bliss System City of Scanida 2023 SCANDIA Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 26 Page intentionally left blank. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ALTERNATIVES COST ANALYSIS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 27 V. ALTERNATIVES COST ANALYSIS This section outlines the estimated cost for the two systems described above. Alternative 1: Denitrification System Table 5.1 outlines the estimated cost to implement a denitrification system at the Bliss WWTF. Table 5.1 - Denitrification System Item Cost Mobilization $35,000 Dosing Tank $25,000 Denitrification Reactor with Carbon Addition $90,000 Polishing Tank $55,000 Drainfield Dosing Tank $115,000 Chemical Feed Equipment $10,000 Installation/Electrical/Misc. $345,000 Subtotal $675,000 Engineering and Contingency (30%) $202,500 Total Cost $877,500 Alternative 2: Nitrification/Denitrification System Table 5.2 outlines the cost estimate to implement a nitrification/denitrification system at the Bliss WWTF. Table 5.2 - Nitrification/Denitrification System Item Cost Mobilization $55,000 Influent Metering Manhole $30,000 Settling Tank $60,000 Equalization Tank $75,000 Nitrification Reactor $310,000 Dosing Tank $25,000 Denitrification with Carbon Addition $90,000 Polishing Tank $55,000 Drainfield Dosing Tank $120,000 Chemical Feed Equipment $10,000 Installation/Electrical/Misc. $400,000 Subtotal $1,230,000 Engineering and Contingency (30%) $370,000 Total Cost $1,600,000 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ALTERNATIVES COST ANALYSIS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 28 Operation and Maintenance Table 5.3 below outlines the additional annual operation and maintenance costs associated with each alternative. Table 5.3 - Additional Annual O & M Costs Item Alternative 1: Denitrification Alternative 2: Nitrification/Denitrification Maintenance $500.00 $1,000.00 Chemicals $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Utilities $500.00 $1,500.00 Total $3,000.00 $4,500.00 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 29 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS Recommendation Based on the information that is currently available, it is recommended to implement Alternative 2: Nitrification/Denitrification System. For a solely-denitrification system to work, it would require the ammonia nitrogen to already be low, with the nitrogen removal process taking place at the head of the system, which cannot be guaranteed. Alternative 2 will guarantee nitrogen will be moved from the influent wastewater before it is discharged into the ground. The PPL Application and MPCA forms can be found in Appendix D. Figure 6.1 outlines the layout of Alternative 2. Implementation Schedule The proposed implementation schedule for the wastewater treatment facility construction is presented in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 - Improvement Implementation Schedule Item Date Submit Permit Modification Application February 2023 Submit Facility Plan March 2023 Submit Plans and Specifications for System Improvements Summer 2024 Begin Construction of Improvements Spring 2025 Substantial Completion Fall 2025 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 30 Page intentionally left blank. D D W P P P WW W P P P P P P W !5 !5 J J J GW001 GW002 GW003 GW009 GW010 GW011 GW007 GW008 GW004GW005 GW017 GW016 GW015 GW012 GW013 GW014 GW006 Sand Filter A Sand Filter B Sand Filter C Infiltrati o n Trench CInfiltrati o n Trenc h B Inf i l t r a t i o n Tr e n c h A WS002 WS001 WS004 WS005 WS006978 974972970968966964962964 96 2 960 976974972970968982980960980980980980 Manning Trail N3" Forcemain Map Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\SCND\0N1123997\ESRI\Pro\SCND_BlissDrainfield_AppendA_02222023.aprx | Username: remington.zeppelin | Date Saved: 2/24/2023 9:40 AMSource: City of Scandia, Washington County, MnDOT 0 100 Feet Parcels Drainfield Features Drainfield Piping Forcemain D Dosing Stations W Monitoring Well P Piezometers Sealed Well J Septic Tank !5 Valve Manhole !ILegend Bliss System City of Scandia 2023 SCANDIA Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATIONS Scandia, MN Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan ǀ 0N1.123997 Page 32 Page intentionally left blank. Appendix A: 2016 Nitrogen Mitigation Plan M E M O R A N D U M Date: June 23, 2016 To: Honorable Randall Simonson, Mayor Neil Soltis, City of Scandia Jeff Anderson, City of Scandia From: Seth Peterson, P.E. Ryan Goodman, P.E. Subject: Scandia – Bliss Collector WWTF Nitrogen Mitigation Background The Bliss Collector Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is located in Scandia, MN. The system was constructed in 1986. It is a soil based subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) consisting of a gravity and pressure collection system with two lift stations, three septic tanks in series totaling 7,500 gallons, one lift station that feeds the sand filters, three 15,000 square foot sand filters, one lift station that feeds the drainfields and three drainfield trench cells at 1,210 feet of trench per cell. A figure of the Bliss system is attached. The facility treats wastewater from approximately 75 residential homes. There are 70 individual septic tanks and 46 shared STEP system through which wastewater passes before entering the WWTF. Each STEP station has a 15 gpm pump. The current permit regulates the system as a Class D WWTP with a design flow of 19,800 gallons per day (gpd) and is effective from March 18, 2015 through February 29, 2020. The current permit includes monitoring and testing for both phosphorous and nitrogen at various locations within the treatment system. Test results indicate the Bliss Drainfield is not effective in removal of nitrogen and high levels of nitrate nitrogen (above 10 mg/L) have been found in one of the monitoring wells. A recent compliance evaluation conducted by the MPCA indicated several deficiencies concerning monitoring data and the Nitrogen Mitigation Plan. Overall, the system is well Page 2 maintained and is in good operating condition. However, several Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR’s) were submitted late and the Nitrogen Mitigation plan, which was required within one year of the permit issuance, was incomplete and lacked the detail necessary to comply with the current MPCA permit. Elevated nitrate nitrogen levels in one of the groundwater monitoring wells at the Bliss Collector WWTF warrants investigation of systems designed to consistently remove nitrate nitrogen to less than 10 mg/L. Groundwater Monitoring Results Groundwater testing results for ground water monitoring well GW-004 from April 2013 through October 2015 is shown in Table 1 below. It is evident that nitrate nitrogen levels exceed the MDH guideline of 10 mg/L and appear to be seasonally consistent. Currently, groundwater monitoring well GW-004 is the only monitoring well experiencing elevated nitrate nitrogen levels and this well is downgradient of the infiltration trenches. While some nitrification/denitrification and dilution may occur naturally in the soil, given the high total nitrogen concentration and lack of denitrification occurring in the system, some level of nitrogen treatment will likely be required. Several options for possible treatment methods to remove nitrate nitrogen are discussed below. Table 1 Groundwater Monitoring Data: GW-004 Scandia Bliss Drainfield Date Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L as N) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Nitrate Nitrogen Level* (mg/L as N) Total Nitrogen** Apr-13 0.1 0.64 17.9 18.5 Jul-13 0.1 0.53 13.1 13.6 Oct-13 0.2 0.5 23.9 24.4 Apr-14 0.1 0.5 26.5 27.0 Jul-14 0.1 0.5 13.1 13.6 Oct-14 0.2 2.0 29 31.0 Apr-15 0.0 0.0 27.4 27.4 Jul-15 0.0 0.0 13.4 13.4 Oct-15 0.0 0.0 21.5 21.5 Average 0.1 0.5 20.6 21.2 *Limit for Nitrate-Nitrogen is 10 mg/L. **Total Nitrogen is the sum of TKN plus Nitrite-Nitrogen Page 3 Treatment Methods/Alternatives Nitrogen exists naturally in wastewater in two forms, organic nitrogen, and ammonium. Ammonium is created through the bacterial decomposition of organic nitrogen. Typically, nitrogen removal is accomplished by a two-stage process typically referred to as nitrification/denitrification. Nitrification is the conversion of ammonia into nitrate. This process is accomplished by nitrifying bacteria in an aerobic environment. Usually, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is reduced in the aerobic environment simultaneously. Full conversion from ammonia to nitrate is dependent on several variables such as the number of nitrifying bacteria and oxygen levels. If the wastewater is placed in an anoxic tank (low dissolved oxygen levels), microorganisms convert the nitrate into inert nitrogen gas through denitrification. The nitrogen gas is dispersed into the atmosphere. Typically, external carbon sources, such as methanol, ethanol, or other proprietary carbon sources are added to assist in promoting denitrification. As noted earlier, nitrate nitrogen levels typically range from 15-30 mg/L in groundwater monitoring well GW-004. Ammonia levels tend to be relatively low when compared to nitrate nitrogen levels, indicating that there may be partial nitrification that occurs naturally in the system. However, the current MDH drinking water standard of 10 mg/L is exceeded for nitrate nitrogen. To help reduce total nitrogen levels, specifically nitrate nitrogen levels, it may prove advantageous to identify and evaluate systems that can promote both nitrification and denitrification. Both nitrification/denitrification and denitrification only systems will be evaluated to determine what options best suit the Bliss Drainfield to meet the MDH drinking water standard. Currently, the Bliss Drainfield sits on a 7.3 acre lot. Residential lots sit to the North, South, and East of the drainfield. Big Marine Lake is approximately 1,200 feet to the East of the drainfield. CSAH 15 (Manning Trail N) runs directly to the west of the drainfield. The main components for the nitrogen mitigation systems are described below in detail: A. Alternative 1: Denitrification System To meet the MDH drinking water standard the system must consistently achieve a nitrate nitrogen level of less than 10 mg/L at either the end of discharge of the treatment facility or within downstream monitoring wells. The system will be designed to treat the design Page 4 flow of 19,800 gpd. A denitrification only system assumes the influent BOD and TSS are low and do not require extra treatment and the influent ammonia is nitrified. There are proprietary systems that can accomplish denitrification in fewer processes or simultaneously with other processes (such as simultaneous nitrification and denitrification). These systems use batch reactions and manipulate the microorganisms’ environment to achieve nutrient removal to the highest level biologically possible. Generally, there will be four main components for a denitrification only system:  Denitrification reactor dosing tank  Denitrification reactor with chemical addition  Polishing tank  Drainfield dosing tank The typical layout of the tanks allows for the most efficient treatment for denitrification with the dosing tank at the head of the treatment train and the drainfield dosing tank at the end. Wastewater will flow by gravity through the denitrification and polishing tanks but is pumped into the drainfields from the dosing tank. The sizes of the tanks vary depending on the flow and level of treatment required. B. Alternative 2: Nitrification/Denitrification System Another type of system that can be used to treat wastewater high in nitrogen is a nitrification/denitrification system. This system uses the same denitrification process described above, but nitrification treatment is done first. Nitrification is an important step in total nitrogen removal. A typical nitrification/denitrification system includes the following:  Settling tank  Equalization basin  Nitrification reactor  Denitrification reactor dosing tank Page 5  Denitrification reactor with chemical addition  Polishing tank  Drainfield dosing tank The sizes and numbers of tanks and reactors are dependent on the level of treatment necessary and the flow into the system. The systems are laid out with the settling tank at the head of the treatment train and the drainfield dosing tank at the end. The tanks are buried underground with access through hatches for maintenance and observation. It is important to note that a typical treatment system would consist of the above components for high nitrogen removal. There are other proprietary systems that are designed to nitrify and denitrify with various treatment methods. The above descriptions represent a basic layout for nitrogen removal that is efficient and keeps capital costs down. Cost Below are the estimated costs for the two systems described above. Table 2 provides a cost estimate for the denitrification system and Table 3 provides a cost estimate for the nitrification/denitrification system. Table 2 Cost Estimate for Denitrification System Item Cost Mobilization $20,000 Dosing Tank $15,000 Denitrification Reactor with Carbon Addition $57,000 Polishing Tank $35,000 Drainfield Dosing Tank $72,000 Chemical Feed Equipment $6,500 Installation $215,000 Land ?? Subtotal $420,500 Engineering & Contingency (25%) $105,000 Total Cost $525,500 Page 6 Table 3 Cost Estimate for Nitrification/Denitrification System Item Cost Mobilization $35,000 Influent Metering Manhole $20,000 Settling Tank $35,500 Equalization Tank $47,000 Nitrification/Aerobic Reactor $195,000 Dosing Tank $15,000 Denitrification Reactor with Carbon Addition $57,000 Polishing Tank $35,000 Drainfield Dosing Tank $72,000 Chemical Feed Equipment $6,500 Installation $250,000 Land ?? Subtotal $768,000 Engineering & Contingency (25%) $192,000 Total Cost $960,000 Recommendation Based on the test results and nitrate-nitrogen concentrations above the MDH drinking water standard the City will need to install additional treatment at some point to meet the 10 mg/L MDH standard. This will require a significant capital cost as well as increase operation and maintenance costs. In addition, further investigation is needed to determine if improvements can be placed on the existing Bliss property. The City will need to continue to plan for improvements and evaluate options for treatment for the Bliss system. Appendix B: NPDES Permit t-wq-wwprm2-20 · LB 1411 · 3/26/21 September 2, 2021 The Honorable Christine Maefsky Mayor, City of Scandia Bliss Collector Wastewater Treatment Facility 14727 209th Street North Scandia, MN 55073-8503 RE: Final SDS Permit Permit No. MN0054119 T032N, R20W, Section 31, Scandia, Washington County, Minnesota Dear Mayor Maefsky: Enclosed is the final permit for the facility identified above. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has prepared this permit in accordance with Minn. Stat. chs. 115, 115A, and 116, and Minn. R. chs. 7000 and 7001. No written comments were received during the 60-day public comment period. A request was not made for a public informational meeting or contested case hearing during the 60-day public comment period. If you have any questions regarding any of the terms and conditions of the final permit, please contact Rachel Tucker at 651-757-2853 or by email at rachel.tucker@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Randy Thorson This document has been electronically signed. Randy Thorson, P.E. Supervisor Metro Regional & Infrastructure Financing Unit Municipal Division RT/RT:map Enclosure: Final Permit cc: Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator, City of Scandia (w/enclosure ) Charles Fischer, Public Works Director, City of Scandia (w/enclosure) Ryan Goodman, P.E., City Engineer, Bolton & Menk (w/enclosure) IND20190001 @ 3549 State Disposal System MN0054119 Permittee: City of Scandia Facility name: Bliss Collector Wastewater Treatment Facility City: Scandia County: Washington Issuance date: September 1, 2021 Expiration date: August 31, 2026 The state of Minnesota, on behalf of its citizens through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), authorizes the Permittee to operate a disposal system at the facility named above, in accordance with the requirements of this permit. The goal of this permit is to reduce pollutant levels in point source discharges and protect water quality in accordance with the U.S. Clean Water Act, Minnesota statutes and rules, and federal laws and regulations. This permit is effective on the issuance date identified above. This permit expires at midnight on the expiration date identified above. Signature: Randy Thorson This document has been electronically signed. for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Randy Thorson, P.E. Supervisor Metro Regional & Infrastructure Financing Unit Municipal Division Submit eDMRs Submit via the MPCA e-Services at https://rsp.pca.state.mn.us/TEMPO_RSP/Orchestrate.do?initiate=true Submit WQ reports to: Electronically: wq.submittals.mpca@state.mn.us Include Water quality submittals form: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwprm7-71.docx Or, by mail: Attention: WQ Submittals Center Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 Whole Effluent Testing (WET) and Pretreatment Annual Reports must be mailed to the WQ Submittals Center Questions on this permit? For eDMR and other permit reporting issues, use the directory listed at the bottom of the DMR page: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/discharge-monitoring- reports For specific permit requirements, contact your compliance staff: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/wastewater-compliance- and-enforcement-staff-contacts Wastewater Permit Program general questions, contact: MPCA, 651-282-6143 or 1-800-657-3938. Table of Contents Page 1. Permitted facility description ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Location map of permitted facility ............................................................................................................................... 4 3. Flow diagram ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 4. Summary of stations and station locations .................................................................................................................. 6 5. Permit requirements .................................................................................................................................................... 7 6. Submittal action summary ......................................................................................................................................... 30 7. Limits and monitoring ................................................................................................................................................ 34 Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 3 of 41 1. Permitted facility description The Bliss Collector Wastewater Treatment Facility (facility) is located at 18925 Manning Trail, Scandia, Minnesota 55073, Washington County. The facility discharges from WS 002 to land via drainfields. The facility is a Class D. The facility is designed to treat effluent from approximately 75 homes. There are 70 individual septic tanks and 46 shared Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) systems through which sewage passes before entering the collection system: • An average wet weather (AWW) flow of 0.0198 million gallons per day (mgd) • 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) of 170 milligrams per liter (mg/L) • total suspended solids (TSS) of 28 mg/L This facility consists of small diameter force main, two lift stations, a stilling basin comprised of three septic tanks in series (7,500 gallons total), a dosing station and three single pass-through sand filter beds, and a dosing station going to a three-cell drainfield trench system. The drainfield system consists of three cells of drop box drainfields with ten laterals each. One or two cells rest at any given time. There are no known bypass points in this system. There are four monitoring wells at this site, one up gradient (GW 001) and three down gradient (GW 004, GW 006, and GW 008). This permit includes a schedule to abandon GW 008 and replace with a new well (GW 018). There are also nine piezometers (GW 009-GW 017). Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 4 of 41 2. Location map of permitted facility Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 5 of 41 3. Flow diagram Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 6 of 41 4. Summary of stations and station locations Station Type of station Local name PLS location GW 001 Well, Upgradient MW - 1s T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 004 Well, Downgradient MW - 3s T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 006 Well, Downgradient MW - 4s T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 008 Well, Downgradient MW - 5d T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 009 Piezometer, Other Pz. a T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 010 Piezometer, Other Pz. b T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 011 Piezometer, Other Pz. c T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 012 Piezometer, Other Pz. d T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 013 Piezometer, Other Pz. e T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 014 Piezometer, Other Pz. f T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 015 Piezometer, Other Pz. g T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 016 Piezometer, Other Pz. h T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 017 Piezometer, Other Pz. i T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 018 Well, Downgradient Proposed Down gradient Well WS 001 Influent Waste Dosing Station 1 T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter WS 002 Intermediate: WW to Land Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter WS 004 Intermediate: WW to Land Infiltration Trench A T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter WS 005 Intermediate: WW to Land Infiltration Trench B T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter WS 006 Intermediate: WW to Land Infiltration Trench C T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 7 of 41 5. Permit requirements GW 001 Well, Upgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 5.1.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.1.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.1.3 Samples for Station GW 001 shall be taken at the groundwater monitoring well with the local name MW - 1s. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.1.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 004 Well, Downgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 5.2.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.2.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.2.3 Samples for Station GW 004 shall be taken at the groundwater monitoring well with the local name MW - 3s. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.2.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 006 Well, Downgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 5.3.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.3.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.3.3 Samples for Station GW 006 shall be taken at the groundwater monitoring well with the local name MW - 4s. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.3.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 008 Well, Downgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 5.4.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 2, Phase 1 5.4.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 8 of 41 5.4.3 Samples for Station GW 008 shall be taken at the groundwater monitoring well with the local name MW - 5d. Monitoring and reporting requirements for GW 008 are effective at permit issuance until MPCA notification of the abandonment of the well. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.4.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 009 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.5.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.5.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.5.3 Samples for Station GW 009 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. a. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.5.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 010 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.6.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.6.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.6.3 Samples for Station GW 010 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. b. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.6.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 011 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.7.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.7.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.7.3 Samples for Station GW 011 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. c. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.7.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 9 of 41 shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 012 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.8.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.8.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.8.3 Samples for Station GW 012 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. d. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.8.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 013 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.9.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.9.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.9.3 Samples for Station GW 013 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. e. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.9.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 014 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.10.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.10.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.10.3 Samples for Station GW 014 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. f. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.10.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 015 Piezometer, Other Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 10 of 41 Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.11.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.11.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.11.3 Samples for Station GW 015 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. g. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.11.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 016 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.12.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.12.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.12.3 Samples for Station GW 016 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. h. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.12.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 017 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 5.13.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.13.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.13.3 Samples for Station GW 017 shall be taken at the piezometer with the local name Pz. i. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.13.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 018 Well, Downgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 5.14.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 4, Phase 3 5.14.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.14.3 Samples for Station GW 018 shall be taken at the new down gradient groundwater monitoring well. Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 11 of 41 Monitoring and reporting requirements for GW 018, identified as Phase 3 in the Limits and Monitoring table, become effective upon MPCA notification of installation of the new well. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.14.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] WS 001 Influent Waste Waste Stream: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Influent Monitoring Requirements 5.15.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.15.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.15.3 Samples for Station WS 001 shall be taken at the first dosing station and shall be representative of total influent flow to the system. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.15.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] WS 002 Intermediate: WW to Land Facility Specific Limit and Monitoring Requirements 5.16.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.16.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.16.3 Samples for Station WS 002 shall be taken at the second dosing station, prior to entering the drainfield. Samples from this station shall be representative of the total facility discharge to land. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.16.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] WS 004 Intermediate: WW to Land Facility Specific Limit and Monitoring Requirements 5.17.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 4, Phase 3, Phase 2 5.17.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.17.3 Samples for Station WS 004 shall be taken at a point prior to entering Infiltration Trench A. Monitoring and reporting requirements for WS 004, identified as Phase 2 in the Limits and Monitoring table, become effective upon MPCA notification of the installation of flow monitoring equipment. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.17.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 12 of 41 Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] WS 005 Intermediate: WW to Land Facility Specific Limit and Monitoring Requirements 5.18.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 4, Phase 3, Phase 2 5.18.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.18.3 Samples for Station WS 005 shall be taken at a point prior to entering Infiltration Trench B. Monitoring and reporting requirements for WS 005, identified as Phase 2 in the Limits and Monitoring table, become effective upon MPCA notification of the installation of flow monitoring equipment. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.18.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] WS 006 Intermediate: WW to Land Facility Specific Limit and Monitoring Requirements 5.19.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 4, Phase 3, Phase 2 5.19.2 Sampling Location. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.19.3 Samples for Station WS 006 shall be taken at a point prior to entering Infiltration Trench C. Monitoring and reporting requirements for WS 006, identified as Phase 2 in the Limits and Monitoring table, become effective upon MPCA notification of the installation of flow monitoring equipment. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.19.4 The Permittee shall submit monitoring results in accordance with the limits and monitoring requirements for this station. If conditions are such that no sample can be acquired, the Permittee shall report "No Flow" or "No Discharge" on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and shall add a Comments attachment to the DMR detailing why the sample was not collected. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] MN0054119 Bliss Collector WWTP Groundwater Station General Requirements 5.20.1 Analysis Requirements. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.20.2 Temperature and pH analyses shall be conducted within 15 minutes of sample collection. [Minn. R. 7053] 5.20.3 Monitoring Wells. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.20.4 The Permittee shall install, maintain and abandon groundwater monitoring wells according to the Minnesota Water Well Construction Code, Minnesota Rules, ch. 4725. Damaged or improperly constructed monitoring wells shall be repaired or properly abandoned and replaced. Information on licensed water well contractors is available from the Minnesota Department of Health. [Minn. R. 4725] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 13 of 41 5.20.5 The Permittee shall submit a detailed monitoring well log for each monitoring well at the facility and a detailed US Geological Survey topographical map identifying the location of each well upon installation or abandonment of any monitoring wells or as otherwise required. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.20.6 Each monitoring well shall be clearly numbered on the outside of the well with either indelible paint or an inscribed number. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.20.7 The monitoring wells shall be sampled in accordance with "Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Water Quality Division: Sampling Procedures for Ground Water Monitoring Wells, July 1997, Reviewed and re-approved September 2006" or any updates to this document. A copy of this publication is available on the MPCA website at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.20.8 Grab samples shall be collected at all ground water monitoring points (lysimeters or wells) after stabilization tests are conducted. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.20.9 Prior to well purging and sampling, depths to groundwater shall be measured to the nearest 0.01 foot below the top of the well casing, and groundwater elevations shall be reported to the nearest 0.01 foot above mean sea level. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.20.10 Temperature, specific conductance and pH shall be reported as the final field measurements from well stabilization. [Minn. R. 7001] Waste Stream Station General Requirements 5.21.11 Analysis Requirements. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.21.12 Temperature and pH analyses shall be conducted within 15 minutes of sample collection. [Minn. R. 7053] 5.21.13 Representative Samples. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.21.14 Grab and composite samples shall be collected at a point representative of total influent flow to the system. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.21.15 Nitrogen Limits and Monitoring Requirements. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.21.16 "Total Nitrogen" is to be reported as the summation of the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and Total Nitrite plus Nitrate Nitrogen values. [Minn. R. 7001] Compliance Schedule Requirements 5.22.17 The Permittee shall install flow monitoring equipment to monitor the amount of flow directed to each drainfield. The Permittee shall install equipment: Due by 180 days after permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.18 Upon MPCA notification of the installation of flow monitoring equipment, monitoring and reporting requirements for WS 004, WS 005, and WS 006 will begin and Phase 2 limits and monitoring requirements will become effective. Flow directed to Infiltration Trench A will be reported at WS 004, flow directed to Infiltration Trench B will be reported at WS 005, and flow directed to Infiltration Trench C will be reported at WS 006. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.19 The Permittee shall submit a Facility Evaluation Report within one year of permit issuance. The report should summarize the effect of operational changes and nitrogen mitigation efforts on nitrogen treatment. The Permittee shall submit a report: Due by one year after permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.20 The Facility Evaluation Report should include, but not be limited to: a. A timeline of operational changes and upgrades made to the facility. b. Flow data indicating total gallons per day of effluent applied to each drainfield. c. Testing results from process control samples taken before and after treatment. d. An assessment of the facility's ability to comply with a 10 mg/L Total Nitrite Plus Nitrate limit at the down gradient groundwater monitoring wells. e. Anticipated changes to flow volume or waste type in the next 10 years and an assessment of whether anticipated changes would affect the ability of the facility to comply with a 10 mg/L Total Nitrite Plus Nitrate limit. Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 14 of 41 f. A discussion of any facility upgrades necessary to comply with the 10 mg/L Total Nitrite Plus Nitrate limit. g. A proposed schedule for completion of the necessary upgrades. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.21 Upon submittal of the Facility Evaluation Report, the MPCA will confirm with the Permittee which Track shall be followed. Track 1: Attain compliance with final limits If the Facility Evaluation Report indicates the Permittee can comply with a 10 mg/L Total Nitrite Plus Nitrate limit at the down gradient monitoring wells, the Permittee shall replace monitoring well GW 008 and attain compliance with final limits. Track 2: Construction schedule to upgrade facility If the Permittee cannot comply with a 10 mg/L Total Nitrite Plus Nitrate limit at the down gradient monitoring wells, the Permittee will be required to upgrade the wastewater treatment facility and comply with a 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen limit prior to entering the drainfield. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.22 Track 1: Attain compliance with final limits. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.23 Within 180 days (six months) of submittal of the Facility Evaluation Report, the Permittee shall submit a Groundwater Monitoring Well Abandonment Plan (abandonment plan) for the abandonment and sealing of groundwater monitoring well GW 008; and a Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation Plan (installation plan) for the installation of GW 018 as a replacement monitoring well. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.24 Within 90 days (three months) of MPCA approval of the abandonment plan and installation plan, the Permittee shall abandon groundwater monitoring well GW 008 and install the new groundwater monitoring well GW 018. Abandonment must be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Water Well Construction Code, Minnesota Rules, ch. 4725. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.25 Within 30 days of well abandonment, the Permittee shall submit a copy of the well abandonment records for GW 008 to the MPCA. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.26 Within 30 days of installation of GW 018, the Permittee shall submit a Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation Report. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.27 Upon MPCA notification of abandonment of GW 008 and installation of GW 018, Phase 2 limits and monitoring requirements for GW 008 will end and Phase 3 limits and monitoring requirements for GW 018 will become effective. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.28 Within 180 days (six months) of installation of the new well GW 018, the Permittee shall attain compliance with the 10 mg/L Total Nitrite Plus Nitrate limit at GW 004, GW 006, and GW 018, identified as Phase 4 in the Limits and Monitoring section of the permit. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.29 Track 2: Construction schedule to upgrade facility. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.30 Definitions. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.31 "Initiation of operation" means the date that MPCA determines all components of the wastewater treatment system are complete and functioning and the project begins operating for the purposes for which it was planned, designed, and built. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.32 "Completion of construction" means all the construction is complete except for minor weather- related components and conforms to the approved plans and specifications and change orders. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.33 "Notice to proceed" means a written notice given by the Permittee to the contractor that affixes the contract effective date and the date that the contractor begins performing the work specified in the contract documents. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.34 Schedule. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.35 Submit Facility Plan or Engineering Report. The Permittee shall submit a Facility Plan or Engineering Report by 365 days (one year) after submittal of the Facility Evaluation Report. If the Permittee is seeking public funding, a Facility Plan should be submitted and approvable, as determined by Minnesota Rule 7077.0272. The Facility Plan or Engineering Report should address Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 15 of 41 facility changes required to comply with a 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen limit prior to entering the drainfield. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.36 Modify the Permit. The Permittee shall submit an application and fee for permit modification by 365 days (one year) after submittal of the Facility Plan or Engineering Report. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.37 Submit Plans and Specifications. The Permittee shall submit Plans and Specifications for MPCA review and approval by 365 days (one year) after submittal of the Facility Plan or Engineering Report. The Plans and Specifications shall address the chosen alternative from the Facility Plan or Engineering Report. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.38 Submit Notice to Proceed. The Permittee shall submit a copy of the Notice to Proceed to the MPCA within 14 days of its execution. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.39 Commencement of Construction. The Permittee shall begin construction of the required improvements by 365 days (one year) after submittal of Plans and Specifications and shall notify the MPCA within 14 days of commencement. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.40 Submit Notice of Intent to Initiate Operation. The Permittee shall notify the MPCA in writing at least 14 days before the planned initiation of operation date. Following MPCA staff concurrence that the facility is adequately prepared, MPCA staff will notify the Permittee that it may initiate operation of the new or upgraded facility. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.41 Submit Initiation of Operation Date. The Permittee shall notify the MPCA in writing within 14 days after the actual initiation of operation date. The Permittee shall comply with all permit requirements and attain final limits within 90 days of the Initiation of Operation date. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.42 Submit Notice to Complete Construction. The Permittee shall notify the MPCA in writing at least 14 days before the planned completion of construction date. The MPCA may complete a final inspection. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.22.43 Submit Final Technical Documents. The Permittee shall submit the following to the MPCA within one year after the initiation of operation date: a. An MPCA-approved certification form that is signed by a professional engineer registered in the state of Minnesota stating that the project meets the performance standards. b. A revised operation and maintenance manual or a maintenance plan; or a certificate of completion of an operation and maintenance manual on a form prescribed by the MPCA. At a minimum, this plan shall include a detailed discussion of operation and controls, maintenance, sampling and analysis, problem mitigation, VOC management, personnel records and reporting, and safety. This plan shall be maintained and updated regularly and made available to the MPCA staff upon request. c. A system effectiveness evaluation that summarizes the effectiveness of the treatment facility (including any applicable groundwater monitoring system) as detailed in the plan and specifications approval letter or through communication with the MPCA staff. d. One copy of "as-built" plans and specifications, also known as record drawings, shall be submitted in a format approved by the MPCA. The factsheet titled: "Wastewater Treatment Facility Construction Record Documents, As-built Submittal Requirements" contains specific information regarding the required format of the submittal. The document is located on the MPCA web page at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=15492. [Minn. R. 7001] Large Subsurface Treatment System (LSTS) 5.23.44 Unauthorized Discharge. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.45 There shall be no unauthorized discharge to the ground surface or surface water from these facilities. [Minn. R. 7001.0030] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 16 of 41 5.23.46 Prohibitions. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.47 The Permittee shall prevent the discharge of any wastes other than sewage into any component of the facility, including septic tanks, advanced treatment systems, and soil treatment systems that could result in damage to the treatment facility or inhibit treatment unless the discharge of such other substances is specifically approved in writing by the MPCA. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.48 Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.49 The Permittee may be required to obtain a Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit from the MPCA for any addition, extension or replacement to the sanitary sewer. If a sewer extension permit is required, construction may not begin until plans and specifications have been submitted and a written permit is granted except as allowed in Minn. Stat. 115.07, Subd. 3(b). [Minn. R. 7001.0020, D] 5.23.50 Operator Certification. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.51 The Permittee shall provide a Class D state certified operator who is in direct responsible charge of the operation, maintenance and testing functions required to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. In addition, the certified operator shall maintain a current Service Provider Certification. [Minn. R. 9400] 5.23.52 The Permittee shall provide the appropriate number of operators with a Type IV certification to be responsible for the land application of biosolids or semisolids from commercial or industrial operations. [Minn. R. 7048] 5.23.53 If the Permittee chooses to meet operator certification requirements through a contractual agreement, the Permittee shall provide a copy of the contract to the MPCA, WQ Submittals Center. The contract shall include the certified operator's name, certificate number, service provider certification number, company name if appropriate, the period covered by the contract and provisions for renewal; the duties and responsibilities of the certified operator; the duties and responsibilities of the permittee; and provisions for notifying the MPCA 30 days in advance of termination if the contract is terminated prior to the expiration date. [Minn. R. 9400] 5.23.54 The Permittee shall notify the MPCA within 30 days of a change in operator certification or contract status. [Minn. R. 9400] 5.23.55 Special Requirements. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.56 Special Condition - Update O & M Manual. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.57 The Permittee is required to have on-site and available an updated Operation and Maintenance manual. This manual shall be available to MPCA staff upon request. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.58 Facility Maintenance. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.59 The facility shall be adequately protected to prevent damage. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.60 Collection System. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.61 The collection system shall be properly maintained to minimize inflow, infiltration, exfiltration, and obstructions. A record of all inspections and maintenance operations shall be kept by the Permittee for a minimum of three years. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.62 Tank Maintenance. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.63 All tanks (primary, secondary, holding, dosing, individual, etc.) associated with this system shall be operated, pumped and maintained to ensure proper system operation and solids management. After every pumping event, all tanks shall be inspected for potential failure (such as cracks, roots, damaged baffles, etc.). Identified problems shall be corrected immediately. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.64 The owner of a septic tank or tanks or the owner's agent shall arrange for the removal and proper disposal of septage from all tanks or compartments in which the top of the sludge layer is less than 12 inches below the bottom of the outlet baffle or whenever the bottom of the scum layer is less than three inches above the outlet baffle. All accumulations of sludge, scum, and liquids shall be removed through the maintenance hole. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.65 The Permittee shall properly clean the effluent screens as often as needed to maintain an adequate flow rate from the septic tank(s). The Permittee shall keep a record at the facility that indicates the dates that the effluent screens are inspected, removed and cleaned. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 17 of 41 5.23.66 Tanks that are not specifically covered under the Limits & Monitoring section of this permit shall be inspected at least every three years and pumped as necessary unless more restrictive local requirements have been established. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.67 Soil Treatment System Maintenance. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.68 The soil treatment system(s) shall be adequately fenced. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.69 A dense vegetative cover shall be maintained over the soil treatment system(s) at all times during the growing season to prevent the growth of unwanted vegetation such as trees, deep rooted nuisance plants, aquatic vegetation and to prevent erosion. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.70 Routine maintenance shall be conducted to discourage the presence of rodents and other burrowing animals and deer on the soil treatment system and to allow inspection of observation ports installed in the soil treatment system(s) inspection pipes. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.71 Soil Treatment System Inspection. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.72 Ponding depth inspections to determine the condition of each soil treatment system (trench, bed, at-grade, mound, or drip dispersal) /drainfield standpipe shall be conducted every other month during the time the soil treatment system is in use. The inspection of each soil treatment system shall include the identification of wet or saturated areas, depth of effluent ponding in the soil treatment observation ports, evidence of effluent at the surface, frozen components, and measurements in piezometers (if installed). Visual observations shall be recorded and inspection records shall be maintained by the owner for a minimum of three years following each inspection. The results of the inspection are not required to be submitted to the MPCA but shall be made available upon request by MPCA staff. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.73 Indications of excessive hydraulic and organic loading to the wastewater treatment facility flow rate include ineffective septic tanks or advanced treatment systems, prolonged saturated soil conditions, vegetative drowning or excessive ground water mounding (observed from piezometers) and exceeding daily permitted flow rates as indicated by flow meters, event counters and running time clocks. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.23.74 Reserve Soil Treatment System. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.23.75 The reserve area for the soil treatment system/drainfield shall be properly protected to prevent the use of, and damage to, the area. The reserve area shall be posted and identified for the public with at least one sign designating its future purpose and the boundaries shall be visibly staked at all corners. In no case may this area be disturbed for any purpose, including vehicle traffic, storage, bike, hiking or ATV trails, playing fields, etc. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] Pretreatment: Undelegated Requirements 5.24.76 Pretreatment - Definitions. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.77 An "Individual Control Mechanism" is a document, such as an agreement or permit, that imposes limitations or requirements on an individual industrial user of the POTW. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.78 "Significant Industrial User" (SIU) means any industrial user that: a. discharges 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater; b. contributes a load of five (5) % or more of the capacity of the POTW; or c. is designated as significant by the Permittee or the MPCA on the basis that the SIU has a reasonable potential to adversely impact the POTW, or the quality of its effluent or residuals. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.79 Pretreatment - Permittee Responsibility to Control Users. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.80 It is the Permittee's responsibility to regulate the discharge from users of its wastewater treatment facility. The Permittee shall prevent any pass through of pollutants or any inhibition or disruption of the Permittee's facility, its treatment processes, or its sludge processes or disposal that contribute to the violation of the conditions of this permit or any federal or state law or regulation limiting the release of pollutants from the POTW. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.81 The Permittee shall prohibit the discharge of the following to its wastewater treatment facility: Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 18 of 41 a. pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard, including any discharge with a flash point less than 60 degrees C (140 degrees F); b. pollutants which would cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, including any waste stream with a pH of less than 5.0; c. solid or viscous pollutants which would obstruct flow; d. heat that would inhibit biological activity, including any discharge that would cause the temperature of the waste stream at the POTW treatment plant headwork's to exceed 40 degrees C (104 degrees F); e. pollutants which produce toxic gases, vapors, or fumes that may endanger the health or safety of workers; or f. any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants such as biochemical oxygen demand, released at a flow rate or pollutant concentration that will cause interference or pass through. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.82 The Permittee shall prohibit new discharges of non-contact cooling waters unless there is no cost effective alternative. Existing discharges of non-contact cooling water to the Permittee's wastewater treatment facility shall be eliminated, where elimination is cost-effective, or where an infiltration/inflow analysis and sewer system evaluation survey indicates the need for such removal. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.83 If the Permittee accepts trucked-in wastes, the Permittee shall evaluate the trucked in wastes prior to acceptance in the same manner as it monitors sewered wastes. The Permittee shall accept trucked-in wastes only at specifically designated points. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.84 Pollutant of concern means a pollutant that is or may be discharged by an industrial user that is, or reasonably should be of concern on the basis that it may cause the permittee to violate any permit limits on the release of pollutants. The following pollutants shall be evaluated to determine if they should be pollutants of concern: pollutants limited in this permit, pollutants for which monitoring is required in this permit, pollutants that are likely to cause inhibition of the Permittee's POTW, pollutants which may interfere with sludge disposal, and pollutants for which the Permittee's treatment facility has limited capacity. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.85 Control of Significant Industrial Users. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.86 The Permittee shall impose pretreatment requirements on SIUs which will ensure compliance with all applicable effluent limitations and other requirements set forth in this permit or any federal or state law or regulation limiting the release of pollutants from the POTW. These requirements shall be applied to SIUs by means of an individual control mechanism. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.87 The Permittee shall not knowingly enter into an individual control mechanism with any user that would allow the user to contribute an amount or strength of wastewater that would cause violation of any limitation or requirement in the permit, or any applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.88 Monitoring of Significant Industrial Users. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.89 The Permittee shall obtain from SIUs specific information on the quality and quantity of the SIU's discharges to the Permittee's POTW. Except where specifically requested by the Permittee and approved by the MPCA, this information shall be obtained by means of representative monitoring conducted by the Permittee or by the SIU under requirements imposed by the Permittee in the SIU's individual control mechanism. Monitoring performed to comply with this requirement shall include all pollutants for which the SIU is significant and shall be done at a frequency commensurate with the significance of the SIU. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.90 Reporting and Notification. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.91 The Permittee shall submit a pretreatment annual report, due by 31 days after the end of each calendar year following permit issuance if a SIU discharges to the POTW during a given calendar year. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.92 The Pretreatment Annual Report shall be submitted on forms provided by the agency or shall provide equivalent information. The Permittee shall submit the pre-treatment report to the following address: Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 19 of 41 MPCA Attn: WQ Submittals Center 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.93 The Permittee shall notify the MPCA in writing of any: a. SIU of the Permittee's POTW which has not been previously disclosed to the MPCA; b. anticipated or actual changes in the volume or quality of discharge by an industrial user that could result in the industrial user becoming an SIU as defined in this chapter; or c. anticipated or actual changes in the volume or quality of discharges by a SIU that would require changes to the SIU's required local limits. This notification shall be submitted within 30 days of identifying the IU as a SIU. Where changes are proposed, they shall be submitted prior to changes being made. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.94 Upon notifying the MPCA of a SIU or change in a SIU discharge as required above, the Permittee shall submit the following information on forms provided by the agency or in a comparable format: a. the identity of the SIU and a description of the SIU's operation and process; b. a characterization of the SIU's discharge; c. the required local limits that will be imposed on the SIU; d. a technical justification of the required local limits; and e. a plan for monitoring the SIU which is consistent with monitoring requirements in this chapter. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.95 In addition, the Permittee shall, upon request, submit the following to the MPCA for approval: a. additional information on the SIU, its processes and discharge; b. a copy of the individual control mechanism used to control the SIU; c. the Permittee's legal authority to be used for regulating the SIU; and d. the Permittee's procedures for enforcing the requirements imposed on the SIU. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.96 The Permittee shall notify MPCA of any of its industrial users that may be subject to national categorical pretreatment standards. [Minn. R. 7049] 5.24.97 This permit may be modified in accordance with Minnesota Rules, ch. 7001 to require development of a pretreatment program approvable under the Federal General Pretreatment Regulation (40 CFR 403). [Minn. R. 7049] Biosolids: Domestic Septage (No Analysis Required) 5.25.98 Authorization. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.99 This permit authorizes the Permittee to store and land apply domestic wastewater treatment septage that is defined as biosolids in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and Minn. R. ch. 7041. The conditions for septage treatment and application described in this chapter apply only to septage from domestic residences as described in the permit application. For the purpose of this permit chapter, solids collected in septic tanks are referred to as biosolids. If any commercial or industrial user is added to this permitted facility, the MPCA shall be notified before adding that user to the facility so that appropriate monitoring, treatment and disposal of the septage can be determined. Based on that determination, the Permittee may be required to apply and pay for a permit modification. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.100 Permittees who prepare bulk biosolids shall obtain approval of the sites on which bulk biosolids are applied before they are applied unless they are Exceptional Quality Biosolids. Site application procedures are set forth in Minn. R. ch. 7041.0800. [Minn. R. 7041.800] 5.25.101 Compliance Responsibility. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.102 The Permittee is responsible for ensuring that the applicable requirements in this chapter and Minn. R. ch. 7041 are met when biosolids are prepared, distributed, or applied to the land. [Minn. R. 7041] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 20 of 41 5.25.103 Notification Requirements. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.104 The Permittee shall provide information needed to comply with the biosolids requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7041 to others who prepare or use the biosolids. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.105 Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.106 Biosolids shall be processed, treated, or be incorporated or injected into the soil to meet pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements in Minn. R. ch. 7041.1800, subp. 3, items a, b, or c as follows: a. the pH of the septage shall be raised to 12 or higher for 30 minutes by alkali addition and, without the addition of more alkali, shall remain at 12 or higher for 30 minutes; b. the septage is injected and no significant amount of the septage is present on the land surface within one hour after it is injected, or c. the septage is incorporated below the surface of the land within six hours after surface application. [Minn. R. 7041.1800, subp. 3] 5.25.107 The minimum duration between application and harvest, grazing or public access to areas where biosolids have been applied to the land is as follows: a. 14 months for food crops whose harvested parts may touch the soil/biosolids mixture (such as melons, squash, tomatoes, etc.), when biosolids are surface applied, incorporated or injected. b. 20 months or 38 months depending on the application method for food crops whose harvested parts grow in the soil (such as potatoes, carrots, onions, etc.). The 20 month time period is required when biosolids are surface applied or surface applied and incorporated after they have been on the soil surface for at least four (4) months. The 38 month time period is required when the biosolids are injected or surface applied and incorporated within four (4) months of application. c. 30 days for feed crops, other food crops (such as field corn, sweet corn, etc.), hay or fiber crops when biosolids are surface applied, incorporated or injected. d. 30 days for grazing of animals when biosolids are surface applied, incorporated or injected. e. One year where there is a high potential for public contact with the site, (such as a reclamation site located in populated areas, a construction site located in a city, turf farms, plant nurseries, etc.) and 30 days where there is low potential for public contact (such as agricultural land, forest, a reclamation site located in an unpopulated area, etc.) when biosolids are surface applied, incorporated, or injected. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.108 Management Practices. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.109 The management practices for the land application of biosolids are described in detail in Minn. R. ch. 7041.1200 and shall be followed unless specified otherwise in a site approval letter or a permit issued by the MPCA. [Minn. R. 7041.1200] 5.25.110 Overall management requirements: a. Biosolids shall not be applied to the land if it is likely to adversely affect a threatened or endangered species listed under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act or its designated critical habitat. b. Biosolids shall not be applied to flooded, frozen or snow covered ground so that the biosolids enter wetlands or other waters of the state. c. Biosolids shall be applied at an agronomic rate. The Agronomic application rate for septage applied to agricultural land, forest, or a reclamation site for a cropping year shall be calculated using the following equation unless determined otherwise by the MPCA. AR = N / 0.0026 Where: AR = Application rate in gallons per acre for the cropping year. N = The maximum available nitrogen application rate in pounds per acre per cropping year required by the crop based on realistic yield goals or nitrogen uptake by vegetation grown on the land minus the amount supplied by other sources such as manure or fertilizer. Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 21 of 41 d. Biosolids shall not be applied within 33 feet of a wetland or waters of the state unless specified otherwise by the MPCA in a permit. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.111 Records. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.112 The Permittee shall obtain and keep on record items a. through g. for five years and items h. through j. indefinitely: a. The following certification statement for all septage applied to the land: "I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will be used to determine compliance with the pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements in part 7041.1800, subp. 3 ____[insert either item a, b, or c], the management practices in part 7041.1200, and the site restrictions in part 7041.1300, subpart 3, item D, has been prepared under my direction and supervision according to the system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information used to determine that the pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements have been met. I am aware that there are significant penalties for false certification including the possibility of fine and imprisonment."; b. a description of how the pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements are met. If alkali addition is used, records shall indicate each container of septage applied is monitored for compliance with subp. 3, item a; c. a description of how management practices and site restrictions are met; d. a record of soil test data as required by part 7041.0800, site approvals, or permits; e. the maximum available nitrogen application rate based on the realistic yield goal of the crop or vegetation grown on the site during the cropping year; f. the number of acres used; g. any other analysis or information required by the MPCA; h. the legal description of the land application site; i. the amount and date of septage applied in gallons per acre and the cumulative dry tons per acre; and j. the amount of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc applied each cropping year and cumulatively expressed in pounds per acre. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.113 Reporting Requirements. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.114 The Permittee shall submit a biosolids annual report: Due annually, by the 31st of December on a form provided by or approved by the MPCA. The report shall include the requirements in Minnesota Rules, part 7041.1700. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.115 The Permittee shall submit a Biosolids Annual Report by December 31 of each year for biosolids storage and/or transfer activities occurring during the cropping year previous to December 31. The report shall indicate whether or not biosolids were transferred and/or stored. If biosolids were transferred, the report shall describe how much was transferred, where it was transferred to, the name of the facility that accepted the transfer and the contact person at that facility. "Cropping year" means a year beginning on September 1 of the year prior to the growing season and ending August 31 the year the crop is harvested. For example, the 2012 cropping year began September 1, 2011, and ended August 31, 2012. [Minn. R. 7041] 5.25.116 The Permittee shall submit the Biosolids Annual Report to: MPCA Submittals Center Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194. [Minn. R. 7041] Total Facility Requirements (SDS) 5.26.117 No Discharge. There shall be no point source discharge to surface water from the permitted activity. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.118 Definitions. Refer to the Permit User's Manual found on the MPCA's website (https://www.pca.state.mn.us) for standard definitions. [Minn. R. 7001] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 22 of 41 5.26.119 Incorporation by Reference. This permit incorporates the following applicable federal and state laws applicable to the Permittee and enforceable parts of this permit: 40 CFR pts. 122.41, 122.42, 136, 403 and 503; Minn. R. chs. 7001, 7041, 7045, 7050, 7052, 7053, 7060, and 7080; and Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.120 Permittee Responsibility. The Permittee shall perform the actions or conduct the activity authorized by this permit in compliance with the conditions of the permit and, if required, in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the MPCA. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(E)] 5.26.121 Toxic Discharges Prohibited. Whether or not this permit includes effluent limitations for toxic pollutants, the Permittee shall not discharge a toxic pollutant except according to 40 CFR pts. 400 to 460 and Minn. R. chs. 7050, 7052, 7053 and any other applicable MPCA rules. [Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(A)] 5.26.122 Nuisance Conditions Prohibited. The Permittee's discharge shall not cause any nuisance conditions including, but not limited to: floating solids, scum and visible oil film, excessive suspended solids, material discoloration, obnoxious odors, gas ebullition, deleterious sludge deposits, undesirable slimes or fungus growths, aquatic habitat degradation, excessive growths of aquatic plants, acutely toxic conditions to aquatic life, or other adverse impact on the receiving water. [Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp. 2] 5.26.123 Property Rights. This permit does not convey a property right or an exclusive privilege. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(C)] 5.26.124 Liability Exemption. In issuing this permit, the State and the MPCA assume no responsibility for damage to persons, property, or the environment caused by the activities of the Permittee in the conduct of its actions, including those activities authorized, directed, or undertaken under this permit. To the extent the State and the MPCA may be liable for the activities of its employees, that liability is explicitly limited to that provided in the Tort Claims Act. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(O)] 5.26.125 The MPCA's issuance of this permit does not obligate the MPCA to enforce local laws, rules, or plans beyond what Minnesota statutes authorize. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(D)] 5.26.126 Liabilities. The MPCA's issuance of this permit does not release the Permittee from any liability, penalty, or duty imposed by Minnesota or federal statutes or rules or local ordinances, except the obligation to obtain the permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(A)] 5.26.127 The issuance of this permit does not prevent the future adoption by the MPCA of pollution control rules, standards, or orders more stringent than those now in existence and does not prevent the enforcement of these rules, standards, or orders against the Permittee. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(B)] 5.26.128 Severability. The provisions of this permit are severable and, if any provisions of this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance are held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.129 Compliance with Other Rules and Statutes. The Permittee shall comply with all applicable air quality, solid waste, and hazardous waste statutes and rules in the operation and maintenance of the facility. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.130 Inspection and Entry. When authorized by Minn. Stat. ch. 115.04, 115B.17, subd. 4, and 116.091, and upon presentation of proper credentials, the Permittee shall allow the MPCA, or an authorized employee or agent of the MPCA, to enter at reasonable times upon the property of the Permittee to examine and copy books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to the construction, modification, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or pertaining to the activity covered by the permit; and to conduct surveys and investigations, including sampling or monitoring, pertaining to the construction, modification, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or pertaining to the activity covered by the permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(I)] 5.26.131 Control Users. The Permittee shall regulate the users of its facility to prevent the introduction of pollutants or materials that may result in the inhibition or disruption of the conveyance system, treatment facility or processes, or disposal system that would contribute to the violation of the conditions of this permit or any federal, state, or local law or regulation. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 23 of 41 5.26.132 Sampling. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.133 Representative Sampling. The Permittee shall conduct samples and measurements required by this permit as specified in this permit and shall be representative of the discharge or monitored activity. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] 5.26.134 Additional Sampling. If the Permittee monitors more frequently than required, they shall report the results and the frequency of monitoring on their eDMR for that reporting period. [Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(E)] 5.26.135 Certified/Accredited Laboratory. A laboratory accredited by the Minnesota Department of Health [Minn. R. 4740.2010 through Minn. R. 4740.2120] and/or certified by the MPCA [Minn. R. 7001.4310 through Minn. R. 7001.4390] shall conduct analyses required by this permit, unless approved in writing by the MPCA. A certified/accredited laboratory does not need to complete analyses of dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and total residual oxidants (chlorine, bromine). Those analyses shall comply with 40 CFR pt. 136. Dissolved oxygen, pH, and total residual oxidants must be performed on-site. Follow the manufacturer's specifications for equipment maintenance and use. [Minn. R. 4740.2010-4740.2120, Minn. R. 7001.4310-7001.4390] 5.26.136 Sample Preservation and Procedure. Sample preservation and test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to 40 CFR pt. 136 and Minn. R. 7041.3200. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B), Minn. R. 7041.3200] 5.26.137 Equipment Calibration. The Permittee shall check and/or calibrate flow meters, pumps, flumes, lift stations, or other flow monitoring equipment used for purposes of determining compliance (within plus or minus ten percent of the true flow values) with permit requirements at least twice annually. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B & C)] 5.26.138 Maintain Records. The Permittee shall keep the records required by this permit for at least three years, including any calculations, original recordings from automatic monitoring instruments, and laboratory sheets. The Permittee shall extend these record retention periods upon request of the MPCA. The Permittee shall maintain records for each sample and measurement. The records shall include the following information: A. The exact place, date, and time of the sample or measurement; B. The date of analysis; C. The name of the person who performed the sample collection, measurement, analysis, or calculation; D. The analytical techniques, procedures, and methods used; and E. The results of the analysis. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(C)] 5.26.139 Completing Reports. The Permittee shall submit the results of the required sampling and monitoring activities on the forms provided, specified, or approved by the MPCA. The Permittee shall record the information in the specified areas on those forms and in the units specified. Required forms may include a Sample Values Form. If required, the Permittee shall record individual values for each sample and measurement on the Sample Values Form provided by the MPCA. The Permittee shall submit Sample Values Form with the appropriate eDMRs. The Permittee may design and use their own Sample Values Form; however, the Permittee shall not use their form until the MPCA reviews and approves the form. Note: The Permittee shall also record required summary information on their eDMR. Permittee submitted summary information contained only on the Sample Values Form does not comply with reporting requirements. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B), Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(D)] 5.26.140 Submitting Reports. The Permittee shall submit eDMRs, Sample Values Forms, and other supplemental attachment forms via MPCA e-Services after the MPCA approves their authorization request. The Permittee shall electronically submit eDMRs, Sample Values Forms, and other supplemental attachment forms by the 21st day of the month following the sampling period or otherwise as specified in this permit. The Permittee shall complete eDMR submittal on or before 11:59 PM of Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 24 of 41 the 21st day of the month following the sampling period or as otherwise specified in this permit. The Permittee shall submit an eDMR for each required station even if no discharge occurred during the reporting period. The Permittee shall submit other reports required by this permit electronically or by mail. The Permittee shall submit reports by the date specified in this permit. For electronic submittals, the Permittee shall submit on or before 11:59 PM on the date specified in this permit. For mailed submittals, the Permittee shall ensure that submittals via U.S. Postal Service or other hand delivery method contain postmarks by the date specified in this permit. Whole Effluent Testing (WET) and Pretreatment Annual Reports must be mailed to the WQ Submittals Center. Electronically: wq.submittals.mpca@state.mn.us Include Water quality submittals form: www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwprm7- 71.docx Or by mail: Attention: WQ Submittals Center Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4191. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B), Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(H)] 5.26.141 Incomplete or Incorrect Reports. The Permittee shall immediately submit an electronically amended report or eDMR to the MPCA upon discovery by the Permittee or notification by the MPCA that it has submitted an incomplete or incorrect report or eDMR. The amended report or eDMR shall contain the missing or corrected data along with a comment on the eDMR explaining the circumstances of the incomplete or incorrect report. If it is impossible to amend the report or eDMR electronically, the Permittee shall immediately notify the MPCA and the MPCA will provide direction for the amendment submittals. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(G)] 5.26.142 Required Signatures. The Permittee or the duly authorized representative of the Permittee shall sign all eDMRs, forms, reports, and other documents submitted to the MPCA per Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(D). The person or persons who sign the eDMRs, forms, reports, or other documents shall certify that he or she understands and complies with the certification requirements of Minn. R. chs. 7001.0070 and 7001.0540, including the penalties for submitting false information. A registered professional engineer shall certify technical documents, such as design drawings and specifications, and engineering studies submitted as part of a permit application or by permit conditions. [Minn. R. 7001.0540] 5.26.143 Reporting Limit (RL). The Permittee shall report monitoring results below the RL of a particular instrument as "<" the value of the RL. For example, if an instrument has a RL of 0.1 mg/L and a parameter is not detected at a value of 0.1 mg/L or greater, the Permittee shall report the concentration as "< 0.1 mg/L." The Permittee shall not use "non-detected," "undetected," "below detection limit," or "zero" when reporting results. The MPCA considers these terms as permit reporting violations. Where sample values are less than the RL and the permit requires reporting of an average, the Permittee shall calculate the average as follows: A. If some values are less than (<) the RL, substitute zero for all non-detectable values to use in the average calculation; B. If all values are less than (<) the RL, calculate the average and report as < the RL average concentration; and C. To calculate a mass loading with a less than (<) the RL concentration, use the RL value in the calculation and then add the "<" to the product of the concentration and the volume. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 25 of 41 5.26.144 Records. The Permittee shall, when requested by the MPCA, submit within a reasonable time the information and reports that are relevant to the control of pollution regarding the construction, modification, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or regarding the conduct of the activity covered by the permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(H)] 5.26.145 Confidential Information. Except for data determined to be confidential according to Minn. Stat. ch. 116.075, subd. 2, all reports required by this permit are available for public inspection. The MPCA does not consider effluent data confidential. To request the MPCA maintain data as confidential, the Permittee shall follow Minn. R. 7000.1300. [Minn. R. 7000.1300] 5.26.146 Noncompliance and Enforcement. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.147 Subject to Enforcement Action and Penalties. Noncompliance with a term or condition of this permit subjects the Permittee to penalties provided by federal and state law set forth in section 309 of the Clean Water Act; United States Code, title 33, section 1319, as amended; and in Minn. Stat. ch. 115.071 and 116.072, including monetary penalties, imprisonment, or both. [Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(B)] 5.26.148 Criminal Activity. The Permittee shall not knowingly make a false statement, representation, or certification in a record or other document submitted to the MPCA. A person who falsifies a report or document submitted to the MPCA, or tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate a monitoring device or method that requires maintenance under this permit is subject to criminal and civil penalties provided by federal and state law. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(G), Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(G & H), Minn. Stat. ch. 609.671, subd. 1] 5.26.149 Noncompliance Defense. It shall not be a defense for the Permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit. [40 CFR 122.41(c)] 5.26.150 Effluent Violations. If sampling by the Permittee indicates a violation of any discharge limitation specified in this permit, the Permittee shall immediately make every effort to verify the violation by collecting additional samples, if appropriate, investigate the cause of the violation, and take action to prevent future violations. If the Permittee discovers that noncompliance with a condition of the permit occurred and that the noncompliance could endanger human health, public drinking water supplies, or the environment, the Permittee shall within 24 hours of the discovery of the noncompliance orally notify the Commissioner and submit a written description of the noncompliance within five days of the discovery. If the Permittee discovers other noncompliance that does not explicitly endanger human health, public drinking water supplies, or the environment, the Permittee shall report the description of noncompliance within 30 days of the discovery. If no eDMR is required within 30 days, the Permittee shall submit a written report including the description of noncompliance within 30 days of the discovery of the noncompliance. This description shall include the following information: A. A description of the event including volume, duration, monitoring results, and receiving waters; B. The cause of the event; C. The steps taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the event; D. The exact dates and times of the event; and E. Steps taken to reduce any adverse impact resulting from the event. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(K)] 5.26.151 Upset Defense. In the event of temporary noncompliance with applicable effluent limitation(s) resulting from an upset at the Permittee's facility due to factors beyond the control of the Permittee, the Permittee has an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought by the MPCA as a result of the noncompliance if the Permittee demonstrates by a preponderance of competent evidence: A. The specific cause of the upset; B. That the upset was unintentional; Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 26 of 41 C. That the upset resulted from factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee and did not result from operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or increases in production which are beyond the design capability of the treatment facilities; D. That at the time of the upset the facility was being properly operated; E. That the Permittee properly notified the Commissioner of the upset in accordance with Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(I); and F. That the Permittee implemented the remedial measures required by Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(J). [Minn. R. 7001.1090] 5.26.152 Release. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.153 Unauthorized Releases of Wastewater Prohibited. This permit prohibits overflows, discharges, spills, or other releases of wastewater or materials to the environment, whether intentional or not, except for discharges from outfalls specifically authorized by this permit. The MPCA will consider the Permittee's compliance with permit requirements, frequency of release, quantity, type, location, and other relevant factors when determining appropriate action. [40 CFR 122.41, Minn. Stat. ch. 115.061] 5.26.154 Discovery of a Release. Upon discovery of a release, the Permittee shall: A. Take all reasonable steps to immediately end the release; B. Notify the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Duty Officer at 800-422-0798 or 651-649-5451 (metro area) immediately upon discovery of the release. The Permittee may contact the MPCA during business hours at 800-657-3864 or 651-296-6300 (metro area); and C. Recover as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible all substances and materials released or immediately take other action as may be reasonably possible to minimize or abate pollution to waters of the state or potential impacts to human health caused thereby. If the Permittee cannot immediately or completely recover the released materials or substances, the Permittee shall contact the MPCA. If directed by the MPCA, the Permittee shall consult with other local, state, or federal agencies (such as the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and/or the Wetland Conservation Act authority) for implementation of additional clean up or remediation activities in wetland or other sensitive areas. [Minn. R. 7001.1090] 5.26.155 Sampling of a Release. Upon discovery of a release, the Permittee shall: A. Collect representative samples of the release. The Permittee shall sample the release for permitted effluent parameters and other parameters of concern immediately following discovery of the release. The Permittee may contact the MPCA during business hours to discuss the sampling parameters and protocol. In addition, the Permittee shall collect fecal coliform bacteria samples where the Permittee determines that the release contains or may contain sewage. If the Permittee cannot immediately stop the release, the Permittee shall consult with the MPCA regarding additional sampling requirements. The Permittee shall collect samples at least, but not limited to, two times per week for as long as the release continues; and B. Submit the sampling results on the Release Report located on the MPCA's website at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/discharge-monitoring-reports. The Permittee shall submit the Release Report to the MPCA with the next eDMR or within 30 days, whichever is sooner. [Minn. R. 7001.1090] 5.26.156 Bypass. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.157 Anticipated Bypass. The Permittee may allow any bypass to occur that does not cause effluent limitation exceedances, but only if the bypass is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation of the facility. The Permittee shall submit prior notice to the MPCA at least ten days before the date of the bypass, if possible. The notice of the need for an anticipated bypass shall include the following information: A. The proposed date and estimated duration of the bypass; B. The alternatives to bypassing; and Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 27 of 41 C. A proposal for effluent sampling during the bypass. Any bypass wastewater shall enter waters of the state from outfalls specifically authorized by this permit. Therefore, the Permittee shall collect samples at the frequency and location identified in this permit or two times per week for as long as the bypass continues, whichever is more frequent. [40 CFR 122.41(m)(2 & 3), Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(J)] 5.26.158 This permit prohibits all other bypasses. The MPCA may take enforcement action against the Permittee for a bypass, unless the specific conditions described in Minn. R. 7001.1090 subp. 1(K) and 40 CFR 122.41(m)(4)(i) are met. In the event of an unanticipated bypass, the Permittee shall: A. Take all reasonable steps to immediately end the bypass; B. Notify the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Duty Officer at 800-422-0798 or 651-649-5451 (metro area) immediately upon commencement of the bypass. The Permittee may contact the MPCA during business hours at 800-657-3864 or 651-296-6300 (metro area); C. Immediately take action as may be reasonably possible to minimize or abate pollution to waters of the state or potential impacts to human health caused thereby. If directed by the MPCA, the Permittee shall consult with other local, state, or federal agencies for implementation of abatement, clean up, or remediation activities; and D. Only allow bypass wastewater as specified in this section to enter waters of the state from outfalls specifically authorized by this permit. The Permittee shall collect samples at the frequency and location identified in this permit or two times per week for as long as the bypass continues, whichever is more frequent. The Permittee shall also follow the reporting requirements for effluent violations as specified in this permit. [40 CFR 122.41(m)(4)i, Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(K), Minn. Stat. ch. 115.061] 5.26.159 Operation and Maintenance. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.160 The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain the facilities and systems of treatment and control, and the appurtenances related to them which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance procedures. The Permittee shall install and maintain appropriate backup or auxiliary facilities if they are necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit and, for all permits other than hazardous waste facility permits, if these backup or auxiliary facilities are technically and economically feasible. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.26.161 In the event of a reduction or loss of effective treatment of wastewater at the facility, the Permittee shall control production or curtail discharges to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The Permittee shall continue this control or curtailment until they restore facility treatment processes or until the Permittee provides an alternative method of treatment. [Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(C)] 5.26.162 Solids Management. The Permittee shall properly store, transport, and manage biosolids, septage, sediments, residual solids, filter backwash, screenings, oil, grease, and other substances so that pollutants do not enter surface waters or groundwaters of the state. The Permittee shall manage solids in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. [40 CFR 503, Minn. R. 7041] 5.26.163 Scheduled Maintenance. The Permittee shall schedule maintenance of the treatment works during non-critical water quality periods to prevent water quality degradation, except where the facility requires emergency maintenance to prevent a condition that would be detrimental to water quality or human health. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B), Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.26.164 Control Tests. The Permittee shall conduct in-plant control tests at a frequency adequate to ensure compliance with the conditions of this permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B), Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(F)] 5.26.165 Changes to the Facility or Permit. [Minn. R. 7001] 5.26.166 Permit Modifications. Except as provided under Minn. Stat. ch. 115.07, subd. 1 and 3, no person required by statute or rule to obtain a permit may construct, install, modify, or operate the facility to Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 28 of 41 be permitted, nor shall a person commence an activity for which a permit is required by statute or rule until the MPCA issues a written permit for the facility or activity. Permittees that propose to make changes to the facility or discharge that requires permit modification shall follow Minn. R. 7001.0190. If the Permittee cannot determine whether the proposed changes require a permit modification, the Permittee shall contact the MPCA prior to any action. The MPCA recommends that Permittees submit the application for permit modification to the MPCA at least 180 days prior to the planned change. [Minn. R. 7001.0030] 5.26.167 This permit does not require plans, specifications, and MPCA approval when maintenance dictates the need for installation of new equipment, provided the equipment is the same design size and has the same design intent. For instance, Permittees can replace a broken pipe, lift station pump, aerator, or blower with the same design-sized equipment without MPCA approval. If this permit does not expressly authorize the Permittee proposed construction, the MPCA may require a permit modification. If the proposed construction project requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet under Minn. R. 4410, no construction shall begin until the MPCA issues a negative declaration and the Permittee receives or implements all approvals. [Minn. R. 7001.0030] 5.26.168 Report Changes. The Permittee shall give advance notice as soon as possible to the MPCA of any substantial changes in operational procedures, activities that may alter the nature or frequency of the discharge, and/or material factors that may affect compliance with the conditions of this permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(M)] 5.26.169 Chemical Additives. The Permittee shall receive prior written approval from the MPCA before increasing the use of a chemical additive authorized by this permit, or using a chemical additive not authorized by this permit, in quantities or concentrations that have the potential to change the characteristics, nature, and/or quality of the discharge. The Permittee shall request approval for an increase or new use of a chemical additive at least 60 days, or as soon as possible, before the proposed increase or new use. The Permittee shall include at least the following information for the proposed additive as instructed in the chemical additive approvals section on the MPCA website at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/wastewater- additional-guidance-and-information: A. The process for which the additive will be used; B. Safety Data Sheet (SDS) which shall include aquatic toxicity, human health, and environmental fate information for the proposed additive. The aquatic toxicity information shall include at minimum the results of: a) a 48-hour LC50 or EC50 acute study for a North American freshwater planktonic crustacean (either Ceriodaphnia or Daphnia sp.) and b) a 96-hour LC50 acute study for rainbow trout, bluegill, or fathead minnow or another North American freshwater aquatic species other than a planktonic crustacean; C. A complete product use and instruction label; D. The commercial and chemical names and Chemical Abstract Survey (CAS) number for all ingredients in the additive (If the SDS does not include information on chemical composition, including percentages for each ingredient totaling to 100%, the Permittee shall contact the supplier to have this information provided); and E. The proposed method of application, application frequency, concentration, and daily average and maximum rates of use. Upon review of the information submitted regarding the proposed chemical additive, the MPCA may require additional information be submitted for consideration. This permit may be modified to restrict the use or discharge of a chemical additive and include additional influent and effluent monitoring requirements. Approval for the use of an additive shall not justify the exceedance of any effluent limitation nor shall it be used as a defense against pollutant levels in the discharge causing or contributing to the violation of a water quality standard. [Minn. R. 7001.0170] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 29 of 41 5.26.170 MPCA Initiated Permit Modification, Suspension, or Revocation. The MPCA may modify or revoke and reissue this permit pursuant to Minn. R. 7001.0170. The MPCA may revoke without reissuance of this permit pursuant to Minn. R. 7001.0180. [Minn. R. 7001.0170, Minn. R. 7001.0180] 5.26.171 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Impacts. The MPCA may require facilities that discharge to an impaired surface water, watershed, or drainage basin to comply with additional permits or permit requirements. These requirements can include additional restriction or relaxation of limits and monitoring as authorized by the CWA 303(d)(4)(A) and 40 CFR ch. 122.44(l)(2)(i), necessary to ensure consistency with the assumptions and requirements of any applicable EPA approved wasteload allocations resulting from TMDL studies. [40 CFR 122.44(I)(2)i] 5.26.172 Permit Transfer. This permit is not transferable to any person without the express written approval of the MPCA after compliance with the requirements of Minn. R. 7001.0190. A person who receives permit transference shall comply with the conditions of this permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3(N)] 5.26.173 Facility Closure. The Permittee is responsible for closure and post-closure care of the facility. The Permittee shall notify the MPCA of a significant reduction or cessation of the activities described in this permit at least 180 days before the reduction or cessation. The MPCA may require the Permittee to provide a Facility Closure Plan to the MPCA for approval. The MPCA may require a permit modification or reissuance for facility closure that could result in a potential long-term water quality concern, such as the ongoing discharge of wastewater to surface or groundwater. The MPCA may require the Permittee to establish and maintain financial assurance to ensure performance of certain obligations under this permit, including closure, post-closure care, and remedial action at the facility. If the MPCA requires financial assurance, the MPCA shall approve the amount and type of financial assurance, and proposed modifications to previously MPCA-approved financial assurance. [Minn. Stat. ch. 116.07, subd. 4] 5.26.174 Permit Reissuance. If the Permittee desires to continue permit coverage beyond the date of permit expiration, the Permittee shall submit an application for permit reissuance: Due by 180 days prior to permit expiration. [Minn. R. 7001.0040] 5.26.175 If the Permittee does not intend to continue the activities authorized by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the Permittee shall notify the MPCA in writing at least 180 days before permit expiration. If the Permittee has submitted a timely application for permit reissuance, the Permittee may continue to conduct the activities authorized by this permit, in compliance with the requirements of this permit, until the MPCA takes final action on the application, unless the MPCA determines any of the following: A. The Permittee is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of this permit, or with a stipulation agreement or compliance schedule designed to bring the Permittee into compliance with this permit; B. The MPCA, as a result of an action or failure to act by the Permittee, has been unable to take final action on the application on or before the expiration date of the permit; or C. The Permittee has submitted an application with major deficiencies or has failed to properly supplement the application in a timely manner after being informed of deficiencies. [Minn. R. 7001.0040, Minn. R. 7001.0160] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 30 of 41 6. Submittal action summary GW 001 Well, Upgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 6.1.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 004 Well, Downgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 6.2.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 006 Well, Downgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 6.3.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 008 Well, Downgradient Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 6.4.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 2, Phase 1 GW 009 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 6.5.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 010 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 6.6.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 011 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 31 of 41 6.7.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 012 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 6.8.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 013 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 6.9.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 014 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 6.10.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 015 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 6.11.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 016 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 6.12.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 017 Piezometer, Other Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Piezometer Monitoring Requirements 6.13.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] GW 018 Well, Downgradient Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 32 of 41 Groundwater Well: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Well Monitoring Requirements 6.14.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 4, Phase 3 WS 001 Influent Waste Waste Stream: Large Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Influent Monitoring Requirements 6.15.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] WS 002 Intermediate: WW to Land Facility Specific Limit and Monitoring Requirements 6.16.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)] WS 004 Intermediate: WW to Land Facility Specific Limit and Monitoring Requirements 6.17.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 4, Phase 3, Phase 2 WS 005 Intermediate: WW to Land Facility Specific Limit and Monitoring Requirements 6.18.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 4, Phase 3, Phase 2 WS 006 Intermediate: WW to Land Facility Specific Limit and Monitoring Requirements 6.19.1 The Permittee shall submit a monthly DMR: Due by 21 days after the end of each calendar month following permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B)], Phases: Phase 4, Phase 3, Phase 2 MN0054119 Bliss Collector WWTP Compliance Schedule Requirements 6.20.1 The Permittee shall install flow monitoring equipment to monitor the amount of flow directed to each drainfield. The Permittee shall install equipment: Due by 180 days after permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001] 6.20.2 The Permittee shall submit a Facility Evaluation Report within one year of permit issuance. The report should summarize the effect of operational changes and nitrogen mitigation Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 33 of 41 efforts on nitrogen treatment. The Permittee shall submit a report: Due by one year after permit issuance. [Minn. R. 7001] Biosolids: Domestic Septage (No Analysis Required) 6.21.3 The Permittee shall submit a biosolids annual report: Due annually, by the 31st of December on a form provided by or approved by the MPCA. The report shall include the requirements in Minnesota Rules, part 7041.1700. [Minn. R. 7041] Total Facility Requirements (SDS) 6.22.4 Permit Reissuance. If the Permittee desires to continue permit coverage beyond the date of permit expiration, the Permittee shall submit an application for permit reissuance: Due by 180 days prior to permit expiration. [Minn. R. 7001.0040] Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 34 of 41 7. Limits and monitoring Subject item Parameter Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements Quantity /Loading avg. Quantity /Loading max. Quantity /Loading units Quality /Conc. min. Quality /Conc. avg. Quality /Conc. max. Quality/ Conc. units Frequency Sample type Effective period Notes GW 001 MW - 1s Chloride, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 001 MW - 1s Elevation of GW Relative to Mean Sea Level Monitor only. instantaneous maximum feet once per month Measurement, Instantaneous Apr, Jul, Oct GW 001 MW - 1s Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 001 MW - 1s Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 001 MW - 1s Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 001 MW - 1s pH Monitor only. instantaneous minimum Monitor only. instantaneous maximum standard units once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 001 MW - 1s Phosphorus, Total (as P) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 001 MW - 1s Specific Conductance Monitor only. instantaneous maximum micromhos per cm once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 001 MW - 1s Temperature, Water (C) Monitor only. instantaneous maximum degrees Celsius once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s Chloride, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 35 of 41 Subject item Parameter Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements Quantity /Loading avg. Quantity /Loading max. Quantity /Loading units Quality /Conc. min. Quality /Conc. avg. Quality /Conc. max. Quality/ Conc. units Frequency Sample type Effective period Notes GW 004 MW - 3s Elevation of GW Relative to Mean Sea Level Monitor only. instantaneous maximum feet once per month Measurement, Instantaneous Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s Phase 4 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) 10 calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s pH Monitor only. instantaneous minimum Monitor only. instantaneous maximum standard units once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s Phosphorus, Total (as P) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s Specific Conductance Monitor only. instantaneous maximum micromhos per cm once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 004 MW - 3s Temperature, Water (C) Monitor only. instantaneous maximum degrees Celsius once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s Chloride, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s Elevation of GW Relative to Mean Sea Level Monitor only. instantaneous maximum feet once per month Measurement, Instantaneous Apr, Jul, Oct Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 36 of 41 Subject item Parameter Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements Quantity /Loading avg. Quantity /Loading max. Quantity /Loading units Quality /Conc. min. Quality /Conc. avg. Quality /Conc. max. Quality/ Conc. units Frequency Sample type Effective period Notes GW 006 MW - 4s Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s Phase 4 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) 10 calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s pH Monitor only. instantaneous minimum Monitor only. instantaneous maximum standard units once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s Phosphorus, Total (as P) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s Specific Conductance Monitor only. instantaneous maximum micromhos per cm once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 006 MW - 4s Temperature, Water (C) Monitor only. instantaneous maximum degrees Celsius once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 Chloride, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 Elevation of GW Relative to Mean Sea Level Monitor only. instantaneous maximum feet once per month Measurement, Instantaneous Apr, Jul, Oct GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 37 of 41 Subject item Parameter Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements Quantity /Loading avg. Quantity /Loading max. Quantity /Loading units Quality /Conc. min. Quality /Conc. avg. Quality /Conc. max. Quality/ Conc. units Frequency Sample type Effective period Notes GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 pH Monitor only. instantaneous minimum Monitor only. instantaneous maximum standard units once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 Phosphorus, Total (as P) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 Specific Conductance Monitor only. instantaneous maximum micromhos per cm once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 008 MW - 5d Phase 1, Phase 2 Temperature, Water (C) Monitor only. instantaneous maximum degrees Celsius once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 009 Pz. a Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct GW 010 Pz. b Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct GW 011 Pz. c Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct GW 012 Pz. d Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct GW 013 Pz. e Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 38 of 41 Subject item Parameter Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements Quantity /Loading avg. Quantity /Loading max. Quantity /Loading units Quality /Conc. min. Quality /Conc. avg. Quality /Conc. max. Quality/ Conc. units Frequency Sample type Effective period Notes GW 014 Pz. f Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct GW 015 Pz. g Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct GW 016 Pz. h Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct GW 017 Pz. i Separation to Ground Water Monitor only. instantaneous maximum inches once per month Measurement Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3, Phase 4 Chloride, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3, Phase 4 Elevation of GW Relative to Mean Sea Level Monitor only. instantaneous maximum feet once per month Measurement, Instantaneous Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 4 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) 10 calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3, Phase 4 Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 39 of 41 Subject item Parameter Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements Quantity /Loading avg. Quantity /Loading max. Quantity /Loading units Quality /Conc. min. Quality /Conc. avg. Quality /Conc. max. Quality/ Conc. units Frequency Sample type Effective period Notes GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3, Phase 4 Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3, Phase 4 pH Monitor only. instantaneous minimum Monitor only. instantaneous maximum standard units once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3, Phase 4 Phosphorus, Total (as P) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3, Phase 4 Specific Conductance Monitor only. instantaneous maximum micromhos per cm once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct GW 018 Proposed Downgradient Well Phase 3, Phase 4 Temperature, Water (C) Monitor only. instantaneous maximum degrees Celsius once per month Grab Apr, Jul, Oct WS 001 Dosing Station 1 BOD, Carbonaceous 05 Day (20 Deg C) Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec WS 001 Dosing Station 1 Flow Monitor only. calendar month total million gallons 0.0198 calendar month average 0.0297 daily maximum million gallons per day once per day Measurement, Continuous Jan-Dec WS 001 Dosing Station 1 pH Monitor only. calendar month minimum Monitor only. calendar month maximum standard units once per month Grab Jan-Dec Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 40 of 41 Subject item Parameter Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements Quantity /Loading avg. Quantity /Loading max. Quantity /Loading units Quality /Conc. min. Quality /Conc. avg. Quality /Conc. max. Quality/ Conc. units Frequency Sample type Effective period Notes WS 001 Dosing Station 1 Phosphorus, Total (as P) Monitor only. calendar month maximum milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec WS 001 Dosing Station 1 Precipitation Monitor only. calendar month total inches once per day Measurement Jan-Dec WS 001 Dosing Station 1 Solids, Total Suspended (TSS) Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec WS 002 Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 BOD, Carbonaceous 05 Day (20 Deg C) Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec WS 002 Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 Chloride, Total Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec WS 002 Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec WS 002 Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 41 of 41 Subject item Parameter Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements Quantity /Loading avg. Quantity /Loading max. Quantity /Loading units Quality /Conc. min. Quality /Conc. avg. Quality /Conc. max. Quality/ Conc. units Frequency Sample type Effective period Notes WS 002 Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 Nitrogen, Total (as N) Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Calculation Jan-Dec WS 002 Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 Phosphorus, Total (as P) Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec WS 002 Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 Solids, Total Suspended (TSS) Monitor only. calendar month average milligrams per liter once per month Grab Jan-Dec WS 004 Infiltration Trench A Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4 Flow Monitor only. calendar month total million gallons Monitor only. calendar month average Monitor only. calendar month maximum million gallons per day once per day Measurement, Continuous Jan-Dec WS 005 Infiltration Trench B Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4 Flow Monitor only. calendar month total million gallons Monitor only. calendar month average Monitor only. calendar month maximum million gallons per day once per day Measurement, Continuous Jan-Dec WS 006 Infiltration Trench C Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4 Flow Monitor only. calendar month total million gallons Monitor only. calendar month average Monitor only. calendar month maximum million gallons per day once per day Measurement, Continuous Jan-Dec Appendix C: MPCA Permit Modifications Application https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-04a • 4/20/21 Page 1 of 3 Permit application checklist for domestic wastewater NPDES/SDS Permit Program National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/ State Disposal System (SDS) Doc Type: Permit Application Domestic facilities are those that process wastewater primarily from domestic sanitary sewer sources and may include contributions from commercial and industrial facilities in the service area. These facilities typically include city wastewater treatment facilities and sanitary districts, but also include non-municipal facilities, such as mobile home parks, schools, campgrounds, resorts, and industries that treat their own sanitary waste. This checklist is intended to help permit applicants determine the correct forms to submit as part of a complete permit application package. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will review the application materials for completeness and notify the applicant within 30 business days of receipt whether the application is incomplete or complete enough for processing. MPCA use only Permit number Date received (mm/dd/yyyy) Print or type application: Before submitting an application, make a photocopy of this form and all other application materials for your records. The MPCA will review the application for completeness and provide an official response to the permittees within 30 days of receipt of all necessary application materials. Permit application assembly: To expedite the processing and review of your application, put this form and any other applicable permit application checklists for other waste types at the beginning of your submittal package. Please place all other application forms in order as listed on pages 2 and 3 of this form. Do not place forms and checklists in an appendix as this makes it difficult and time consuming for staff to locate them. Completeness instructions: The MPCA will not process an application without properly completed forms. All sections of required forms must be completed. If portions do not apply to this facility, please indicate using “n/a” or explain why it doesn’t apply. For permit reissuance, all forms information must also be completed in full even if the information requested is not changing from the existing permit. This allows the MPCA to quickly verify that the existing information is correct. Facility name: Bliss Collector Wastewater Treatment Facility Permit No.: MN0054119 Reason for application (check all that apply): New permit Permit modification Permit reissuance Resubmittal of an application determined to be incomplete. (Include copies of all returned forms with a resubmittal.) Does this action include construction activities: Construction is proposed as part of the permit action. No construction is proposed as part of this permit action. Form submittal Submit one (1) copy of the permit application package, including the permit application fee. At least one (1) copy must be a hard copy. The other may be an electronic copy. The completed form is to be returned to: Attn: Fiscal Services – 6th floor Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Optional: If you know your assigned permit writer, please email the electronic permit application. For reference, permit writer assignments can be located at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/wastewater-permit-writers. The hard copy package is still required to be submitted to the address above. Assistance If you have any questions regarding the selection of the proper forms or how to complete the required in formation, contact the MPCA staff assigned to your facility. Staff is assigned by regions and a director of regional staff can be found on the website at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/mpca-overview/agency-structure/mpca-offices/mpca-offices.html You may also contact the MPCA at: • In Metro area 651-296-6300 • Outside Metro area: 800-657-3864 • Email to: askpca@state.mn.us. https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-04a • 4/20/21 Page 2 of 3 Application forms selection (Check all boxes that apply and include the completed form with the submittal.) Listed below are application forms and required submittals that may be required for a typical municipal/domestic wastewater treatment facility application. All required forms must be completed in -full and included with the submittal. The MPCA cannot process an application that does not include all of the required application forms. All forms, instructions, and additional information can be found on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/enzq915. Check all boxes that apply. Include a copy of all completed application forms with the submittal . For MPCA use only Received Incomplete Complete Required for all water quality permits Transmittal form (wq-wwprm-7-03) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=6275 Application fee as specified on the Transmittal form Certification signature as specified on Transmittal form Required for all new permits and modifications with a change in design flow MPCA Design Flow and Loading Determination Guidelines for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Table 2, Worksheet (wq-wwtp5-20) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=13505 Major facilities (Major facilities are defined as those with an average wet weather design flow of 1.0 mgd or more) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NPDES Form 2A Application (22 pages) found on the EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/final2a.pdf Stormwater management for Municipal Major wastewater treatment permit holders (sector coverage only) Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector NPDES/SDS Permit application (wq-wwprm7-60a) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=19364 Instructions for Industrial Stormwater Permit Application Attachment to NPDES/SDS Permit (wq-wwprm7-60b) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=19368 NOTE: The MPCA has changed the way facilities certify as No exposure, permittees with an individual wastewater permit may no longer incorporate a no exposure certification/exclusion into a permit. Individual permittees that qualify for no exposure are required to obtain a no exposure certification through MPCA’s e-Services system. Directions to acquire a No exposure exclusion can be found on the MPCA website at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/industrial- stormwater. Discharge to surface water (for major and minor facilities) Municipal surface water discharge application (wq-wwprm7-09) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=6995 Discharge to land (i.e. spray irrigation, rapid infiltration) Municipal land discharge application (wq-wwprm7-10) found on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=6997 Municipal large subsurface treatment system application (wq-wwprm7-05) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=7000 Treatment facilities using stabilization ponds Municipal and Industrial pond attachment (wq-wwprm7-11) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=7002 Treatment facilities producing biosolids Municipal biosolids attachment (wq-wwprm7-16) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=7009 Additional attachments/applications Additional station location attachment (wq-wwprm7-49) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=7049 Additional chemical additives attachment (wq-wwprm7-48) http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=7051 Regulatory certainty application (wq-wwprm1-29a) https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwprm1-29a.doc Variance request form (wq-wwprm2-10b) https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwprm2-10b.doc Chloride variance request form (wq-wwprm2-10e) https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwprm2-10e.doc https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-04a • 4/20/21 Page 3 of 3 Listed below are application forms and required submittals that may be required for a typical municipal/domestic wastewater treatment facility application. All required forms must be completed in -full and included with the submittal. The MPCA cannot process an application that does not include all of the required application forms. All forms, instructions, and additional information can be found on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/enzq915. Check all boxes that apply. Include a copy of all completed application forms with the submittal . For MPCA use only Received Incomplete Complete Supplemental information (This information may be information required on one, or more of the forms listed above, such as a map. A single map that provides all the information required from multiple forms may be acceptable. A separate copy of each form is not required.) Topographic map. A schematic drawing or treatment process flow diagram showing all treatment components, direction of flow, compliance monitoring station locations, and discharge locations. List any additional documents, reports, plans, or attachments included as part of the application package. (Common types of supplemental information may include maps, process flow diagrams, facility plans, engineering reports, plans and specifications, technical checklists and other reports related to the facility or proposed project.) Other waste types Some facilities may also include other waste types that are not covered by this checklist. Facilities with multiple types of wastes should review the other permit application checklists to determine if additional forms and attachments may be required. Permit application checklist for industrial process wastewater (wq-wwprm7-04b) Permit application checklist for miscellaneous waste types (wq-wwprm7-04c) Permit application checklist for water treatment (wq-wwprm7-04d) www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-03 • 6/8/18 Page 1 of 8 Transmittal form NPDES/SDS Permit Program Doc Type: Permit Application Instructions on page 6 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Program regulates wastewater discharges to land and surface waters. This form is required for all applicants, except permit termination/transfer. Complete the application by typing or printing in black ink. Attach additional sheets as necessary. For more information, please contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) at: In Metro Area: 651-296-6300 or Outside Metro Area: 800-657-3864. Applications that are submitted without an authorized signature, the required application fee, and attachments will be returned. Please make a copy for your records. Send the completed permit application, attachments (including plans and specifications, if applicable), and check to: Attn: Fiscal Services – 6th floor Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Existing permit information Existing Permittee name: City of Scandia, MN Existing Permit number: MN 0054119 Contact information 1. Facility owner Organization name: City of Scandia, MN Mailing address: 14727 209th St. N City: Scandia State: MN Zip: 55073 Telephone: 651-433-5223 Fax: 651-433-5112 Email: c.fischer@ci.scandia.mn.us Authorized agent: Charles Fischer Title: Public Works Director 2. Facility operator Organization name: City of Scandia Mailing address: 14727 209th St. N City: Scandia State: MN Zip: 55073 Telephone: 651-433-5223 Fax: 651-433-5112 Email: c.fischer@ci.scandia.mn.us Authorized agent: Charles Fischer Title: Public Works Director 24-hour Emergency contact backup: Name: Charles Fischer Phone: 651-325-5218 3. Discharge Monitoring Report contact Organization name: City of Scandia Name: Charles Fischer Title: Public Works Director Mailing address: 15040 Scandia Trail N. City: Scandia State: MN Zip: 55073 Telephone: 651-433-5223 Fax: 651-433-5112 Email: c.fischer@ci.scandia.mn.us 4. Billing contact Organization name: City of Scandia Name: Charles Fischer Title: Public Works Director Mailing address: 14727 209th St. N City: Scandia State: MN Zip: 55073 Telephone: 651-433-5223 Fax: 651-433-5112 Email: c.fischer@ci.scandia.mn.us 24-hour Emergency contact backup: Name: Charles Fischer Phone: 651-325-5218 MPCA use only Permit Number Date received (mm/dd/yyyy) www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-03 • 6/8/18 Page 2 of 8 5. Engineer or Consultant Organization name: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Name: Ryan Goodman Title: City Engineer Mailing address: 3507 High Point Drive North City: Oakdale State: MN Zip: 55128 Telephone: 651-433-5223 Fax: 651-704-9971 Email: ryan.goodman@bolton-menk.com Certified operator information (if applicable) Certified operators are required for all municipal facilities and for industrial land application facilities. 6. Main certified operator Name: Charles Fischer Title: Operator Certification (check all that apply): A B C D Type IV Type v Certification number: D-77693037 Expiration date: 10/01/2025 7. Other certified operator(s) (attach additional sheets if necessary) Name: Jeff Anderson Title: Operator Certification (check all that apply): A B C D Type IV Type v Certification number: D-1795 Expiration date: 05/01/2025 Name: Title: Certification (check all that apply): A B C D Type IV Type v Certification number: Expiration date: Name: Title: Certification (check all that apply): A B C D Type IV Type v Certification number: Expiration date: Facility information 8. Facility information (Sand and gravel facilities can skip to #9.) Facility name: Bliss Collector Wastewater Treatment Facility Street address: 18925 Manning Trail City/Township: Scandia State: MN Zip: 55073 County: Washington Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T 32 N R 20 E W 31 NE NW Latitude Longitude Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected 45-13-15.1 -092-52-57.3 Digitized Map Tool 03/29/10 9. Is the facility located on tribal land? Yes No If yes, also apply to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region V, John Coletti (312-886-6106). 10. The 1993 Legislature revised the MPCA’s responsibilities in Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 1 (e)(10) “Requiring that applicants for wastewater discharge permits evaluate in their applications the potential reuses of the discharged wastewater;” As a result of this 1993 Law, the MPCA has been charged with requiring permit applicants to evaluate the reuse potential of their wastewater prior to discharge. Therefore, please provide an evaluation below of reuse potential of your wastewater prior to discharge. Some ideas include lawn watering, irrigation of parks or public property, use of cooling tower blowdown for thermal discharges, wetland reclamation, etc. This facility is a subsurface discharge facility, so discharge from the facility is contributing to groundwater recharge, which constitues reuse of discharged wastewater. 11. List all environmental permits the facility has received or applied for: N/A www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-03 • 6/8/18 Page 3 of 8 Surface water discharge (Sand and gravel facilities can skip to the application information section.) 12. Does the facility discharge to a surface water of the state? Yes No If no, the surface water discharge section does not need to be completed. 13. Identify all surface water discharge stations. Station ID: SD Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T N R E W Latitude Longitude Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected UTM Northing UTM Easting UTM Zone UTM Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected Receiving water: Station ID: SD Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T N R E W Latitude Longitude Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected UTM Northing UTM Easting UTM Zone UTM Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected Receiving water: Groundwater monitoring wells 14. Are there groundwater monitoring wells at the facility? Yes No If no, the groundwater monitoring wells section does not need to be completed. 15. Identify all groundwater monitoring well station locations: Station ID: GW 001 Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T 32 N R 20 E W 31 NE NW UTM Northing UTM Easting UTM Zone UTM Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected Station ID: GW 004 Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T 32 N R 20 E W 31 NE NW UTM Northing UTM Easting UTM Zone UTM Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected Station ID: GW 006 & 008 Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T 32 N R 20 E W 31 NE NW UTM Northing UTM Easting UTM Zone UTM Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-03 • 6/8/18 Page 4 of 8 Station Locations 16. Identify all other permitted station locations not identified above: Station ID: WS001 Station type: Influent Waste Stream (WS) Internal Waste Stream (WS) Surface Water Monitoring (SW) Land Application (LA) Other (specify): Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T 32 N R 20 E W 31 NE NW Latitude Longitude Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected Surface water (surface water monitoring stations only): Station ID: WS002 Station type: Influent Waste Stream (WS) Internal Waste Stream (WS) Surface Water Monitoring (SW) Land Application (LA) Other (specify): Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T 32 N R 20 E W 31 NE NW Latitude Longitude Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected Surface water (surface water monitoring stations only): Station ID: Station type: Influent Waste Stream (WS) Internal Waste Stream (WS) Surface Water Monitoring (SW) Land Application (LA) Other (specify): Township (26-71 or 101-168) Range (1-51) Section (1-36) ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) ¼ of ¼ Section (NW, NE, SW, SE) T N R E W Latitude Longitude Datum Coordinate collection method Date coordinate collected Surface water (surface water monitoring stations only): Submittals The applicable application and any applicable attachments required by the application. Map: attach a U.S. Geological Survey topographical map or similar that indicates the location of the existing or proposed fac ility, the location of the stations identified above, the receiving water (if applicable) and any additional information required by the applications applicable to your facility . Schematic: attach a schematic of the treatment facility that includes all facili ty components, indicating the direction of wastewater flow and the location of the stations identified above. (Industrial facilities only) Flow Diagram or Water Balance Diagram: attach a flow diagram on the process in its entirety from ra w water to discharge. (Major Municipal facilities only) Facility Description: attach a facility description that describes the collection system and wastewater treatment facility. Note: Please ensure this form and all applicable applications and attachments are complete. Incomplete applications will be returned. Review your existing NPDES/SDS Permit to ensure all required submittals have been completed. Failure to complete the application for reissuance or failure to complete requirements of the existing permit is considered a violation and may b e subject to enforcement. Page 4 Permit MN0054119 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap,increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase,IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User CommunityWashington County, MN ! ! ! !5 !5 KJ KJ KJ ! ! ! # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # P P P P P P P P P ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! W WW W W !!D !!D GoWX S a n dFilte r A S a n dFilte r B S a n dFilte r C In filtration Trench C Infiltratio n Tre n c h B Infiltration Trench A GW00 1 GW00 2 GW00 3 GW00 9 GW01 0 GW01 1 GW00 7GW008 GW00 4GW005 GW01 7 GW01 6GW015 GW01 2 GW01 3 GW01 4 GW00 63'' ForcemainManning Tr N9829 6 0 968960962 9629709649 8 0 9 8 0 9 7 2 9 8 0 9649 7 4 980968966970972974976978 WS0 02 WS0 01 Map Document: \\METROSOUTH1\gis\SCND\BlissDrainage\ESRI\Maps\Bliss_Drainfield.mxdDate Saved: 6/20/2016 1:11:17 PMCity of Scandia Bliss Drainfield 2023 CLIENTLO GO Legend !!W Monitoring Wells ##P Piezometers !!Sealed Well KJ Septic Tank !5 Valve Manhole !!D Dosing StationsDrainfield PipingForcemainParcels 0 80Feet I Source: Washington County, MnDOT, Esri Basemap www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-05 • 7/24/13 Page 1 of 5 Municipal LSTS Application SDS Permit Program Doc Type: Permit Application Instructions on Page 4 The State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Program regulates wastewater discharges to land. This application applies to municipal and privately owned facilities that treat domestic wastewater for disposal using large subsurface treatment systems (LSTS). Complete the application by typing or printing in black ink. Attach additional sheets as necessary. For more information , please contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) at: In Metro Area: 651-296-6300 or Outside Metro Area: 800-657-3864. Permittee name: City of Scandia, MN Permit number: MN 0054119 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 1. Is this a new facility? Yes No If yes, please complete and submit the LSTS Design Guidance Attachments 1-9 and 11 in addition to this application. 2. Is this an existing facility that currently does not have a SDS Permit? Yes No If yes, please complete and submit the LSTS Design Guidance Attachments 1-9 and 11 in addition to this application. 3. Please complete the following table by listing all existing facility components: Existing component Quantity Date of construction/ installation Additional information Individual Septic Tanks 70 1986 1,250-1,500 gallon septic tank at each house Shared STEP Stations 46 1986 15-gpm pumps each Lift Stations 2 1986 Collection System LS 1 & 2 Stilling Basins 3 1986 7,500-gallon septic tanks Dosing Stations 2 1986 LS 3 doses sand filters and LS 4 distributes to drainfields Single-Pass Sand Filters 3 1986 72' wide x 209' long (each) Drainfield Cells 3 1986 10 trenches (1,350 sq. ft. total) per cell 4. What is the classification of your facility? A B C D 5. Are there any plans to make changes to the facility within the next five years? Yes No Please complete the following table by listing all of the proposed changes to the facility components: Component New or removed Quantity Estimated date of installation/ removal Additional information Nitrogen Removal Process New One Summer 2025 It is expected this will be a Nitrification/Denitrification System. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-05 • 7/24/13 Page 2 of 5 6. Design flows of the existing and/or proposed facility: Existing Proposed (If applicable) Average wet weather design flow (AWW) 0.0198 mgd mgd If available, please provide: Average annual design flow (AAD) mgd mgd Average dry weather design flow (ADW) mgd mgd 7. Design influent concentration in milligrams per liter (mg/L) and/or the design loading in pounds per day for the following parameters: Parameter Existing Proposed (if applicable) 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day Ammonia Nitrogen mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day 8. Does this facility have nitrogen pretreatment? Yes No If yes, does the system use chemical addition? Yes No If yes, indicate what chemical is used: 9. Does this facility operate year-round? Yes No If no, specify the approximate dates the facility is in use: 10. Please complete the following table by indicating the number of service connections the facility was designed for and the number of those service connections that are currently connected the facility: Type Designed Connected Residential house 89 75 Mobile home Restaurant Business Campground site 11. Provide the total average annual gallons currently discharged to the drainfield: 3.45 Million (2021) Gallons 12. How was the total average annual gallons determined? (examples: flow meter, pump run time, estimation) Pump run times (Flow Meters were very recently installed to confirm) 13. Do you expect an increase in total average annual gallons discharged to the drainfield in the next five years? Yes No If yes, please describe: Groundwater Monitoring Wells 14. Are there any groundwater monitoring wells or piezometers at your facility? Yes No If yes, please include the following information for each piezometer or groundwater monitoring well. a. Unique well number b. Legal land description (PLS coordinates) c. Indicate if well or piezometer is upgradient or downgradient d. Copy of well log for each well or piezometer www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-05 • 7/24/13 Page 3 of 5 e. Surveyed elevation of inside riser pipe (where groundwater elevations are measured from) in well casing. Also indicate date of last survey and name of the certified land surveyor who conducted the survey Pretreatment 15. Is this facility a municipally or publicly owned facility? Yes No If yes, complete Questions 16-22. If no, Questions 16-22 do not need to be completed. 16. Does the facility influent waste stream include wastewater/residual waste from a municipal or industrial water treatment plant? Yes No If yes, provide the following: a. Name of water treatment facility: b. Type of water treatment facility (reverse osmosis, filter, etc.): c. Any potential wastes (arsenic, radium, etc.) that may impact the facility: d. The flow in gallons per week or gallons per month: 17. Does the facility have, or is it subject to, a formally delegated pretreatment program? Yes No 18. Provide a list of all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) that discharge to the facility: Name Total average flow (mgd) Flow from process wastewater (mgd) Flow from non- process wastewater (mgd) Principal products or raw materials used Considered a SIU? Is there currently a control mechanism and/or local limits? Subject to Categorical Standards? Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 19. Has a completed Pretreatment Notification of a Significant Industrial User’s Form been submitted to the MPCA for all of the above listed SIUs? Yes No 20. Do you anticipate significant changes in volume or quality of discharge from existing industrial users to the facility? Yes No If yes, please explain: 21. Do you anticipate any new industrial users to the facility in the next five years? Yes No If yes, please explain: 22. Have any of the industrial users caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the facility in the past three years? Yes No If yes, describe each episode, including the name of the industrial users and the events which caused the problems. 23. Is the facility subject to the Hazardous Waste Management Program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or does it accept any known hazardous waste material? Yes No If yes, please attach a copy of your existing RCRA permit per 40 CFR 122.21 regulations, including facility maps showing the www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-05 • 7/24/13 Page 4 of 5 location at which hazardous waste enters the treatment facility; copies of any sampling results of hazardous waste taken at your facility, etc. Attachments Biosolids Attachment: Biosolids can be a byproduct of LSTS wastewater treatment. Biosolids land application, incineration, or transfers are regulated by Minn. R. 7041 and 40 CFR 503 via wastewater permits. Septage can be defined as biosolids per the Minn. R. 7041. If your LSTS produces biosolids, you must complete the Biosolids Attachment form. If you an unsure whether your LSTS produces biosolids, you should complete the Biosolids Attachment form and include a note stating that you are unsure of whether the form is needed. Review the application and ensure all requested items are submitted w ith this application. Please make a copy for your records. Refer to the Transmittal Form for mailing instructions. Instructions Question 1, 2. The LSTS Design Guidance Attachments can be found on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ publications/wq-wwprm8-01.pdf or by contacting Beckie Olson at 651-757-2123. The attachments are located at the end of the LSTS Design Guidance document. Question 3. Complete the table with all of the existing facility components. Existing components to include are lift stations, grinder pumps, collection system, septic tanks, drainfield, nitrogen pretreatment, any additional treatment (peat filters, chemical a ddition). Provide the quantity, date the components were constructed and additional information providing further clarification of the facility components. The additional information must include, if applicable, but is not limited to the type of collection system (grav ity or pressure), type of nitrogen pretreatment, type of drainfield (traditional, chambers, drip line, etc.), square footage of drainfield area, drainfield material, etc. If your facility is comprised of more than one system, duplicate this table for each additional system. Example: Existing component Quantity Date of construction/ installation Additional information Septic Tank 40 2004 1,000 gallon septic tank at each house Forcemain 1 2004 2” forcemain to treatment system Septic Tank 1 2004 6,000 gallon influent tank Recirculating Sand Filter 2 2004 50’ by 100’ each Recirculation Tank 1 2004 6,000 gallons Denitrification Tank 1 2004 6,000 gallons with acetic acid addition and BIOPAC media Dosing Tank 1 2004 6,000 gallons Drainfield 4 2004 20,000 sq. ft. of trenches Question 4. Refer to Minn. R. ch. 9400.0500 for information on determining facility class. Question 5. Complete the table with all the proposed facility components. Refer to the instructions for Question 3. Question 6. Refer to the MPCA Design Flow and Loading Determination Guidelines for a definition of each flow type. The MPCA Design Flow and Loading Determination Guidelines for Wastewater Treatment Plants can be found at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-wwtp5-20.pdf. Question 10. A service connection is a connection for each individual house, mobile home, campsite, etc . If the facility services a type of connection not listed, for example, a dump station, community laundry or community bathroom/bathhouse, please indicate it in blank spaces provided in the chart. Question 15. Only municipally owned or publicly owned treatment works need to complete the Pretreatment Section . If the facility is privately owned, serves a housing development or serves a campground the Pretreatment Section does not apply . Question 18. A Significant Industrial User (SIU) is defined as any industrial user that discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of processed wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility, excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling, and boiler blowdown wastewater; process wastewater which makes up at least five percent of the facility’s design BOD loading; or has the potential, in the opinion of the Permittee or MPCA, to adversely impact the Permittee’s treatment works or the quality of the effluent. Permit issued: September 1, 2021 MN0054119 Permit expires: August 31, 2026 Page 6 of 41 4. Summary of stations and station locations Station Type of station Local name PLS location GW 001 Well, Upgradient MW - 1s T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 004 Well, Downgradient MW - 3s T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 006 Well, Downgradient MW - 4s T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 008 Well, Downgradient MW - 5d T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 009 Piezometer, Other Pz. a T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 010 Piezometer, Other Pz. b T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 011 Piezometer, Other Pz. c T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 012 Piezometer, Other Pz. d T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 013 Piezometer, Other Pz. e T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 014 Piezometer, Other Pz. f T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 015 Piezometer, Other Pz. g T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 016 Piezometer, Other Pz. h T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 017 Piezometer, Other Pz. i T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter GW 018 Well, Downgradient Proposed Down gradient Well WS 001 Influent Waste Dosing Station 1 T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter WS 002 Intermediate: WW to Land Sand Filter Effluent, Dosing Station 2 T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter WS 004 Intermediate: WW to Land Infiltration Trench A T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter WS 005 Intermediate: WW to Land Infiltration Trench B T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter WS 006 Intermediate: WW to Land Infiltration Trench C T32N, R20W, S31, NW Quarter of the NE Quarter www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-16 • 2/11/10 Page 1 of 4 Municipal Biosolids Attachment NPDES/SDS Permit Program Doc Type: Permit Application The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Program regulates wastewater discharges to land and surface waters. This form applies to municipal and sanitary sewer district facilities that generate biosolids, privately owned facilities with a mechanical wastewater treatment component that generates biosolids (i.e., “fast” systems), and industrial permittees that have a separate domestic wastewater treatment facility. Complete the attachment by typing or printing in black ink. Attach additional sheets as necessary. For more information , please contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) at: In Metro Area: 651-296-6300 or Outside Metro Area: 800-657-3864. Facility Information Permittee name: City of Scandia Permit number: MN 0054119 Biosolids Production Total U.S. dry ton estimate based on gallons or wet tons per latest 365 -day time period and percent total solids. 1. How many gallons or wet tons produced? 34,800 gallons or wet tons (choose one) 2. What is the percent of total solids? Unkown; percent solids has not been determined for septage from this facility. 3. How many dry tons are produced by permittee? Unknown; precent solids has not been determeind for spetage from this facility. 4. How many dry tons are produced by others? None 5. Estimated dry tons received from off site, include septage: None 6. Total dry tons: Unkown; percent solids has not been determined for septage from this facility. To calculate dry tons: Gallons x percent of Total Solids (decimal) divided by 240 for liquid biosolids Wet tons (wet weight) x percent of Total Solids (decimal) for dewatered biosolids Biosolids Use or Disposal Indicate the amount in U.S. dry tons for each chosen alternative listed below: Land applied as Class A or B: Distributed or marketed for land application as EQ Biosolids:* If land applied, who is the Type IV Certified Operator? Certification number: Expiration date: Telephone: E-mail: If land applied, when will biosolids be applied to sites? (i.e., monthly) Land filled: Contact person at Receiving Facility: Telephone: E-mail: Transferred to another facility: Smilies Sewer Service Receiving Facility: Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plan Contact person at Receiving Facility: Tim O'Donnell Telephone: 651-602-1269 E-mail: tim.odonnell@metc.state.mn.us Incinerated: Treatment Processes – How is pathogen reduction (PR) Met? (choose all that apply) Class A Options*** Class B Options Option 1A Time and temperature > 7% TS Option 1 Fecal Indicator Organism testing Option 1B time and temperature > 7% TS, small particles and heat dryers Option 2, PSRP Anaerobic Digestion Option 1C Time and temperature < 7% TS treated for less than 30 minutes Option 2, PSRP, Aerobic Digestion (to meet PR, these digesters must be heated) Option 1D Time and temperature < 7% TS treated for at least 30 minutes Option 2, PSRP Air Drying, conventional drying beds Option 2 High pH- High temperature alkaline process (basically the N-Viro process) Option 2 PSRP Composting www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-16 • 2/11/10 Page 2 of 4 List of options continues on page 2. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-16 • 2/11/10 Page 3 of 4 Class A Options*** Class B Options Option 5 PFRP Composting Option 2 PSRP Lime Treatment Option 5 PFRP Heat Drying – dryers Option 5 PFRP Heat Treatment Septage classified as biosolids: Option 5 PFRP ATAD Inject or incorporate within 6 hours Option 5 PFRP Pasteurization Lime Treatment PSRP = Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens PFRP = Process to Further Reduce Pathogens TS = Total Solids * If Exceptional Quality (EQ) biosolids are prepared for distribution or marketing, are you applying for “deregulation of the product with this permit?” Yes No. If yes, complete additional information required for EQ biosolids on page 3 Note: Deregulation is not permitted for liquid Exceptional Quality (EQ) biosolids. ** For each chosen option, select the appropriate Engineering Checklist, fill out and attach it to the permit application form if not already submitted to the MPCA previously for other reasons. *** Options 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D apply to batch or plug flow processes and temperature of the particles not air, however, 1B does assume small particles and effective heat transfer throughout particles as in the PFRP option for heat dryers. [Option 1A has is based on high solids fluid – i.e. eggnog.] Treatment Processes – How is vector attraction reduction (VAR) Met? (choose all that apply) Option 1 Volatile solids Reduction, minimum 38% over biosolids treatment process Option 2 Extended Anaerobic Bench Scale test Option 3 Extended Aerobic Bench Scale test Option 4 Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate test (SOUR test) Option 5 Aerobic, high temperature - Composting Option 6 Lime or Alkaline stabilization Option 7 Dried to 75% TS – for stabilized solids Option 8 Dried to 90% TS – for primary solids Option 9 Injected Option 10 Incorporated within 6 hours of application Describe and provide a diagram of the biosolids treatment processes and storage facilities. There are no biosolids treatment processes or storage facilities. The treated septage comes from septic tanks within the system. A topographic map of the treatment or storage facility extending one mile beyond the property boundary, showing the location of any biosolids management facilities, or sites and bodie s of water. Show the location of any wells known by the applicant or in public record used for drinking water within one-quarter mile of the treatment facility boundary. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwprm7-16 • 2/11/10 Page 4 of 4 Off site storage is permitted by individual permit or incorporated into your NPDES/SDS Permit. See below for additional permit application information. For a central or regional treatment or storage facility for biosolids or septage that intends to land apply the product, describe the sources of all waste contributions expected to be treated. N/A Representative sampling: For biosolids that are land applied and for biosolids that are stored for more than two years and then land applied, describe from where and how representative samples will be taken for land application events and/or to track quality of biosolids each year they are stored. Attach most recent analysis of biosolids. N/A For biosolids generated in septic tanks - analysis: Describe the size and location of the septic tanks and a description of any commercial (such as a restaurant) or industrial discharges to the treatment works. The commissioner will determine and notify the permit applicant if an analysis is required (Minn. R.7041.0700, subp. B.). Three (3) 7,500-gallon septic tanks located at the treatment facility site. One (1) 1,500-gallon and sixty-nine (69) 1,250-gallon individual septic tanks located throughout the collection system at individual homes. All discharges are residential waste; there are no commercial or industrial discharges. Review the attachment and ensure all requested items are submitted with this attachment. Please make a copy for your records. Refer to the Transmittal Form for mailing instructions. Additional Information for Exceptional Quality [EQ] Biosolids Proposed for Distribution or Marketing - “Deregulated Biosolids.” Minnesota Rule does not provide for an automatic “deregulation” for EQ biosolids. Whether or not a biosolids product is “deregulated” is based on the type of product and its proposed distribution. In general, this applies to dewatered biosolids products. “Deregulation” and any applicable conditions are contained in the permit specific to the product and distribution by the perm ittee. If the permittee also intends to mix the EQ product with any other material, the preparation of a material derived from biosolids must also be described in the permit application. It will be reviewed for technical soundness [of specific concern is pathogen control]. The preparation of the material derived from biosolids and quality control will be covered in the permit if necessary. EQ biosolids permit additional application requirements: Minn. R. 7041.0700 Submit a management plan that describes how the p erson who prepares the biosolids will ensure that the proposed distribution or land application of the biosolids meets the requirements of Minn. R. 7041. Include and discuss the following on an additional sheet of paper: • A copy of any permits issued to the applicant which contain conditions for the treatment of biosolids which are not issued by the MPCA. • The proposed method of use and distribution of the biosolids. • A copy of any labels or information sheets to be supplied to users o r distributors of the biosolids, if applicable. • The quantity of biosolids to be transported and the transportation schedule. • What information will be submitted on the annual report and when the annual report will be submitted. Additional Information for off site storage of biosolids and/or centralized treatment or storage of septage that will be land applied. Storage permit application requirements: Minn R. 7041.0700, Item J • The location on a topographic map depicting the area one mile beyond the proposed location . • The size of the storage facility or area. • The type of biosolids or septage to be stored or treated. • Operating conditions for receiving and removing biosolids or septage and handling spills if liquids are stored. Appendix D: PPL Application and MPCA Forms https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-02 • 10/8/19 Page 1 of 1 CWRF facilities plan submittal checklist Clean Water Revolving Fund (CWRF) Program Submissions Required for a Complete Facilities Plan Minn. R. 7077.0272 Instructions: The Facilities Plan may be submitted via email at ppl.submittals.pca@state.mn.us (and one hard copy submitted to the assigned Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [MPCA] Review Engineer). Facility information Project name: Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Proposed dates for construction: Spring 2025- Fall 2025 City’s authorized representative: Anne Hurlburt Title: Interim City Administrator Telephone: 651-433-2274 Mailing address: 14727 209th Street North Scandia, MN 55073-8503 City: Sandia State: MN Zip code: 55073-8503 Technical agent or consulting engineer: Jacob Humburg, P.E. Name of firm/organization: Bolton & Menk Inc. Telephone: 952-890-0509 ext.3167 Check yes or no for the following questions Is the Facilities Plan signed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota? Yes No Has the municipality in which the facility will be located held at least one public hearing to discuss the p roposed project? Yes No If yes, what was the date the hearing was held: A public hearing will be held 3/21/23. Check the boxes below if you have included the following items If all of the following items are not included with the Facilities Plan, the Facilities Plan is incomplete and may be returned or filed until a complete submittal is received. Facilities Plan review will not begin until a complete submittal is received. Please see Minn. R. 7077.0272 for more information about the content of facilities plan. The following forms can be found on the MPCA website at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/wastewater-financial-assistance. A completed CWRF cost and effectiveness certification checklist provided by the MPCA. A completed CWRF B3 2030 exemption form provided by the MPCA. A completed CWRF cost and effectiveness certification form provided by the MPCA. A summary of the public hearing documenting that the following items were discussed: The various treatment alternatives considered The location of the project site The reasons for choosing the selected treatment method The estimated sewer service charges A summary of the comments received at the public hearing and the action taken to address those comments . A complete list of addresses used for public notice purposes on a form provided by the MPCA. A copy of the resolution of the municipality’s governing body adopting the facilities plan. A list of ordinances or intermunicipal agreements required for the implementation and administration of the pr oject. A signed treatment agreement with each significant industrial user. For surface water dischargers only, a copy of the Preliminary Effluent Limits review letter provided by the MPCA. • Contact the MPCA to determine if a formal request for Preliminary Effluent Limits needs to be made for the project. • The alternatives analysis should address antidegradation requirements if the project is proposing an increase in flow or loading. A completed Environmental Information Worksheet provided by the MPCA. For individual sewage treatment systems that serve more than one structure, an assurance from the municipality stating that all property owners who will be served by the proposed system agree to be part of the system, to participate in the construction project, and to finance future operation, maintenance, and replacement of the system. Copies of all notifications, certifications, and comments received. https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-46b • 2/8/23 Page 1 of 3 CWRF cost and effectiveness checklist Clean Water Revolving Fund (CWRF) Program Doc Type: Wastewater Point Source Instructions: This checklist must be used with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Minnesota Clean Water Revolving Fund (CWRF) Cost and Effectiveness guidance document. The guidance document assists the consulting engineer in completing the cost and effectiveness analysis required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Section 602(b)(1 3). The cost and effectiveness analysis for a project must be further documented in the project Facilities Plan. This checklist is also an att achment to the MPCA Facilities Plan submittal checklist. These documents are available on our website here: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/apply-for-financial-assistance Project information Project name: Bliss Wastewater Treament Facility Improvments Date submitted (mm/dd/yyyy): 3/3/2023 Project Description: Constuction of new nitrification/denitrification process to remove nitrates. City: Scandia, MN MPCA Project Number: 280805 MPCA Review Engineer: Benjamin Carlson-Stehlin City’s authorized representative: Anne Hurlburt Email address: a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us Consulting engineer: Jacob Humburg, P.E. Email address: Jacob.Humburg@bolton-menk.com Cost analysis items Cost analysis items to be completed for all CWRF wastewater projects. Section Yes No II. Does the project owner have an asset management system in place? Indicate where the asset management system is documented in the Facilities Plan: IV.A. Does the Facilities Plan address energy conservation opportunities? Indicate where the energy conservation discussion is documented in the Facilities Plan: IV.B. Does the Facilities Plan address renewable energy opportunities? Indicate where the renewable energy discussion is documented in the Facilities Plan: IV.C.i. Does the Facilities Plan analyze water reuse options? Indicate where the water reuse options analysis is documented in the Facilities Plan: IV.C.ii. Does the Facilities Plan analyze installation of water efficient devices? Indicate where the use of water efficient devices analysis is documented in the Facilities Plan: IV.C.iii. Does the Facilities Plan analyze installation of new water meters or replacement of existing water meters? Indicate where the installation of new or replacement water meters analysis is documented in the Facilities Plan: Existing Wastewater Facilities- Treatment Facility Description 3C, new flow meters were installed in 2020. https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-46b • 2/8/23 Page 2 of 3 Section Yes No IV.C.iv. Does the Facilities Plan consider or include completed water audits and/or a conservation plan? Indicate where the discussion of water audits and/or a conservation plan is documented in the Facilities Plan: IV.D. Does the Facilities Plan include a completed Buildings, Benchmarks, and Beyond (B3) Sustainable Building (SB) 2030 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) exemption form? Indicate where the B3 SB 2030 WWTP exemption form is included in the Facilities Plan: Nonmonetary analysis items Applicable: Yes No To be completed for all new wastewater treatment facilities with design average wet weather (AWW) flow of greater than 100,000 gallons per day, or significant upgrades (meaning work on three or more major treatment units for any wastewater treatment facilities with a design AWW flow of greater than 1 million gallons per day). Section Yes No V.A.i. Does the Facilities Plan analyze project sustainability and climate resilience? Indicate where the discussion on project sustainability and climate resilience is documented in the Facilities Plan: V.A.ii. Does the Facilities Plan analyze how the project addresses water quality objectives? Indicate where the discussion on how the project addresses water quality objectives is documented in the Facilities Plan: V.A.iii. During the project planning process, did the owner consider project alternatives such as consolidation or regionalization with another or several other service areas? Indicate where the discussion on how the project addresses possible consolidation or regionalization is documented in the Facilities Plan: V.B.i. Are the project location and physical aspects discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where the discussion on the project location and physical aspects is located in the Facilities Plan: V.B.ii. Is project reliability discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where the discussion on project reliability is located in the Facilities Plan: V.B.iii. Is the project feasibility and operability discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where the discussion on the project feasibility and operability is located in the Facilities Plan: V.C.i. Are possible water conservation practices, water reuse and/or water recapture opportunities discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where the discussion on the project water conservation practices, water reuse , and/or water recapture opportunities is located in the Facilities Plan: V.C.ii. Are possible energy conservation practices discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where possible energy conservation practices are discussed in the Facilities Plan: https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-46b • 2/8/23 Page 3 of 3 Section Yes No V.C.iii. Are possible opportunities to recover and recycle or reuse other resources discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where possible opportunities to recover and recycle or reuse other resources options are discussed in the Facilities Plan: V.C.iv. Are possible opportunities to use green infrastructure components within the project discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where possible opportunities to use green infrastructure components within the project are discussed in the Facilities Plan: V.C.v. Are possible other environmental impacts of the project discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where possible other environmental impacts of the project are discussed in the Facilities Plan: V.D.i. Are possible considerations which may be related to certain industries using or served by public infrastructure discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where possible considerations related to certain industries using or served by public infrastructure are discussed in the Facilities Plan: V.D.ii. Are possible considerations which may be part of a local trend or demographics affecting the need or demand for a project discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where possible considerations which may be part of a local trend or demographics affecting the need or demand for a project are discussed in the Facilities Plan: V.D.iii. Are there possible environmental justice issues which may be considered for the project discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where possible environmental justice issues which may be considered for the project are discussed in the Facilities Plan: V.D.iv. Are there possible acceptability or affordability issues which may be considered for the project discussed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where possible acceptability or affordability issues which may be considered for the project are discussed in the Facilities Plan: Integrating cost and effectiveness analysis Applicable: Yes No To be completed for all new wastewater treatment facilities with design AWW flow of greater than 100,000 gallons per day, or significant upgrades (meaning work on three or more major treatment units for any wastewater treatment facilities with a design AWW flow of greater than 1 million gallons per day). Section Yes No VI. Has an integrated cost and effectiveness analysis of the cost factors and the other/nonmonetary factors for a project been completed in the Facilities Plan? Indicate where the integrated cost and effectiveness analysis of the cost factors and the other/nonmonetary factors for a project are discussed/located in the Facilities Plan: 03-03-2023 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-65 • 5/11/18 Page 1 of 1 CWRF B3 SB 2030 exemption form Clean Water Revolving Fund (CWRF) Program Wastewater Projects (Minn. Stat. § 216B.241, sub. 1-10 and 16B, sub. 1-4) Instructions: If at least one of the “Yes” statements is checked, the project is considered to have completed these requirements and is not required to submit additional information to meet the Building, Benchmarks, and Beyond (B3) provisions of the Sustainable Building (SB) 2030 Guidelines (B3 SB 2030). Sign and send the completed form to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) project engineer. If the answer to all of the statements is “No”, the project will submit a preliminarily approved Facilities Plan [Minn. R. 7077.0272] to B3 SB 2030 Wastewater Treatment Plant Review. Sign and send the completed form to the MPCA project engineer. Project information Project name: Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvments MPCA review engineer: Benjamin Carlson-Stehlin MPCA project number: 280805 Exempt criteria Yes No 1. The project is limited to environmental study. 2. The project is limited to planning and design. 3. The project is for emergency/disaster relief and/or protection. 4. The project is limited to minor modifications to an existing treatment facility. 5. The project is limited to modifications within a new or an existing building less than 10,000 square feet. 6. The project is limited to a new or existing collection system including lift stations. 7. The project is limited to pond system. 8. The project is limited to installation of a backup power generator. 9. The project is limited to a stormwater project If “Yes” to any of 1- 9 above, please provide a brief written description of the project and complete the Certification Statement below. Certification statement I certify that the information provided on this form is complete and accurate and that this project : Meets the exempt criteria established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Does not meet the exempt criteria and a preliminary approved Facilities Plan will be sent to the B3 SB 2030 Wastewater Treatment Plant Review Project Representative or Professional Engineer Print name: Jacob Humburg, P.E. Organization: Bolton & Menk Inc. Signature: Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 3/3/2023 wq-wwtp2-19 5/4/2007 Page 1 of 1 State Revolving Fund Project Schedule Form Municipality Name: Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Project Number: 280805 Proposed Completion Dates ACTIVITY Treatment System (Month/Year) Collection System (Month/Year) 1. Award Construction Contracts October 2024 2. Issue Notice to Proceed with Construction March 2025 3. Collection System and All Connections Complete September 2025 4. Initiate Facilities Operation October 2025 5. Municipality Submits a One-year Certification Form stating that the project conforms to the approved plans and specifications and meets the permit effluent limitations (12 months from initiation of operation). October 2025 Print Authorized Representative Name: Jacob Humburg, P.E. Title: Environmental Project Engineer Signature: Date: 03/02/2023 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-20 • 1/12/18 Page 1 of 8 Environmental Information Worksheet (EIW) form Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program Doc Type: Wastewater Point Source Eligible applicants seeking funds for clean water (stormwater and wastewater) projects through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (commonly referred to as the CWSRF Program) are required by Minn. R. ch. 7077.0272, subp. 2.a. F. and Minn. R. ch. 7077.0277, subp. 3.E., to complete an Environmental Information Worksheet (EIW). This information will be used to assess environmental impacts, if any, caused by the project. Questions: Contact Review Engineer or Bill Dunn at 651-757-2324 or bill.dunn@state.mn.us. 1. Project title: City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan 2. Proposer: City of Scandia, MN Contact person: Teresa Burgess, PE CPESC Title: Sr. Project Engineer Address: 1960 Premier Drive Mankato, MN 56001 Phone: 507-625-4171 x 2638 Fax: 507-625-4177 3. Project location: County: Washington County City/Twp: Scandia NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section: 31 Township: 32 Range: 20 Tables, Figures, and Appendices attached to the EIW: • County map showing the general location of the project; • United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); • Site plan showing all significant project and natural features. 4. Description: a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less. Rehabilitation and expansion of the existing WWTF. The work is proposed to be completed in two phases. The improvements will allow the City to meet the permit requirements. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction . Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The City proposes to rehabilitate and expand the existing WWTF. The work is propose d to be completed in two phases. The first phase will consist of: Construction of a new Biosolids Storage Tank with an Aerobic Digester, Demolition of Existing Biosolids Storage Building, Influent Lift Station Improvements, Electrical/SCADA Improvements, www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-20 • 1/12/18 Page 2 of 8 UV Replacement, and Improvements to the “Inside” Clarifier The second phase will consist of upsizing the entire liquid stream to accommodate increasing populations and more stringent regulations. Construction of an Additional Clarifier, Provide Additional Extended Aeration, Filter Modifications/Replacement, and Pretreatment Expansion and Upgrades The first phase is proposed to begin design in 2023. Construction would begin in 2024 an d be completed in 2025. Design for the second phase is proposed to begin in 2030 with all construction completed by fall 2035. The existing WWTF is proposed to continue to treat wastewater during the construction process. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is in Scandia, Minnesota. The system was constructed in 1986. It is a soil- based subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) consisting of a gravity and pressure collection system with two lift stations , three septic tanks in series totaling 7,500 gallons, one lift station that feeds the sand filters, three 15,000 square foot sand filters, one lift station that feeds the drainfields, and three drainfield trench cells at 1,210 feet of trench per cell. The facility treats wastewater from approximately 75 residential homes. There are 70 individual septic tanks and 46 shared septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) systems through which wastewater passes before entering the WWTF. Each STEP station has a 15 gallons per minute (gpm) pump. The current permit regulates the system as a Class D WWTP with a design flow of 19,800 gallons per day (gpd) and is effective from September 1, 2021, through August 31, 2026. The area served is fully developed, and expansion of the service area is not anticipated nor is the population or land use within the Scandia Bliss service area will change in the next 20 years. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? Yes No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. Not applicable e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. Not applicable 5. Project magnitude data Total Project Area (acres) 17.4 or Length (miles) Number of Residential Units: Unattached 0 Attached 0 maximum units per building 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area (gross floor space): total square feet To be determine during design Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): To be determine during design Office Manufacturing Retail Other Industrial Warehouse Institutional To be determine during design Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Building height TBD during design If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings NA 6. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Unit of government Type of application Status MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater NPDES/SES Permit Future City Plan and Specification Approval Future www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-20 • 1/12/18 Page 3 of 8 7. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The WWTF work is at the site is an existing WWTF. The site is surrounded to the north, south, and west by agricultural fields and to the east by residential development. The project will not require any changes to existing land uses. The project design will meet or exceed MPCA and County requirements for set-back and buffering of the WWTF site. There are no known hazards due to past site uses, soil contamination, or abandoned storage tanks. There are no hazardous liquid or gas pipelines likely to be encountered by this project. 8. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands Lawn/landscaping 8.6 8.0 Wooded/forest Impervious Surfaces 8.8 9.4 Brush/grassland Other (describe) Cropland Total 17.4 17.4 9. Fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources. a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. b. Are any state (endangered or threatened) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: MCE #2023-00127 Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Automated reviews were completed on the MN DNR’s Minnesota Conservation Explorer portal and the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Copies of the documents from those reviews are attached in the appendix. The Conservation Explorer was referred for additional review by MN DNR NHIS Staff. The species identified in the reviews are discussed below. Species (Status) – Project Impacts Northern Long-eared Bat (Endangered) - Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota. From November to March, they hibernate in caves or mines. Active season habitat includes forested/wooded and adjacent areas such as emergent wetlands, edges of agricultural fields, pastures, and human -made structures. Based on the IPaC submission, this project is consistent with the activities analyzed in the PBO. The Action has the potential to affect the northern long-eared bat if they are present during tree removal; however, no tree removal is proposed with this project. Higgins Eye (Endangered), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate), Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Endangered), Tricolor Bat (Proposed Endangered), and Winged Mapleleaf (Endangered) - - The USFWS online Minnesota- Wisconsin Endangered Species Determination Key was completed for this project. A determination of no effect was reached for these species. A copy of the Consistency Letter is included in the Appendix. Bald Eagle- (Eagle Act) -Typically choose to nest in forested areas close to the water and away from human activity, there are no known eagle nests nor attractive habitats in or near the project areas. Black Tern- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -A migratory bird that winters along Central America and northern South America coasts. The bird feeds primarily on aquatic insects by dipping its bill to the water surface while in flight. The MN Breeding Bird Atlas does not list any observed evidence of breeding in the project area. Black-billed Cuckoo- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -Diet is large insects, especially caterpillars, and cicadas during outbreaks, grasshoppers, crickets, butterflies, and occasionally eggs of birds. Nests are platform-like between two branches or close to the trunk; relatively low (1–2 m) in thick shrubbery, saplings, or vines. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-20 • 1/12/18 Page 4 of 8 Bobolink- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -Diet is terrestrial insects, weed seeds, and small grains. Ground nesting, usually at the base of grassland forbs. Canada Warbler- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -A long-distance migrant; winters are spent in northern South America. Diet is insects captured by fly-catching, foliage gleaning, hover gleaning, and ground gleaning. Open-cup nests are located on or near the ground in dense undergrowth. The MN Breeding Bird Atlas does not list any observed evidence of breeding in the project area. Chimney Swift- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -A long-distance migrant that winters in NW South America. An aerial insectivore. Nests in chimneys or tree hollows. There is no observed evidence of breeding in the project area. Golden-winged Warbler- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -Nests areas of thick undergrowth, low cover, scrub, overgrown pastures; and similar. Nests are on or a little above ground, in grass tuft, fern, or weed clump, or concealed in herbage. The MN Breeding Bird Atlas does not list any observed evidence of breeding in the project area. Henslow’s Sparrow- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -A short-distance migrant that winters in the SE United States. Diet is An omnivorous ground feeder that consumes insects, particularly grasshoppers, crickets, beetles, and seeds. Open- cup nests are located on or near the ground; surrounding ground litter may form a partial dome over the top. The MN Breeding Bird Atlas does not list any observed evidence of breeding in the projec t area. Lesser Yellowlegs- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -Dainty migratory shorebird. Most likely present in shallow, weedy wetlands and flooded fields in spring and fall. Red-headed Woodpecker- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -Irregular or short-distance migrant; movements influenced by mast crop abundance. Mast is the fruit of forest trees and shrubs, such as acorns and other nuts. Omnivorous diet of seeds, insects, and fruits acquired by fly catching, ground foraging, bark gleaning, bark drilling, and fo liage gleaning. Mast crops are important in the winter. Nests in the cavity of a dead tree or dead limb of a tree. The MN Breeding Bird Atlas does not list any observed evidence of breeding in the project area. Ruddy Turnstone- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -A long-distance migrant that is not known to breed or winter in Minnesota. Usually feeds singly or in small numbers; may feed with other shorebirds along sandy or rocky beaches. May form large flocks (500 or more) during migration. Sleeps or rests in f locks. Rusty Blackbird- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -Migratory birds likely present in late October. Prefers wet areas. Short-billed Dowitcher- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -A long-distance migrant that is not known to breed or winter in Minnesota. Probes mud and sand in search of insects, marine worms, crustaceans, and mollusks. Wood Thrush- (Bird of Conservation Concern) -Ideal habitat includes trees over 50 feet, moderate understory, an open floor, and water nearby. Most likely present in Late May through mid-June. Dust and sediment control will be used to minimize and avoid permanent impacts on surrounding areas that support wildlife. Work hours will be limited to reduce the potential impact on nighttime species that are found near the site. The project as proposed will create noise and vibration that will likely cause wildlife in the area to move further from the project site. Construction impacts are temporary and will cease with the completion of the project construction. Wildlife displaced by the project is expected to return once the construction is complete. 10. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment) of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measure s to minimize impacts. Give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory (PWI) number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. Not applicable 11. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. Not applicable 12. Water-related land use management districts. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. No. The FEMA FIRMETTER shows that the project is in Zone X. Zone X is an area of minimal flooding. A copy of the FIRMETTE is attached to this report. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-20 • 1/12/18 Page 5 of 8 13. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Yes No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. Not applicable 14. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: 17.4 Acres: 60,000 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. The WWTF was mass graded when the WWTF was constructed in 1999. There are no steep slopes or highly erodible soils on or adjacent to the site. An erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared with the project design. The plan will incl ude best management practices for each stage of construction. Typical best management practices that will be considered for the project include perimeter sediment control, construction exits, and prompt soil stabilization. 15. Water quality – surface-water runoff. a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any storm water pollution prevention plans. The project will create less than 1.0 acres of new impervious. An erosion and sediment control plan will be implemented during construction to avoid impact due to construction stormwater runoff. An increase of less than 1.0 acres in a watershed will have a de minimis impact on the runoff rate, volume, or water quality. No permanent stormwater control or treatment facilities are proposed with this project. A construction stormwater pollution prevention plan will be developed during project design. Best management practices such as construction phasing, perimeter sediment control, inlet control, and the prompt establishment of permanent cover will be used in the design. b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Stormwater runoff sheet flows from the WWTF to the surrounding properties. Water that does not infiltrate ultimately enters White Rock Lake. The project is expected to have a de minimus impact on the quality of the receiving water. 16. Water quality – wastewater. a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. The site is an existing WWTF that treats municipal wastewater. The site generates a small amount of wastewater from the onsite office facilities including restrooms. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. The existing WWTF facility has provided adequate treatment to meet historical NPDES discharge requirements, but will not be able to meet new more stringent permit requirements and the needs of the growing population. The rehabilitated WWTF will meet the effluent standards included in the new NPDES/SDS permit. c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility’s ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. The site is an existing WWTF that treats municipal wastewater. d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. Not applicable 17. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. a. Approximate depth (in feet) to Groundwater 10 minimum; 34 average. Bedrock: 130 minimum; 130 average. Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to groundwater and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. The Natural Resources Research Institute online interactive Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas shows that the site is not an area of groundwater recharge. The MN DNR Karst Feature Inventory shows no known karst issues on or near www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-20 • 1/12/18 Page 6 of 8 this site. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. Soils likely to be found on the site include: Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name 158B Zimmerman fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes 158C Zimmerman fine sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes 159B Anoka loamy fine sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes 162 Lino loamy fine sand 454B Mahtomedi loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 543 Markey muck 1813B Lino variant loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Soils on the site are a mix of hydrologic soil groups A and A/D. Soils are expected to have a high infiltration rate. Having a spill prevention plan and appropriate spill response materials on hand will be important to avoid and minimize the potential for contamination of groundwater. The construction stormwater pollution prevention plan will include best management practices to reduce erosion and control sediment migration as well as a spill prevention and control plan. The site’s existing spill prevention and control plan for the operation of the WWTF will be reviewed during design and updates will be made if needed. 18. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks. a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, i ncluding solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. No hazardous wastes will be generated during construction. Solid wastes generated during construction will be collected by the Contractor and disposed of at an appropriate garbage disposal facility. Waste ge nerated during wastewater treatment will be similar in nature and volume to that produced by the existing WWTF. The site will dispose of these materials as permitted in the NPDES/SDS permit. Office waste will continue to be collected and disposed of by the same garbage hauler serving the existing WWTF. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. The chemicals and materials used in the operation and maintenance of the WWTF are stored where they are protected from stormwater contact. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. There are no known petroleum storage tanks in the project disturbance limits. Several tanks hold wastewater during various stages of the treatment process. There is an existing spill response plan in p lace for the WWTF. This plan will be reviewed and updated with the project design. 19. Traffic. Parking spaces added: 0 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 2 Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 0 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: NA Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary . If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. No increase in daily trips is created by the completion of this project. 20. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air quality, including c arbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. No increase in daily trips is created by the completion of this project. 21. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing), any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides), and ozone - depleting chemicals (chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-20 • 1/12/18 Page 7 of 8 proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. Nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane are greenhouse gases emitted from WWTF. This project includes rehabilitation and improvements at an existing WWTF to meet permit requirements. The project as proposed does not change the source, volume, or water quality of the influent to the WWTF. The project design will follow industry standards for wastewater treatment and energy efficiency. The project as proposed will not increase greenhouse gas emissions. The collection system improvements wil l serve the same properties served by the existing collection system. 22. Odors, noise, and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? Yes No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) The project construction will generate odors from vehicle exhaust, noise, and dust during construction. These will be mitigat ed by requiring that construction vehicles are in good working order, limiting work hours, and use of dust control such as water. The construction-related odor, noise, and dust impacts are temporary and will cease once the construction is complete. After construction ceases the site odors, noise, and dust will return to the existing condition. 23a. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Projects should search the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) National Register of Historic Places database. *Note: Project proposers must contact the SHPO at datarequestshpo@mnhs.org to request a database review to obtain information on any known historical or archaeological sites in the project area. Include a copy of correspondence with SHPO with the submittal of this EIW form. a. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? Yes No b. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? Yes No c. Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? Yes No d. Scenic views and vistas? Yes No e. Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resources. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The area has has been mass graded, therefore the site has low potential to contain intact cultural resources. A dust control plan will be in place to protect near by resources during construction. This is a short-term impact that will cease once construction is completed. Part 658 of the Farmland Protection Policy Act §658.2 states “Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage.” The project is located on the site of the existing WWTF. The site is committed to urban development and is therefore not farmland. 23b. Section 106 Review (36 CFR 800) is required for all CWRF projects. The following forms can be found on the MPCA Wastewater and Stormwater Financial Assistance website at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/ppl. Select Clean Water Revolving Fund tab; then scroll to Facilities Plan and Facilities Plan Supplement for Wastewater Treatment Systems heading. a. Project is exempt from review (attach completed Exemption Checklist) Yes No b. Project is required to complete further Section 106 Review: Yes No a. SHPO b. Tribal consultation c. Other Consulting parties 24. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? Yes No If yes, explain. The project as proposed does not create any new glare, lights, plumes from cooling towers, or exhaust stacks. 25. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? Yes No If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project a nd explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. The WWTF project is at the site of the existing WWTF. The project will extend the useful life of the existing WWTF and improve the water quality of the effluent discharged. The project as proposed will cause temporary noise, dust, and traffic impacts t o the adjacent properties during construction. These impacts are temporary and will cease with the completion of the construction. 26. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-20 • 1/12/18 Page 8 of 8 The project is the rehabilitation and improvement of the existing WWTF. The project does not require any new infrastructure o r services to serve the project. 27. Cumulative impacts. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects” when determining the need for an environmental impact statement . Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available info rmation relevant to determining whether there is potential for significa nt environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). The project as proposed is intended to meet current and future permit requirements. The project will extend the life of the existing WWTF and improve the water quality of the effluent discharged from this WWTF to the receiving water. There are no previous projects. There is no planned future project beyond the work described in the Facility Plan and this EIW. 28. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. There are no known potential environmental impacts other than those described in this EIW. 29. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project i s begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. The work is located in previously disturbed soils and there are no buildings in the area that would require additional review for historic significance. The Conservation Explorer was referred for additional review by MN DNR NHIS Staff. A review by SHPO and THPO agencies will be completed in the summer of 2023. There are no other impacts or issues that were identified in the preparation of this EIW that require additional investigation before the project begins. There are no permit conditions not listed or discussed in this report that require additional review or mitigative measures. The facility plan for this project contains details and costs for the selected option. In addition to the selected option, th is EIW considered the Do-nothing option. Doing nothing would delay the necessary improvements likely resulting in increased maintenance and energy costs in addition to increased future construction costs. 75 2.3 Map Name 5270 Feet Disclaimer: This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. Bolton & Menk, Inc. is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 2/26/2023 4:50 PM 18741 18925 19000 19235 19261 19453 19441 1862318631 1863318643 18657 18653 18773 10700 18339 18509 1852118526 1853318540 109961098810980109661093010914 1854318546 18553 185511097610955 10920 18569 10890 18561 18567 18590 18601 1860518602 18613 18599 18570 18629 18659 1866518681 1866718711 18687 18677 18685 18691 18782 18785 18770 18794 18804 189051118118919 18819 18814 18829 18834 18884 18855 18886 11133 1896511110 1897511155 18960 18950 11140 18997 11080 1900518990 19009 19015 19045 19025 19010 19039 19044 19067 19085 19077 19083 19091 19107 19076 19111 19123 1913519126 19151 19146 19159 19156 19169 19201 1918919166 192031921519186 1921719225 19229 19230 19120 10860 19060 11270 19301 18616 18849 10889 19130 11090 11085 18558 18941 18541 Big Marine Lake 185th St NManning Trail N192nd St N Langl yAveN187th St N L a y t o n C t NLanglyCtN190th St N 186th St N189th S t N LaytonAveN191st St N Lamar AveNLarkspurAveNMap Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\SCND\0N1123997\ESRI\Pro\SCND_BlissWWTFPlan_02192023.aprx | Username: remington.zeppelin | Date Saved: 2/19/2023 5:01 PMLegend Parcels Bliss Sanitary Sewer Service Area Bliss WWTF Dosing Stations Drainfield Piping Drainfield Features 0 350 Feet Source: City of Scandia, Washington County, PWI !I Bliss System City of Scandia Figure 2.1 Location Map - Service Area February 2023 City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan MCE #: 2023-00127 Page 1 of 4 Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details have not been finalized and the results are not official. Project Name: City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan Project Proposer: City of Scandia, MN Project Type: Utilities, Sewage Treatment Plant Project Type Activities: Structure Removal or Bridge Removal;Waterbody, watercourse, streambed impacts (e.g., discharge, runoff, sedimentation, fill, excavation) TRS: T32 R20 S30, T32 R20 S31 County(s): Washington DNR Admin Region(s): Central Reason Requested: Federal Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Assessment Project Description: The City proposes to rehabilitate and expand the existing WWTF. The work is proposed to be completed in two phases. The first phase will consist of: Construction ... Existing Land Uses: The site is an existing wastewater treatment facility. Landcover / Habitat Impacted: The site has mowed lawn-type grasses. Waterbodies Affected: There are no waterbodies in or near the project area. No dewatering is anticipated. Groundwater Resources Affected: The wastewater treatment facility discharges to three infiltration trenches located on the site. This project will allow the facility to meet the NPDES/SDS permit requirements for the facility. Previous Natural Heritage Review: No Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS Category Results Response By Category Project Details No Comments No Further Review Required Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Needs Further Review State-protected Species in Vicinity State-Listed Species of Special Concern Comments Recommendations Federally Listed Species Comments RPBB High Potential Zone 2/23/2023 04:10 PM City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan MCE #: 2023-00127 Page 2 of 4 February 23, 2023 Project Name: City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan Project Proposer: City of Scandia, MN Project Type: Utilities, Sewage Treatment Plant Project ID: MCE #2023-00127 AUTOMATED RESULTS: FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED As requested, the above project has undergone an automated review for potential impacts to rare features. Based on this review, one or more rare features may be impacted by the proposed project and further review by the Natural Heritage Review Team is needed. You will receive a separate notification email when the review process is complete and the Natural Heritage Review letter has been posted. Please refer to the table on the cover page of this report for a summary of potential impacts to rare features. For additional information or planning purposes, use the Explore Page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer to view the potentially impacted rare features or to create a Conservation Planning Report for the proposed project. If you have additional information to help resolve the potential impacts listed in the summary results, please attach related project documentation in the Edit Details tab of the Project page. Relevant information includes, but is not limited to, additional project details, completed habitat assessments, or survey results. This additional information will be considered during the project review. 2/23/2023 04:10 PM City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan MCE #: 2023-00127 Page 3 of 4 2/23/2023 04:10 PM City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan MCE #: 2023-00127 Page 4 of 4 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 2/23/2023 04:10 PM February 23, 2023 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 Phone: (952) 858-0793 Fax: (952) 646-2873 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2023-0048859 Project Name: City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).   Threatened and Endangered Species The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The  Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.   Consultation Technical Assistance Please refer to refer to our Section 7 website for guidance and technical assistance, including step-by-step instructions for making effects determinations for each species that might be present and for specific guidance  on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, USDA Rural  Development projects, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. 02/23/2023   2    1. 2. We recommend running the project (if it qualifies) through our Minnesota-Wisconsin Federal Endangered Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin ("D-key")). A demonstration video showing how-to  access and use the determination key is available. Please note that the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key is the third option of 3 available d-keys. D-keys are tools to help Federal agencies and other project proponents determine if their proposed action has the potential to adversely affect federally listed species and designated critical habitat. The Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key includes a structured set of questions that assists a project proponent in determining whether a proposed project qualifies for a certain predetermined consultation outcome for all federally listed species found in Minnesota and Wisconsin (except for the northern long-eared bat- see below), which includes determinations of “no effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In each case, the  Service has compiled and analyzed the best available information on the species’ biology and the impacts of  certain activities to support these determinations. If your completed d-key output letter shows a "No Effect" (NE) determination for all listed species, print your IPaC output letter for your files to document your compliance with the Endangered Species Act. For Federal projects with a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination, our concurrence becomes  valid if you do not hear otherwise from us after a 30-day review period, as indicated in your letter. If your d-key output letter indicates additional coordination with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office is necessary (i.e., you get a “May Affect” determination), you will be provided additional  guidance on contacting the Service to continue ESA coordination outside of the key; ESA compliance cannot be concluded using the key for “May Affect” determinations unless otherwise indicated in your output letter. Note: Once you obtain your official species list, you are not required to continue in IPaC with d-keys, although in most cases these tools should expedite your review. If you choose to make an effects determination on your own, you may do so. If the project is a Federal Action, you may want to review our section 7 step-by-step instructions before making your determinations.              Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed Species If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then  project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed  species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for no effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated  IPaC species list report for your records.  If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must  determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed and Candidate Species on our office website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is no effect. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records.  02/23/2023   3    3. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office  for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred. Northern Long-Eared Bats Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in determining if your project may affect these species. This species hibernates in caves or mines only during the winter. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, the hibernation season is considered to be November 1 to March 31. During the active season (April 1 to October 31) they roost in forest and woodland habitats. Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long-eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well  as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human- made structures, such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be affected.  Examples of unsuitable habitat include: Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas, Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas), A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and A monoculture stand of shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees. If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the  following activities are proposed: Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year, Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine, Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine, Construction of one or more wind turbines, or Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains. If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No 02/23/2023   4    Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC  species list report for your records.  If any of the above activities are proposed, and the northern long-eared bat appears on the user’s species list,  the federal project user will be directed to either the northern long-eared bat 4(d) D-key or the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Railways Administration, and Federal Transit Administration Indiana bat/ Northern long-eared bat D-key, depending on the type of project and federal agency involvement. Similar to the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key, these d-keys helps to determine if prohibited take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter. The 4(d) D-key streamlines consultation under the 2016 range-wide programmatic biological opinion for the 4(d) rule. Please note: On November 30, 2022, the Service published a proposal final rule to reclassify the northern long-eared bat as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. On January 26, 2023, the Service published a 60-day extension for the final reclassification rule in the Federal Register, moving the effective listing date from January 30, 2023, to March 31, 2023. This extension will provide stakeholders and the public time to preview interim guidance and consultation tools before the rule becomes effective. When available, the tools will be available on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website (https://www.fws.gov/species/northern-long- eared-bat-myotis-septentrionalis). Once the final rule goes into effect on March 31, 2023, the 4(d) D-key will no longer be available (4(d) rules are not available for federally endangered species) and will be replaced with a new Range-wide NLEB D-key (range-wide d-key). For projects not completed by March 31, 2023, that were previously reviewed under the 4(d) d-key, there may be a need for reinitiation of consultation. For these ongoing projects previously reviewed under the 4(d) d-key that may result in incidental take of the northern long-eared bat, we recommend you review your project using the new range-wide d-key once available. If your project does not comply with the range-wide d-key, it may be eligible for use of the Interim (formal) Consultation framework (framework). The framework is intended to facilitate the transition from the 4(d) rule to typical Section 7 consultation procedures for federally endangered species and will be available only until spring 2024. Again, when available, these tools (new range-wide d-key and framework) will be available on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website. Whooping Crane Whooping crane is designated as a non-essential experimental population in Wisconsin and consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is only required if project activities will occur within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. If project activities are proposed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, then you are not required to consult. For additional information on this designation and consultation requirements, please review “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.”   Other Trust Resources and Activities Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should bald or golden eagles occur within or near the project area please contact our office for further coordination. For communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below. Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically 02/23/2023   5    ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings. Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts. Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and  the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds. Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities. State Department of Natural Resources Coordination While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your proposed project area. Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: Review.NHIS@state.mn.us Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: DNRERReview@wi.gov We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with questions or for additional information. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Migratory Birds Wetlands 02/23/2023   1    OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 (952) 858-0793 02/23/2023   2    PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2023-0048859 Project Name:City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan Project Type:Federal Grant / Loan Related Project Description:The City proposes to rehabilitate and expand the existing WWTF. The work is proposed to be completed in two phases. The first phase will consist of: Construction of a new Biosolids Storage Tank with an Aerobic Digester, the Demolition of the Existing Biosolids Storage Building, Influent Lift Station Improvements, Electrical/SCADA Improvements, UV Replacement, and Improvements to the "Inside" Clarifier The second phase will consist of upsizing the entire liquid stream to accommodate increasing populations and more stringent regulations. Construction of an Additional Clarifier, Provide Additional Extended Aeration, Filter Modifications/Replacement, and Pretreatment Expansion and Upgrades The first phase is proposed to begin design in 2023. Construction would begin in 2024 and be completed in 2025. Design for the second phase is proposed to begin in 2030 with all construction completed by fall 2035. The existing WWTF is proposed to continue to treat wastewater during the construction process. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@45.2237671,-92.88489822195706,14z Counties:Washington County, Minnesota 02/23/2023   3    1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME STATUS Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045 Threatened Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 Proposed Endangered CLAMS NAME STATUS Higgins Eye (pearlymussel) Lampsilis higginsii No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5428 Endangered Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4127 Endangered 1 02/23/2023   4    INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9383 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/L3QD4BKQF5A67GKS56XWJFCRIQ/documents/ generated/5967.pdf Endangered CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. 02/23/2023   1    USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. 02/23/2023   1    1. 2. 3. MIGRATORY BIRDS Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 Black Tern Chlidonias niger This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093 Breeds May 15 to Aug 20 1 2 02/23/2023   2    NAME BREEDING SEASON Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 20 to Aug 10 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745 Breeds May 1 to Jul 20 Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3941 Breeds May 1 to Aug 31 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres morinella This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds elsewhere Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds elsewhere Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Breeds elsewhere Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 02/23/2023   3    1. 2. 3. PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe 02/23/2023   4     no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black Tern BCC Rangewide (CON) Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) Bobolink BCC Rangewide (CON) Canada Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Golden-winged Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Henslow's Sparrow BCC Rangewide (CON) Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Ruddy Turnstone BCC - BCR Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 02/23/2023   5    ▪ ▪ ▪ Short-billed Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf MIGRATORY BIRDS FAQ Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. 02/23/2023   6    1. 2. 3. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. 02/23/2023   7    Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. 02/23/2023   1    ▪ WETLANDS Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1A 02/23/2023   2    IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Bolton & Menk, Inc. Name:Teresa Burgess Address:1960 Premier Drive City:Mankato State:MN Zip:56001 Email teresa.burgess@bolton-menk.com Phone:5076254171 February 24, 2023 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 Phone: (952) 858-0793 Fax: (952) 646-2873 In Reply Refer To: Project code: 2023-0048859 Project Name: City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan IPaC Record Locator: 379-122833023 Subject:Consistency letter for 'City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan' for specified threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location consistent with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Endangered Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin DKey). Dear Teresa Burgess: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on February 24, 2023 your effect determination(s) for the 'City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan' (Action) using the Minnesota-Wisconsin DKey within the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. You have submitted this key to satisfy requirements under Section 7(a)(2). The Service developed this system in accordance of with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). Based on your answers and the assistance of the Service’s Minnesota-Wisconsin DKey, you made the following effect determination(s) for the proposed Action: Species Listing Status Determination Higgins Eye (pearlymussel) (Lampsilis higginsii)Endangered No effect Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)Candidate No effect Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)Endangered No effect Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)Proposed Endangered No effect Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa)Endangered No effect Determination Information Thank you for informing the Service of your “No Effect” determination(s). Your agency has met consultation requirements and no further consultation is required for the species you determined will not be affected by the Action. Additional Information 02/24/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 379-122833023   2    Sufficient project details: Please provide sufficient project details on your project homepage in IPaC (Define Project, Project Description) to support your conclusions. Failure to disclose important aspects of your project that would influence the outcome of your effects determinations may negate your determinations and invalidate this letter. If you have site-specific information that leads you to believe a different determination is more appropriate for your project than what the Dkey concludes, you can and should proceed based on the best available information. Future project changes: The Service recommends that you contact the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office or re-evaluate the project in IPaC if: 1) the scope or location of the proposed Action is changed; 2) new information reveals that the action may affect listed species or designated critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 3) the Action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated critical habitat; or 4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated. If any of the above conditions occurs, additional consultation with the Service should take place before project changes are final or resources committed. Species-specific information Freshwater Mussels: Freshwater mussels are one of the most critically imperiled groups of organisms in the world. In North America, 65% of the remaining 300 species are vulnerable to extinction (Haag and Williams 2014). Implementing measures to conserve and restore freshwater mussel populations directly improves water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. An adult freshwater mussel filters anywhere from 1 to 38 gallons of water per day (Baker and Levinton 2003, Barnhart pers. comm. 2019). A 2015 survey found that in some areas, mussels can reduce the bacterial populations by more than 85% (Othman et al. 2015 in Vaughn 2017). Mussels are also considered to be ecosystem engineers by stabilizing substrate and providing habitat for other aquatic organisms (Vaughn 2017). In addition to ecosystem services, mussels play an important role in the food web, contributing critical nutrients to both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, including those that support sport fish (Vaughn 2017). Taking proactive measures to conserve and restore freshwater mussels will improve water quality, which has the potential to positively impact human health and recreation in the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin. You have indicated that your Action will have no effect (NE) on Federally listed mussel species. However, state-listed mussels may occur in your Action area. Contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to determine effects to state-listed mussels. Bald and Golden Eagles: Bald eagles, golden eagles, and their nests are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (54 Stat. 250, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668a-d) (Eagle Act). The Eagle Act prohibits, except when authorized by an Eagle Act permit, the “taking” of bald and golden eagles and defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” The Eagle Act’s implementing regulations define disturb as “… to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” 02/24/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 379-122833023   3    ▪ If you observe a bald eagle nest in the vicinity of your proposed project, you should follow the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (May 2007). For more information on eagles and conducting activities in the vicinity of an eagle nest, please visit our regional eagle website or contact Margaret at Margaret_Rheude@fws.gov. If the Action may affect bald or golden eagles, additional coordination with the Service under the Eagle Act may be required. The following species and/or critical habitats may also occur in your project area and are not covered by this conclusion: Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened Coordination with the Service is not complete if additional coordination is advised above for any species. 02/24/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 379-122833023   4    Action Description You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action. 1. Name City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan 2. Description The following description was provided for the project 'City of Scandia Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan': The City proposes to rehabilitate and expand the existing WWTF. The work is proposed to be completed in two phases. The first phase will consist of: Construction of a new Biosolids Storage Tank with an Aerobic Digester, the Demolition of the Existing Biosolids Storage Building, Influent Lift Station Improvements, Electrical/SCADA Improvements, UV Replacement, and Improvements to the "Inside" Clarifier The second phase will consist of upsizing the entire liquid stream to accommodate increasing populations and more stringent regulations. Construction of an Additional Clarifier, Provide Additional Extended Aeration, Filter Modifications/Replacement, and Pretreatment Expansion and Upgrades The first phase is proposed to begin design in 2023. Construction would begin in 2024 and be completed in 2025. Design for the second phase is proposed to begin in 2030 with all construction completed by fall 2035. The existing WWTF is proposed to continue to treat wastewater during the construction process. The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@45.2237671,-92.88489822195706,14z 02/24/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 379-122833023   5    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW This determination key is intended to assist the user in evaluating the effects of their actions on Federally listed species in Minnesota and Wisconsin. It does not cover other prohibited activities under the Endangered Species Act (e.g., for wildlife: import/export, Interstate or foreign commerce, possession of illegally taken wildlife, etc.; for plants: import/export, reduce to possession, malicious destruction on Federal lands, commercial sale, etc.) or other statutes. Additionally, this key DOES NOT cover wind development, purposeful take (e.g., for research or surveys), communication towers that have guy wires or are over 450 feet in height, aerial or other large-scale application of any chemical (such as insecticide or herbicide), and approval of long-term permits or plans (e.g., FERC licenses, HCP's). Click YES to acknowledge that you must consider other prohibitions of the ESA or other statutes outside of this determination key. Yes Is the action the approval of a long-term (i.e., in effect greater than 10 years) permit, plan, or other action? No Is the action being funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency? Yes Are you the Federal agency or designated non-federal representative? Yes Does the action involve the installation or operation of wind turbines? No Does the action involve purposeful take of a listed animal? No Does the action involve a new communications tower? No Does the activity involve aerial or other large-scale application of ANY chemical, including pesticides (insecticide, herbicide, fungicide, rodenticide, etc)? No Does the action occur near a bald eagle nest? Note: Contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for an up-to-date list of known bald eagle nests. No Will your action permanently affect local hydrology? Yes 02/24/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 379-122833023   6    11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Does your project have the potential to impact the riparian zone or indirectly impact a stream/river (e.g., cut and fill; horizontal directional drilling; construction; vegetation removal; pesticide or fertilizer application; discharge; runoff of sediment or pollutants; increase in erosion, etc.)? Note: Consider all potential effects of the action, including those that may happen later in time and outside and downstream of the immediate area involved in the action. Endangered Species Act regulation defines "effects of the action" to include all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action. (50 CFR 402.02). No Will your action disturb the ground or existing vegetation? Note: This includes any off-road vehicle access, soil compaction (enough to collapse a rodent burrow), digging, seismic survey, directional drilling, heavy equipment, grading, trenching, placement of fill, pesticide application (herbicide, fungicide), vegetation management (including removal or maintenance using equipment or prescribed fire), cultivation, development, etc. Yes Will your action include spraying insecticides? No Does your action area occur entirely within an already developed area? Note: Already developed areas are already paved, covered by existing structures, manicured lawns, industrial sites, or cultivated cropland, AND do not contain trees that could be roosting habitat. Be aware that listed species may occur in areas with natural, or semi-natural, vegetation immediately adjacent to existing utilities (e.g. roadways, railways) or within utility rights-of-way such as overhead transmission line corridors, and can utilize suitable trees, bridges, or culverts for roosting even in urban dominated landscapes (so these are not considered "already developed areas" for the purposes of this question). If unsure, select NO.. Yes Does the action have potential indirect effects to listed species or the habitats they depend on (e.g., water discharge into adjacent habitat or waterbody, changes in groundwater elevation, introduction of an exotic plant species)? No [Hidden Semantic] Does the action area intersect the monarch butterfly species list area? Automatically answered Yes [Hidden semantic] Does the action intersect the Tricolored bat species list area? Automatically answered Yes 02/24/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 379-122833023   7    IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Bolton & Menk, Inc. Name:Teresa Burgess Address:1960 Premier Drive City:Mankato State:MN Zip:56001 Email teresa.burgess@bolton-menk.com Phone:5076254171 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency:Environmental Protection Agency IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation (https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/): A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service environmental review process. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service General Project Design Guidelines (1 Species) Generated February 24, 2023 12:08 AM UTC, IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Table of Contents Species Document Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee - Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Species Document Availability Species with general design guidelines Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis Species without general design guidelines available Higgins Eye (pearlymussel) Lampsilis higginsii Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa General Project Design Guidelines (1 Species) Species Document Availability 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 1 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species Published by Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 for the following species included in your project Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Higgins Eye (pearlymussel) Lampsilis higginsii Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Voluntary Implementation Guidance Version 2.0 March 2019 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Regions 3, 4, 5 and 6 Rusty patched bumble bee Photo courtesy of Susan Day; University of Wisconsin-Madison Arboretum Recommended citations: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Voluntary Implementation Guidance. Version 2.0. USFWS, Bloomington, MN. 24 p. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 3 ii Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ ii Background and Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 1 Current Versions of this Guidance ................................................................................................................ 1 Range, Status, and Conservation of the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee ............................................................ 1 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee ............................................ 3 Screening and Evaluation of Federal Agency Actions – A Stepwise Approach ...................................... 3 Step 1. Define the Action Area ............................................................................................................ 3 Step 2. Determine whether the rusty patched bumble bee is likely to be present in the action area. ... 3 Option 1 – Use the FWS Information for Planning and Conservation Website .............................. 3 Screening at the County or State Level ....................................................................................... 3 Screen a Precisely Defined Action Area ..................................................................................... 4 Option 2 – Work directly with the FWS field office. ...................................................................... 6 Surveys ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Step 3 - Review the Action for Potential Direct or Indirect Effects ..................................................... 8 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat, Ecology, and Life Cycle ........................................................ 8 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat ............................................................................................. 9 Areas that are not Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat ............................................................. 10 Behavioral Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 10 Evaluating the Species’ Response to Project-Related Stressors ................................................ 11 Assessing the Species’ Likely Response to Stressors ........................................................... 11 Will the Species Be Exposed to Project-Related Stressors? ................................................. 11 Assuming Presence and Interpreting Species Records .................................................................. 11 Potential for Direct Effects from Soil Disturbance – Nest Density Assumptions ......................... 12 Using Empirical Data to Estimate Site-Specific Nest Density .................................................. 13 Soil Disturbance in Nesting Habitat .......................................................................................... 13 Density and Distribution of Wintering Queens ......................................................................... 16 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee - Potential Stressors ...................................................................... 17 Predicting the Species’ Response to Habitat-Related Stressors ............................................ 17 Effects of the Action on the Species - Evaluating the Species Response to Stressors ................... 17 Step 4 - Incorporate Measures to Avoid or Minimize Effects to the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee ..... 17 Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 4 iii Conservation Measures .................................................................................................................. 18 When Adverse Effects Are Likely ................................................................................................. 18 When Adverse Effects are not likely to Occur .............................................................................. 19 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Appendix – Partial list of potential stressors and potential responses associated with important rusty patched bumble bee risk factors. ................................................................................................................. 23 Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 5 1 Background and Purpose In accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on any action that may affect species listed as endangered or threatened to ensure they do not jeopardize the species’ continued existence. We intend for this voluntary guidance to help FWS, action agencies, and applicants carry out efficient and effective 7(a)(2) consultations and to plan and implement actions that would conserve the species. The suggestions and alternatives provided in this document are subject to continual improvement and modification. Agencies may use any approach or methodology that ensures compliance with ESA Section 7 and implementing regulations at 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 402. We encourage and expect deviation from these recommendations whenever appropriate to respond to distinct or differing conditions within an action area. We note that any use of mandatory language in this guidance refers to lawful obligations present in statute or regulation. This guidance does not bind agency personnel and does not create any new mandatory procedure or requirement for the public. Current Versions of this Guidance Check to make sure that you have the most recent version by comparing the version number on the title page, above, to the guidance version number at the website, https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/ProjectProponent.html. Range, Status, and Conservation of the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) occurs in the Eastern and Midwestern United States and southern Canada. The species occurred broadly across the eastern United States, upper Midwest, and southern Quebec and Ontario. Since about 2007, however, the species’ distribution has declined across its range in the U.S. (Fig. 1). Similar declines have occurred in Canada where it was listed as Endangered on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act in 2012 [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2016]. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 6 2 Figure 1.Rusty patched bumble bee High Potential Zones (HPZ). We increased the sizes of the HPZ polygons to enhance visibility. The Service maintains an up-to-date range map and distribution data for the rusty patched bumble bee at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 7 3 In its assessment of the species’ status, USFWS (2016) found that to increase the likelihood that the rusty patched bumble may avoid extinction, it will be necessary to do the following: 1. Prevent further declines by protecting remaining populations and the habitat needed to support them (this is paramount); 2. Increase the number of healthy populations and ensure they are distributed across an array of environmental gradients; 3. Improve its abundance across the range of ecological settings with which it was associated historically; and, 4. Restore multiple, healthy populations to preserve adaptive capacity. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Screening and Evaluation of Federal Agency Actions – A Stepwise Approach Below we clarify steps that agencies and their representatives may take to meet ESA section 7(a)(2) requirements relative to the rusty patched bumble bee. We invite agencies to use any alternative methodologies that meet these same ends. Step 1. Define the Action Area Determine whether the action area overlaps with a High Potential Zone (HPZ).1 The action area is not only the immediate area involved in the action, but also all areas to be affected directly or indirectly (50 CFR § 402.02). It is not always limited to the “footprint” of the action, but encompasses the biotic, chemical, and physical impacts to the environment resulting directly or indirectly from the action. Step 2. Determine whether the rusty patched bumble bee is likely to be present in the action area. Below we provide two options for completing this step. Option 1 involves the use of the USFWS IPaC website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). Action agencies may use any alternative approach that accurately determines whether the species may be present in the action area. Option 1 – Use the FWS Information for Planning and Conservation Website Screening at the County or State Level Agencies may first want to determine if a listed species is present in one or more counties or states that their actions may be affect. To obtain a list of endangered species that are likely to be present in a county or state, use the FWS Information for Planning and Conservation website (IPaC, https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). If the rusty patched bumble bee is not on the list of endangered species you generate in IPaC for the county or state that overlaps with the action area, the species is not likely to be present. Consultation 1 We describe the habitat connectivity model used to define High Potential Zones on the RPBB website (https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html). Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 8 4 under section 7(a)(2) is only required for federal actions that may affect listed species. In this event, we would advise the action agency to document this finding for its administrative record (Fig. 3).2 Screen a Precisely Defined Action Area As an alternative or as a follow-up to screening at the state or county level, you may define the action area in IPaC more precisely. If your IPaC query indicates that the rusty patched bumble bee is likely to occur in the action area, the action agency may contact the FWS field office to obtain what information is available regarding the location, extent, and quality of the species’ habitat in the action area (see Step 3). If the species is not on the list of species generated for the action area by IPaC, it is not likely to be present in the action area and we would advise the action agency to document this finding for its administrative record (Fig. 2). Consultation under section 7(a)(2) is only required for federal actions that may affect listed species. 2 Each Federal agency shall review its actions at the earliest possible time to determine whether any action may affect listed species or critical habitat. (50 CFR 402.14). Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 9 5 Figure 2. Consultation flow chart with specific reference to the rusty patched bumble bee. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 10 6 Option 2 – Work directly with the FWS field office. When agencies want to determine simply whether the rusty patched bumble bee is in a state or county, they should use IPaC. Agencies may also use IPaC to screen an action area based on its precise boundaries, as described above. Agencies may sometimes prefer to work directly with FWS field offices or may have other established methods for screening projects that do not yet include the use of IPaC. In those cases, agencies may work directly with the FWS field office to determine whether their action area may overlap with the current distribution of the rusty patched bumble bee. Surveys If the action area overlaps with an HPZ, the agency may assume that the species is present in suitable habitat (Fig. 3) and proceed to Step 4 or it may complete a survey for the species. (See the section, Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat, below for a description of what constitutes habitat for the species.) The results of a survey, if they are negative and are carried out in accordance with FWS-recommended survey protocols, could support an agency determination that the species is unlikely to occur in the action area. The action agency may conclude for any documented reason that the species is not present in the action area if the administrative record contains the basis for its conclusion. Alternatively, for example, an agency may document that their action area does not contain habitat for the species even when it overlaps with one or more HPZ (Fig. 3). Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 11 7 Figure 3. Example of a hypothetical High Potential Zone (HPZ) that contains areas with and without rusty patched bumble bee (RPBB) habitat. The species is only likely to be exposed to stressors associated with the action in the portion of the HPZ that contains the species’ habitat. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 12 8 We provide survey methods in “Survey Protocol and Monitoring Framework for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (B. affinis)” (protocol, https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/rpbb/surveys.html). Among other things, the protocol includes four approximately equally spaced surveys conducted during the sampling season (early June to mid-August) and with sufficient rigor 3 to support a determination that the species is not likely present in the area surveyed. Conduct surveys within a year before the project initiation for negative survey results to remain valid for the duration of the project unless new information (e.g., new positive surveys) suggests that the species is likely to be present in the action area. In that case, action agencies and the FWS field office should work together to ensure that the best available information is considered. Step 3 - Review the Action for Potential Direct or Indirect Effects If the rusty patched bumble bee occurs in the action area, the action agency should determine whether its action may affect the species. This is a two-step analysis to address: 1) will the species be exposed to one or more stressors associated with the action; and, 2) how will the species respond to the relevant stressors. FWS is available to assist with this process. The FWS National Conservation Training Center also provides online resources to help with this type of assessment https://nctc.fws.gov/courses/csp/csp3153/resources/index.html). In addition, the following information on the rusty patched bumble bee’s key habitat features will help assess the potential for effects to the species. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat, Ecology, and Life Cycle To maintain abundant and healthy colonies, the rusty patched bumble bee requires access to a diverse array of plant species that collectively provide pollen and nectar throughout the species’ long active season, from April through September (MacFarlane et al. 1994, p. 5). Floral resources close to the nest “might be especially important during the establishment phase of a colony, when only few workers are available for foraging” (Herrmann et al. 2007). Later in the season abundance and diverse floral resources help to maximize queen production (Bukovinszky et al. 2017, p. 316) and to ensure that gynes (new queens) get the resources they need to overwinter successfully. Bumble bees are generalist foragers and gather pollen and nectar from a wide variety of flowering plants (Xerces 2013, pp. 27-28). The rusty patched bumble bee is a short-tongued species (Medler 1962, p. 214), which are generally more efficient at handling flowers with short or no corollas (Harder 1983). The rusty-patched bumble bee is also a confirmed nectar robber, occasionally cutting longer corollas tubes with their mandibles and accessing the nectar without tripping the flower’s reproductive parts. Species experts have identified several plant species that are likely important nectar sources for the rusty patched bumble bee (see https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/plants.html). Nectar supports egg production in queens and is collected and fed to larvae by workers (USFWS 2016, p. 15). Limitations in pollen, however, may more often limit population growth than shortages of nectar (Colla 3 Sufficient effort would consist of four approximately equally spaced sampling periods during the sampling season (early June to mid-August); one-person hour of search time per three acres of suitable habitat using non-lethal netting techniques. The survey protocol provides further details on methods, techniques, and best practices (https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/rpbb/surveys.html) and is subject to continual improvement and modification. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 13 9 2016, p. 413; Plowright and Laverty 1984, p. 187). Bumble bees rely on some plant species for pollen and others for nectar, even during single foraging bouts (Plowright and Laverty 1984, p. 187) and the number of queens that a colony can produce is related directly to the amount of pollen that is available (Burns 2004, p. 150). Bumble bee species typically foraging within a few hundred meters of their nest and maximum foraging distance may be about one kilometer (Knight et al. 2005, p. 1816; Wolf and Moritz 2008, p. 422; Dramstad 1996, pp. 163-182; Osborne et al. 1999, pp. 524-526; Rao and Strange 2012, pp. 909-911). In addition to open habitats, the species utilizes woodland spring ephemerals whose flowering period coincides with the species’ early spring emergence (Colla and Dumesh 2010, p. 45-46). Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat To facilitate section 7 analyses, we divide rusty patched bumble bee habitat conceptually into nesting and wintering habitats and into a variety of foraging habitat types based on the timing of pollen and nectar availability in each (Table 1). The locations of pollen and nectar sources for the rusty patched bumble bee may vary throughout the growing season. In an HPZ that contains both forest and grassland, for example, the species may forage primarily in forest in the spring and in grassland habitats in the summer and fall. We assume that the rusty patched bumble bee nests in upland grasslands and shrublands that contain forage during the summer and fall and as far as 30 meters into the edges of adjacent forest and woodland (Table 1). We also assume that the species winters exclusively in upland forest and woodland. Palustrine wetlands – vegetated wetlands traditionally called by such names as marsh, swamp, bog, and fen (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2013) – provide nectar and pollen, but are not suitable for nesting or overwintering (Table 1). Table 1. Seasonal uses of habitat types by the rusty patched bumble bee (RPBB). Natural or semi- natural vegetation that includes favored forage species (Table 1) typifies RPBB habitat. The species also uses flower gardens and other areas that contain nectar or pollen resources and are within foraging distance of RPBB habitats. USFWS assumes that the RPBB is present in nesting habitat between March 16 and October 14 and in wintering habitat from October 15 to March 15. Habitat Category Habitat Function Examples/Notes Nesting Wintering Foraging Spring Summer/Fall Upland Grassland & Shrubland X X X native tallgrass prairie, including remnants and restored/reconstructed native prairie; savanna; pine and oak barrens Upland Forest & Woodland X X Maple-Basswood Forest; Oak-Hickory Forest Upland Forest & Woodland Edges X X X X This includes 30-meter edges of forest and woodland habitats that are adjacent to nesting and summer/fall foraging habitat. Palustrine wetlands, excluding ponds X X marsh, swamp, bog, fen, and wet meadow; forested wetlands (e.g., Silver Maple - Floodplain Forest) Some vegetation that is not natural or semi-natural – flower gardens and similar areas (e.g., plant nurseries) X X Examples of cultural vegetation that provides floral resources; accessed by RPBB from nearby natural and semi-natural areas where they may nest or overwinter Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 14 10 Natural or semi-natural vegetation typifies rusty patched bumble bee habitats, with the exception that the species may also forage in nearby alfalfa (Medicago sativa) or sunflower (Helianthus annuus) fields, gardens, landscapes, and similar areas (e.g., native plant nurseries) that provide forage. Reconstruction of natural habitats holds significant potential to benefit the rusty patched bumble bee. The rusty patched bumble bee use reconstructed prairies (Tonietto et al. 2017, p. 711). If suitable species are present (see Table 1), reconstructed prairies may become important habitat for the species and other bees as soon as 2- 3 years after seeding (Griffin et al. 2017, p. 650). We use the term “natural or semi-natural vegetation” to characterize rusty patched bumble bee habitat and have adapted the following description from the National Vegetation Classification Standard [Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) 2008, p. 9]: Vegetation where ecological processes primarily determine species and site characteristics; that is, vegetation comprised of a largely spontaneously growing set of plant species. Human activities influence these characteristics to varying degrees (e.g., logging, livestock grazing, fire), but do not eliminate or dominate the spontaneous processes. Wherever doubt exists as to the naturalness of a vegetation type (e.g., old fields, various forest plantations), it is classified as part of the natural/semi-natural vegetation. Semi-natural vegetation typically encompasses vegetation types where the species composition and/or vegetation growth forms have been altered through anthropogenic disturbances such that no clear natural analogue is known, but they are a largely spontaneous set of plants shaped by ecological processes. Includes areas planted to restore native plant communities. Areas that are not Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat The rusty patched bumble bee is not likely to be present in cultivated cropland, lawns, open water, or unvegetated areas with the exception that the species may forage in alfalfa or sunflower fields when these species are in flower and would provide pollen or nectar. Behavioral Assumptions To analyze some activities, it may be useful to understand the seasonal patterns of rusty patched bumble bee activity and the weather conditions that affect its behavior. During the active season, the rusty patched bumble bee is active under a broad range of conditions, but remains below ground when conditions are too cold or rainy. We do not know the precise lower threshold temperature for activity in the rusty patched bumble bee, but a study of four other bumble bee species found minimum calculated air temperature for activities ranged from 3.6 to 12.6°C. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that rusty patched bumble bees could be active between dawn and dusk at temperatures as low as 3°C (37°F). Bumble bees do not typically fly when conditions are foggy, rainy, or drizzling. Sunny days with low wind speeds (less than 8 mph) may be optimal, but they will fly during sub-optimal conditions. The rusty patched bumble bee may only be active above ground between about March 15 and October 15. In the mid-Atlantic states, bumble bee records extended from about March 21 to about October 17 when average high temperatures in York, Pennsylvania – the approximate geographical center of the records – Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 15 11 were 12°C (54°F) and 19°C (66°F, respectively).4 Cessation of flight in the fall “appears to be timed with the passing of native fall flowers and often precedes the first frost and leaf fall” (Schweitzer et al. 2012). Evaluating the Species’ Response to Project-Related Stressors The USFWS recommends a two-step process to determine whether an action may affect a species and how that action will affect the species: 1) determine whether the species will be exposed to one or more stressors associated with the action; and, 2) determine how the species will respond to the stressors. A stressor is any physical, chemical, or biological alteration (i.e., increase, decrease, or introduction) of the environment (or resource) that can lead to a response from the individual. Stressors can act directly on an individual, or indirectly through impacts to resources. Assessing the Species’ Likely Response to Stressors USFWS has identified several factors that pose a risk to the rusty patched bumble bee and that agencies and their representatives should consider when evaluating potential stressors associated with federal actions. See the Appendix for a brief summary and USFWS (2016) for additional details. Will the Species Be Exposed to Project-Related Stressors? In some cases, the species will simply not be exposed to stressors generated by the project or will not react to those stressors. HPZs typically contain some areas that are not suitable for the species. When this is the case, the action agency should document this finding for its administrative record. When making this determination, we caution action agencies to define carefully the full extent of the action area to ensure they consider any effects of the action that may extend outside of the immediate project footprint. Assuming Presence and Interpreting Species Records When an action area overlaps with an HPZ, FWS recommends that an agency conduct a survey to clarify further the status of the species in the action area (see Surveys, above). Alternatively, it may choose not to conduct surveys and to assume instead that the rusty patched bumble bee is present in any suitable habitat where the action area overlaps with the HPZ (Fig. 3). When action agencies assume that the species is present, they should review the following information to summarize the status of the species in the action area and to assess the effects of the proposed action: ● The nature, extent, and quality of habitat types present (see Table 1 and Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat Assessment Form & Guide (Xerces Society 2017); and, ● Details of species records, such as the sex and caste of the bee(s) recorded (Table 2), the methods used to survey the area for the rusty patched bumble bee, and the extent of the area that was surveyed. Contact the FWS field office for this information. 4 Droege, S. 2008. Mid Atlantic native bee phenology: The weekly phenology of bees of the Mid-Atlantic states: MD, VA, WV, DC, PA, DE. A slideshow. USGS, Patuxent, MD. Available: http://www.slideshare.net/sdroege/midatlantic-native-bee-phenology. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 16 12 Table 2. Rusty patched bumble bee records include at least four combinations of sex and caste, each of which may provide certain assumptions as part of section 7 effects analyses. See USFWS (2018) for information on how to identify the species and to distinguish each life stage. Sex Caste Behavioral and Ecological Assumptions for Section 7 Analyses Female queen (foundress) A queen recorded in the spring, if mated the previous year, was in the process of establishing a new colony. Mated queens detected before mid-July are foundresses. Female worker A record of a worker indicates that there was a colony likely within one km of the detection point. Although worker foraging distances may extend out to 3 km in some species and circumstances (Lepais et al. 2010), studies typically exhibit foraging distances of less than 1 km from nests (Knight et al. 2005, p. 1816; Wolf and Moritz 2008, p. 422; Dramstad 1996, pp. 163-182; Osborne et al. 1999, pp. 524-526; Rao and Strange 2012, pp. 909-911). Male male Males typically occur further from their natal nests than workers - up to about 10 km (Kraus et al. 2009, p. 249). We assume that a male record indicates that there was at least one colony of the species within 10 km of the record location. Female queen (gyne) Queens observed after mid-July overwinter to become foundress queens in the spring. Lepais et al. (2010) found that queens of two bumble bee species were able to disperse at least 3 and 5 km, respectively; median dispersal distances were 1265 m and 1820 m. The rusty patched bumble bee may be present anywhere within High Potential Zones where there is suitable habitat, but the timing and nature of its presence and activities in these areas is dependent on habitat type (Table 1). See the section, Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat, Ecology, and Life Cycle, above, for a description of suitable habitat. Potential for Direct Effects from Soil Disturbance – Nest Density Assumptions When site-specific information for the rusty patched bumble bee is insufficient to estimate abundance, it may be useful to apply nest density estimates derived for a close relative, the buff-tailed bumble bee, to develop useful assumptions. These assumptions will help to analyze effects of federal actions in a structured and transparent manner. Workers have used genetic analyses of tissue samples collected from wild workers to estimate nest density of several bumble bee species since about 2003. The rusty patched bumble bee has not been the subject of any of the studies, but the closely related buff-tailed bumble bee has (Chapman et al 2003 (as cited in Charman et al. 2010); Darvill et al. 2004; Dreier et al. 2014; Knight et al. 2005; Kraus et al. 2009; Wolf et al. 2012; Wood et al. 2015). Due to the uncertainty with applying estimates derived for another species that is relatively common, we propose using a range of assumed nest densities as opposed to a single estimate (Table 3; see Table 1 for an overview of nesting habitat). This may increase the odds that we account for the capture the local status of the rusty patched bumble bee. The species is now rare at continental and regional scales, but was abundant and widespread historically (USFWS 2016, p. 4) and may still be present in some localities at densities similar to relatively common species. By basing our analyses on a range of assumed nest densities, we may capture the possibility that the species is either uncommon or relatively abundant in the action area. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 17 13 Table 3. Quartiles for ten nest density estimates for the buff-tailed bumble bee (B. terrestris) (Chapman et al 2003 (as cited in Charman et al. 2010); Darvill et al. 2004; Dreier et al. 2014; Knight et al. 2005; Kraus et al. 2009; Wolf et al. 2012; Wood et al. 2015). As a basis for analyzing the effects of actions on the rusty patched bumble bee, we will assume that their nests may occur in nesting habitat at any of the three densities shown. Quartile Nest Density Category Nest Density(Nests/km2) First/25th Percentile Low 14 Median/50th Percentile Medium 34 Third/75th Percentile High 45 The estimated nest density found for one rare bumble bee species – the precipitously declining great yellow bumblebee (B. distinguendus) – was 19/km2 in coastal grasslands and may indicate that our proposed assumptions for the rusty patched bumble bee are reasonable for an endangered species. As with the studies conducted on the buff-tailed bumble bee, the estimated nest density for the great yellow bumble bee was for the studied landscape and may have been higher in the specific areas that were suitable for nesting. Its nests "remain thinly distributed even in current strongholds" (Charman et al. 2010, p. 2661). Like the rusty patched bumblebee, it relies "on the continued presence of flower-rich, unimproved grassland that provides floral resources throughout the colony cycle (June to September) and contains, or is close to, suitable sites for nesting, mating and hibernation." (Charman et al. 2010, p. 2671). The nest density most appropriate for evaluating a project may depend on the nature of the effects that a project is likely to cause. When assumptions of this nature are made within the context of section 7 consultation due to a the lack of empirical information, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the species and therefore, either the Low or High levels of nest density may be the most appropriate. For example, when assessing the likelihood that soil disturbance during the nesting period will affect nests, we would give the benefit of the doubt to the species by basing analyses on the highest reasonable level of nest density. Using Empirical Data to Estimate Site-Specific Nest Density Agencies may use the methods summarized above to estimate nest density for the buff-tailed bumble bee in an action area. This would require capture of rusty patched bumble bees, removal of a leg tip, and genetic analyses. Action agencies who are interested in carrying out such a study should contact the USFWS. Soil Disturbance in Nesting Habitat The effects of soil disturbance that affects more than 0.1 hectare (0.25 acre) of nesting habitat within an HPZ when the species is present may not be discountable, based on the assumption that rusty patched bumble bee nests may be present in nesting habitat at a density as high as 45/km2. That is, one nest for every 2.2 ha (5.4 acres) of nesting habitat. We define soil disturbance as scraping, compacting, plowing, tilling, excavating, and any similar activity, sufficient in intensity to kill or harm rusty patched bumble bees that are overwintering or in nests in the affected areas. Soil disturbance in nesting habitat that is Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 18 14 greater in extent than 0.1 ha (0.25 acre) would result in a greater than 5% chance 5 that a nest would be destroyed (e.g., see Fig. 4) – a level that would exceed what we would consider to be discountable when the impact would result in take of the species. 5 A density of 45 nests/km2 is equal to 0.45 nests/ha. The probability that soil disturbance to 0.1 ha would affect a rusty patched bumble bee nest, therefore, would be 0.045, assuming that nests are distributed uniformly. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 19 15 Figure 4. A hypothetical High Potential zone likely to contain one rusty patched bumble bee nest, based on an assumed nest density. In each example, 5% of the area will be exposed to soil disturbance sufficient in intensity to harm or kill nesting rusty patched bumble bees. This soil disturbance could occur in a series of separate patches (left) or as one contiguous area (right). In each case, the amount of surface area subject to soil disturbance would be sufficient to warrant a determination that the action is likely to affect adversely the species based on this guidance. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 20 16 Direct effects to the species would only occur when the individuals are present in the affected area, but the agencies should also consider the potential for indirect effects to the species during seasonal absences from some habitats (see Table 1). Moreover, soil disturbance to nesting habitat may be likely to cause adverse effects even if the likelihood of directly affecting a nest is less than 5%. This may be the case, for example, when an action may destroy or degrade an area of especially high floral diversity. This must be determined on a case-by-case basis. To evaluate the likelihood that an action would destroy one or more nests, we would assume that nests occur systematically across nesting habitat (Fig. 4). Density and Distribution of Wintering Queens If the federal action will result in soil disturbance in overwintering habitat when queens are present (October 15 – March 15), we also need a way to estimate the likelihood that one or more queens will be affected directly. We think that rusty patched bumble bee queens are likely to overwinter in upland forest and woodland (Table 1). They may construct their overwintering chambers immediately below the soil- litter interface in loose soil as has been observed for the closely related buff-tailed bumble bee and other species (B. Herrick, University of Wisconsin-Madison Landscape Arboretum, pers. comm. 2016; Alford 1969, p. 156). To develop estimates of queen production for an HPZ we will use queen production data available from the yellow-banded bumble bee (B. terricola), another declining bumble bee species that is also closely related to the rusty patched bumble bee. These data include four lab-raised nests (Benjamin Sadd, Illinois State University, personal communication, 2018) and 32 field-reared nests studied by Owen et al. (1980). We may estimate Low, Medium, and High levels of queen production based on the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles from their studies – these are 0, 4, and 10 queens per nest, respectively. We decided to set the Low level at one queen per nest because it will be more useful for section 7 purposes than if we were to assume zero queen production. Using the Low, Medium, and High assumptions for both nest density and queen production, you may structure your analysis as is shown in Table 4 to arrive at a range of estimates of queen production in an HPZ for your analysis. Table 4 . Recommended Low, Medium, and High-level assumptions for queen production per nest, combined with Low-Medium-High nest density estimates (Table 3) to estimate a potential range of queen production per square kilometer (km) in an HPZ. ‘x’ = the number of square km of nesting habitat in the HPZ. To derive similar estimates for an action area, define x as the square kilometers of nesting habitat in the action area. Assumed Queen Production per Nest Estimated No. Nests in HPZ Low (1/nest) Medium (4/nest) High (10/nest) Low (14 nest/km2) 14x 56x 140x Medium (34 nests/km2) 34x 136x 340x High (45 nests/km2) 45x 180x 450x To model the number of overwintering queens present in an HPZ and to facilitate analyses, we recommend assuming that all queens produced in the HPZ remain there to overwinter and that the queens occur uniformly within the overwintering habitat. You may then calculate the assumed density of overwintering queens by dividing estimated queen production by the extent of overwintering habitat in Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 21 17 the HPZ. This will allow an estimate of the likelihood that an overwintering queen is likely to be harmed or killed, based this model and the extent of soil disturbance that will occur in overwintering habitat when the species is present (October 15 – March 15). When agencies and the Service make assumptions of this nature due a lack of site-specific empirical information, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the species. Depending on the nature of the anticipated effects, the Low or High level of queen production may be most appropriate. For example, when assessing a project that will include soil disturbance during the wintering period, give the benefit of the doubt to the species by basing analyses on the highest reasonable level of queen density. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee - Potential Stressors In addition to the potential for direct effects to the species, agencies must also determine whether indirect effects the species could occur and, if so, whether they are likely to be adverse. They must base this determination on the best available information on the nature and extent of habitats in the action area. For any action that will affect an HPZ, the action agency can work with FWS to assess whether – and how – the action is likely to affect key habitat features and how it may related to important risk factors. Those factors and their related stressors are described only briefly below and in the Appendix. For a detailed review of the major stressors that agencies should consider when evaluating the effects of proposed federal activities on the rusty patched bumble bee, see the section Risk Factors in the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Species Status Assessment (USFWS 2016). For additional information regarding these stressors and measures to avoid or reduce relevant adverse effects, see the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Conservation Guidelines (USFWS 2018). Predicting the Species’ Response to Habitat-Related Stressors Bumble bees do not store substantial amounts of pollen and nectar in their nests and, thus, must have continuous access to flowers with available pollen and nectar during their entire active season (Williams et al. 2012). The greatest impact of habitat loss on bees is the loss of floral resources or a reduction in their diversity. Loss of floral resources and a reduction in their diversity has occurred primarily through conversion of lands to agriculture and urbanization, but also because of other factors that have altered habitats, such as suppression of wildfires. Conversion of natural habitat that is rich in floral abundance and diversity to farmlands, urban and suburban development, and other land uses are the primary causes of the loss of bumble bee habitat (Goulson et al. 2015, p. 2). Ongoing urbanization also contributes to the loss and fragmentation of natural habitats. Urban gardens that provide floral resources for bees are critical to their persistence in and around cities, especially if they contain important native plant species (Goulson et al. 2010, p. 1207; Goulson et al. 2015). Effects of the Action on the Species - Evaluating the Species Response to Stressors After identifying the stressors that the rusty patched bumble bee will be exposed to, the action agency should determine the species’ likely response to each relevant stressor – that is, the likely effects of the action on the species. This analysis of effects is the primary responsibility of the action agency, but FWS field office personnel may assist with this analysis. Step 4 - Incorporate Measures to Avoid or Minimize Effects to the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee When the rusty patched bumble bee is likely to respond negatively to one or more stressors associated with the action, the action agency may implement measures to avoid or minimize the adverse effects. Please refer to the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Conservation Guidelines (see Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 22 18 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/pdf/ConservationGuidanceRPBBv1_27Feb2018.p df.) Figure 5. Rusty patched bumble bee phenology. Conservation Measures Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs each federal agency to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species in consultation with the Service. When the Service develops a recovery plan and a recovery implementation strategy for the species, these documents will provide a primary reference for agencies to implement actions that will help it fulfill its section 7(a)(1) mandate. Until then, we would recommend that actions address the major conservation needs of the species, as described in the Species Status Assessment (USFWS 2016, p. 74): 1. Prevent further declines by protecting remaining populations and the habitat needed to support them (this is paramount); 2. Increase the number of healthy populations and ensure they are distributed across an array of environmental gradients; 3. Improve its abundance across the range of ecological settings with which it was associated historically; and, 4. Restore multiple, healthy populations in each of its ecoregions. Conservation Management Guidelines that may help action agencies to fulfill this mandate are available on the Service’s website - https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/index.html. Action agencies may also use these measures to remove or reduce adverse effects. When Adverse Effects Are Likely Agencies should enter into formal consultation with FWS if a project’s conservation measures do not decrease sufficiently the likelihood of adverse effects. If the Service anticipates that the action will result in the incidental take of the species and is not likely to jeopardize the species’ continued existence, it will include an incidental take statement (ITS) with the biological opinion. The ITS will include terms and conditions that the agency must follow to ensure that any take is not a violation of the ESA’s section 9 prohibitions. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 23 19 When Adverse Effects are not likely to Occur When an action may affect the rusty patched bumble bee, but is not likely to affect adversely the species, the action agency may request concurrence on that determination from the FWS. Consultation would conclude with the written concurrence of the FWS [50 CFR 402.13(a)]. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 24 20 Literature Cited Alford, A. V. 1969. A Study of the Hibernation of Bumblebees (Hymenoptera:Bombidae) in Southern England. Journal of Animal Ecology 38: 149-170. Brown, M. J. F., R. Loosli, and P. Schmid-Hempel. 2000. Condition-Dependent Expression of Virulence in a Trypanosome Infecting Bumblebees. Oikos 91: 421-427. Bukovinszky, T., I. Rikken, S. Evers, F. L. Wäckers, J. C. Biesmeijer, H. H. T. Prins, and D. Kleijn. 2017. Effects of pollen species composition on the foraging behaviour and offspring performance of the mason bee Osmia bicornis (L.). Basic and Applied Ecology 18: 21-30. Burns, I. 2004. Social Development and Conflict in the North American Bumblebee Bombus impatiens Cresson. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 211 p. Chapman, R. E., and A. F. Bourke. 2001. The influence of sociality on the conservation biology of social insects. Ecology Letters 4: 650-662. Charman, T. G., J. Sears, E. Green Rhys, and A. F. G. Bourke. 2010. Conservation genetics, foraging distance and nest density of the scarce Great Yellow Bumblebee (Bombus distinguendus). Molecular Ecology 19: 2661-2674. Colla, S. R. 2016. Status, Threats and Conservation Recommendations for Wild Bumble Bees (Bombusspp.) in Ontario, Canada: A Review for Policymakers and Practitioners. Natural Areas Journal 36: 412-426. Colla, S. R., and S. Dumesh. 2010. The Bumble Bees of Southern Ontario: Notes on Natural History and Distribution. Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario 141: 39-68. Darvill, B., M. E. Knight, and D. Goulson. 2004. Use of Genetic Markers to Quantify Bumblebee Foraging Range and Nest Density. Oikos 107: 471-478. Dramstad, W. E. 1996. Do bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) really forage close to their nests? Journal of Insect Behavior 9: 163-182. Dreier, S., J. W. Redhead, I. A. Warren, A. F. G. Bourke, M. S. Heard, W. C. Jordan, S. Sumner, J. Wang, and C. Carvell. 2014. Fine‐scale spatial genetic structure of common and declining bumble bees across an agricultural landscape. Molecular Ecology 23: 3384-3395. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., Washington, DC. 86 p. Federal Geographic Data Committee, (FGDC). 2008. National Vegetation Classification Standard, Version 2. Reston, VA. 119 p. Feltham, H., K. Park, and D. Goulson. 2014. Field realistic doses of pesticide imidacloprid reduce bumblebee pollen foraging efficiency. Ecotoxicology 23: 317-323. Goulson, D., E. Nicholls, C. Botias, and E. L. Rotheray. 2015. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347: 1255957. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 25 21 Goulson, D., O. Lepais, S. O’Connor, J. L. Osborne, R. A. Sanderson, J. Cussans, L. Goffe, and B. Darvill. 2010. Effects of land use at a landscape scale on bumblebee nest density and survival. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 1207-1215. Griffin, S. R., B. Bruninga-Socolar, M. A. Kerr, J. Gibbs, and R. Winfree. 2017. Wild bee community change over a 26-year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie. Restoration Ecology 25: 650- 660. Harder, L. D. 1983. Flower Handling Efficiency of Bumble Bees: Morphological Aspects of Probing Time. Oecologia 57: 274-280. Herrmann, F., C. Westphal, R. F. A. Moritz, and I. Steffan-Dewenter. 2007. Genetic diversity and mass resources promote colony size and forager densities of a social bee (Bombus pascuorum) in agricultural landscapes. Molecular Ecology 16: 1167. Knight, M. E., A. P. Martin, S. Bishop, J. L. Osborne, R. J. Hale, R. A. Sanderson, and D. Goulson. 2005. An interspecific comparison of foraging range and nest density of four bumblebee (Bombus) species. Molecular Ecology 14: 1811-1820. Kraus, F. B., S. Wolf, and R. F. A. Moritz. 2009. Male Flight Distance and Population Substructure in the Bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Journal of Animal Ecology 78: 247-252. Larson, J. L., C. T. Redmond, and D. A. Potter. 2014. Impacts of a neonicotinoid, neonicotinoid– pyrethroid premix, and anthranilic diamide insecticide on four species of turf inhabiting beneficial insects. Ecotoxicology 23: 252-259. Lepais, O., B. Darvill, S. O’Connor, J. L. Osborne, R. A. Sanderson, J. Cussans, L. Goffe, and D. Goulson. 2010. Estimation of bumblebee queen dispersal distances using sibship reconstruction method. Molecular Ecology 19: 819-831. Macfarlane, R. P., K. D. Patten, L. A. Royce, B. K. W. Wyatt, and D. F. Mayer. 1994. Management potential of sixteen north american bumblebee species. Melanderia 50: 1-12. Medler, J. T. 1962. Morphometric Studies on Bumble Bees. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 55: 212-218. Osborne, J. L., S. J. Clark, R. J. Morris, I. H. Williams, J. R. Riley, A. D. Smith, D. R. Reynolds, and A. S. Edwards. 1999. A Landscape-Scale Study of Bumble Bee Foraging Range and Constancy, Using Harmonic Radar. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 519-533. Owen, R. E., F. H. Rodd, and R. C. Plowright. 1980. Sex Ratios in Bumble Bee Colonies: Complications Due to Orphaning? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 7: 287-291. Plowright, R. C., and T. M. Laverty. 1984. The Ecology and Sociobiology of Bumble Bees. Annual Review of Entomology 29: 175-199. Rao, S., and J. P. Strange. 2012. Bumble Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Foraging Distance and Colony Density Associated With a Late-Season Mass Flowering Crop. Environmental Entomology 41: 905-915. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 26 22 Rundlöf, M., G. K. S. Andersson, R. Bommarco, I. Fries, V. Hederstro, L. Herbertsson, O. Jonsson, B. K. Klatt, T. R. Pedersen, J. Yourstone, and H. G. Smith. 2015. Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521: 77-93. Schweitzer, D. F., N. A. Capuano, B. E. Young, and S. R. Colla. 2012. Conservation and management of North American bumble bees. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 17 p. Tonietto, R. K., J. S. Ascher, and D. J. Larkin. 2017. Bee communities along a prairie restoration chronosequence: similar abundance and diversity, distinct composition. Ecological Applications 27: 705-717. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Conservation Management Guidelines for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis). Version 1.6. Bloomington, MN. 16 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Survey Protocols for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis). Version 2.1. 29 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Species Status Assessment. Final Report, Version 1. Bloomington, MN. 100 p. Williams, N. M., J. Regetz, and C. Kremen. 2012. Landscape-scale resources promote colony growth but not reproductive performance of bumble bees. Ecology 93: 1049-1058. Wolf, S., and R. Moritz. 2008. Foraging distance in Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 39: 419-427. Wolf, S., T. Toev, R. Moritz, and R. Moritz. 2012. Spatial and temporal dynamics of the male effective population size in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Population Ecology 54: 115-124. Wood, T. J., J. M. Holland, W. O. H. Hughes, and D. Goulson. 2015. Targeted agri‐environment schemes significantly improve the population size of common farmland bumblebee species. Molecular Ecology 24: 1668-1680. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2013. Petition to list the rusty patched bumble bee. 42. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2017. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Conservation Habitat Assessment Form and Guide. 12 p. Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 27 23 Appendix – Partial list of potential stressors and potential responses associated with important rusty patched bumble bee risk factors. We based the Potential Responses in part on studies of other bumble bee species with similar life history traits - generalist foragers that collect pollen from the same food sources. For more details on some of the following risk factors, see USFWS 2016. Risk Factor Potential Stressor(s) Potential mode(s) of exposure Potential Response(s) Reference(s) Pathogens and Parasites Introduction, expansion, or increased abundance of honeybees or commercial bumble bees that carry pathogens Collection and consumption of infected pollen Larval mortality; queen sterility; deformed wings, abdomen distension in queens and inability to mate; reduced body fat and increased mortality of overwintering queens USFWS 2016, p. 40-43 Insecticides Insecticide applications Consumption of contaminated nectar or collection of contaminated pollen Decreased brain function; reduced feeding; decreased queen production; decrease male production; decreased worker production; increased worker mortality; decreased colony weight; decrease foraging efficiency (pollen delivery to nest); diminished defensive behavior; decreased worker weight; decreased egg production; decreased larval production; delayed nest building; impaired ovary development; increased susceptibility to parasite infection in queens Feltham et al. 2014; Larson et. al 2013, p. 1; USFWS 2016, p. 43; p. 90-93 Direct contact/absorption Contact mortality; Sub-lethal effects – e.g., reduced or no male production; egg infertility; reduced queen production Insecticide – Seed treatments Consumption of contaminated nectar Decreased queen production; decreased worker production; lower colony density; decreased colony weight USFWS 2016, p. 90; Rundlöf et al. 2015, p. 79 Fungicides Fungicide use Reduced availability of nectar and pollen Nutritional stress that leads to increased susceptibility to pathogens Brown et al. 2000, p. 421; USFWS 2016, p. 42 Increased transmission and prevalence of parasites due to reduced genetic diversity. See responses to collection and consumption of infected pollen, above. USFWS 2016, p. 42 Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 28 24 Risk Factor Potential Stressor(s) Potential mode(s) of exposure Potential Response(s) Reference(s) Herbicides Herbicide Use Reduced availability of nectar and pollen Nutritional stress that leads to increased susceptibility to pathogens Brown et al. 2000, p. 421; USFWS 2016, p. 42 Loss or Alteration of Vegetation or Leaf Litter Loss of bunchgrasses and other vegetation that supports suitable nesting habitat Limited or no nesting sites in proximity to spring foraging areas Avoidance of area; deterioration in body condition and reduced reproductive output due to need to find appropriate nesting habitat elsewhere Actions that directly or indirectly reduce or eliminate nectar plant density or diversity; examples include plowing, growing season fire; mowing; herbicide application Inability to find suitable amounts of nectar and pollen. Avoidance of area; potential deterioration of body condition and reduced or no reproductive output for affected queens; increased mortality of immature life stages already present in nests; reduced overwinter survival of queens Soil Disturbance or Compaction Direct disturbance Immediate death or harm of individuals present in nests or overwintering sites (queens); Compaction of soils by heavy equipment Loss of potential nesting sites Avoidance of area; deterioration in body condition and reduced reproductive output due to need to find appropriate nesting habitat elsewhere Construction matting or other temporary covering of soil surfaces Temporary loss of potential nesting sites Competition for Resources from Commercial Honeybees Reduced availability of nectar and pollen Negative effects on the reproductive success; Nutritional stress that leads to increased susceptibility to pathogens Disease transmission See Pathogens and Parasites, above Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office - Publication Date: March 11, 2019 General Project Design Guidelines - Tricolored Bat and 5 more species 2/24/2023 12:09 AM IPaC v6.88.1-rc1 Page 29 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/23/2023 at 7:52 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 92°53'25"W 45°13'38"N 92°52'47"W 45°13'13"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Washington County, Minnesota City of Scandia Bliss WWTF Improvements Project Natural Resources Conservation Service February 23, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Washington County, Minnesota......................................................................13 158B—Zimmerman fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes..................................13 158C—Zimmerman fine sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes................................14 159B—Anoka loamy fine sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes.................................16 162—Lino loamy fine sand..........................................................................17 454B—Mahtomedi loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes................................18 543—Markey muck.....................................................................................20 1813B—Lino variant loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes......................21 References............................................................................................................23 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 5007690500773050077705007810500785050078905007930500773050077705007810500785050078905007930508880 508920 508960 509000 509040 509080 509120 509160 509200 509240 508880 508920 508960 509000 509040 509080 509120 509160 509200 509240 45° 13' 29'' N 92° 53' 13'' W45° 13' 29'' N92° 52' 56'' W45° 13' 21'' N 92° 53' 13'' W45° 13' 21'' N 92° 52' 56'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 25 50 100 150 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,720 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Washington County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 6, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 30, 2020—Oct 5, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 158B Zimmerman fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes 1.3 15.6% 158C Zimmerman fine sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes 1.1 13.1% 159B Anoka loamy fine sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes 0.5 6.7% 162 Lino loamy fine sand 0.0 0.2% 454B Mahtomedi loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 2.5 31.5% 543 Markey muck 0.8 9.4% 1813B Lino variant loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes 1.9 23.5% Totals for Area of Interest 8.1 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not Custom Soil Resource Report 11 mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Washington County, Minnesota 158B—Zimmerman fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2q12w Elevation: 720 to 1,540 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 36 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 150 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Zimmerman and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Zimmerman Setting Landform:Rises Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, shoulder, backslope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Sandy glaciofluvial deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: fine sand Bw - 8 to 22 inches: fine sand E - 22 to 45 inches: fine sand Bt - 45 to 46 inches: loamy fine sand E and Bt - 46 to 80 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (6.00 to 20.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F091XY015WI - Dry Upland Forage suitability group: Unnamed (G091BN022MN) Other vegetative classification: Central Dry Oak-Aspen (Pine) Woodland (FDc25), Unnamed (G091BN022MN) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Minor Components Cantlin Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Rises Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, backslope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F091XY011WI - Sandy Upland Other vegetative classification:Sloping Upland, Low AWC, Acid (G091BN008MN) Hydric soil rating: No Lino Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Swales Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F091XY007WI - Moist Sandy and Loamy Lowland Other vegetative classification:Level Swale, Low AWC, Acid (G091BN007MN) Hydric soil rating: No Isanti, drained Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Flats, depressions Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope, toeslope Down-slope shape:Linear, concave Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F091XY005WI - Wet Sandy and Loamy Lowland Other vegetative classification:Level Swale, Low AWC, Acid (G091BN007MN) Hydric soil rating: Yes Soderville Percent of map unit:1 percent Landform:Flats, rises Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, footslope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F091XY007WI - Moist Sandy and Loamy Lowland Other vegetative classification:Sloping Upland, Low AWC, Acid (G091BN008MN) Hydric soil rating: No 158C—Zimmerman fine sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2wl5z Elevation: 720 to 1,540 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 36 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 150 days Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Zimmerman and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Zimmerman Setting Landform:Rises Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, shoulder, backslope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Sandy glaciofluvial deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: fine sand Bw - 8 to 22 inches: fine sand E - 22 to 45 inches: fine sand Bt - 45 to 46 inches: loamy fine sand E and Bt - 46 to 80 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (6.00 to 20.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F091XY015WI - Dry Upland Forage suitability group: Unnamed (G091BN022MN) Other vegetative classification: Central Dry Oak-Aspen (Pine) Woodland (FDc25), Unnamed (G091BN022MN) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Cantlin Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Rises Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, backslope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Convex Ecological site:F091XY011WI - Sandy Upland Other vegetative classification:Sloping Upland, Low AWC, Acid (G091BN008MN) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Lino Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Swales Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F091XY007WI - Moist Sandy and Loamy Lowland Other vegetative classification:Level Swale, Low AWC, Acid (G091BN007MN) Hydric soil rating: No Isanti, drained Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Flats, depressions Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope, toeslope Down-slope shape:Linear, concave Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F091XY005WI - Wet Sandy and Loamy Lowland Other vegetative classification:Level Swale, Low AWC, Acid (G091BN007MN) Hydric soil rating: Yes Soderville Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Flats, rises Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, footslope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:F091XY007WI - Moist Sandy and Loamy Lowland Other vegetative classification:Sloping Upland, Low AWC, Acid (G091BN008MN) Hydric soil rating: No 159B—Anoka loamy fine sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1t943 Elevation: 670 to 1,450 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 36 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 170 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Anoka and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Anoka Setting Landform:Outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Outwash Typical profile Ap - 0 to 9 inches: loamy fine sand E/Bt - 9 to 60 inches: loamy fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F090AY016WI - Loamy Upland Forage suitability group: Sloping Upland, Acid (G090XN006MN) Other vegetative classification: Sloping Upland, Acid (G090XN006MN) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Lino Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Soderville Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 162—Lino loamy fine sand Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1t945 Elevation: 700 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 36 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Lino and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lino Setting Landform:Outwash plains Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Outwash Typical profile Ap - 0 to 9 inches: loamy fine sand Bw - 9 to 36 inches: loamy fine sand C - 36 to 60 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Ecological site: F091XY007WI - Moist Sandy and Loamy Lowland Forage suitability group: Level Swale, Low AWC, Acid (G090XN007MN) Other vegetative classification: Level Swale, Low AWC, Acid (G090XN007MN) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Isanti Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions on outwash plains Hydric soil rating: Yes Zimmerman Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 454B—Mahtomedi loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1t95j Elevation: 670 to 1,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 36 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 170 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Mahtomedi and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Mahtomedi Setting Landform:Outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Outwash Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loamy sand Bw - 8 to 30 inches: gravelly coarse sand C - 30 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F090AY019WI - Dry Sandy Uplands Forage suitability group: Sandy (G090XN022MN) Other vegetative classification: Sandy (G090XN022MN) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Antigo Percent of map unit:3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Brill Percent of map unit:3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Demontreville Percent of map unit:2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Kingsley Percent of map unit:2 percent Hydric soil rating: No 543—Markey muck Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1t967 Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 36 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 170 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Markey and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Markey Setting Landform:Depressions Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Organic material over outwash Typical profile Oa - 0 to 30 inches: muck 2A,2Cg - 30 to 60 inches: stratified sand to fine sand to loamy very fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:Frequent Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very high (about 13.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Ecological site: F090AY002WI - Mucky Swamp Forage suitability group: Organic (G090XN014MN) Other vegetative classification: Organic (G090XN014MN) Custom Soil Resource Report 20 Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Isanti Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions on outwash plains Hydric soil rating: Yes Seelyeville Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions on outwash plains Hydric soil rating: Yes Lino Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 1813B—Lino variant loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1t971 Elevation: 900 to 1,030 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 36 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 170 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Lino and similar soils:95 percent Minor components:5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lino Setting Landform:Outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Outwash Typical profile Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loamy fine sand E/Bt - 7 to 60 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Depth to water table:About 36 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F090AY013WI - Sandy Upland Forage suitability group: Sloping Upland, Low AWC, Acid (G090XN008MN) Other vegetative classification: Sloping Upland, Low AWC, Acid (G090XN008MN) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Zimmerman Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 22 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 23 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 24 Screening Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Area : 5.29 acres Feb 26 2023 15:15:28 Central Standard Time Summary Name Count Area(acres)Length(m) Karst Features 0 N/A N/A 1 Teresa Burgess From:MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2023 1:12 PM To:Teresa Burgess Subject:RE: 0N1.123997 - Scandia WWTF - Section 31 - Township 32N - Range 20W Attachments:Archaeology.xls; History.xls Hello Teresa, Please see aƩached. Jim SHPO Data Requests Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 (651) 201-3299 datarequestshpo@state.mn.us Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201-3285 or by email at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us. 2 The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/. Please subscribe to receive SHPO notices for the most current updates regarding office hours, accessing research files, or changes in submitting materials to the SHPO. To access historic resource information please visit our webpage on Using SHPO's Files. From: Teresa Burgess <Teresa.Burgess@bolton-menk.com> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 2:52 PM To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us> Subject: 0N1.123997 - Scandia WWTF - Section 31 - Township 32N - Range 20W I am preparing an environmental report for the above project. Please provide any informa Ɵon you have in the SHPO database for: SecƟon Township Range 31 32N 20W Thank you, Teresa Teresa Burgess P.E. (MN, IA, SD, TN) CPESC Senior Project Engineer Bolton & Menk, Inc. 1960 Premier Drive Mankato, MN 56001-5900 Phone: 507-625-4171 ext. 2638 Mobile: (507) 327-9292 teresa.burgess@bolton-menk.com Bolton-Menk.com To send large files, click here and then follow the prompts. This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. COUNTY SITENUM SITENAME TOWNSHIPRANGESECTIONXQUARTERS ACRESWORKTYPEDESCRIPT TRADITIONCONTEXTReportNum NatregCEFDOE Washington 21WAg "Indian Stockade"32 20 31 SE 0 EW COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNSHIPRANGESECTIONQUARTERSUSGS REPORTNUMNRHPCEFDOEINVENTNUM Washington May Twp. Disabled Veteran's Rest Camp 32 20 31 SE-SE-SE Hugo WA-MYT-010 New Scandia Twp. farmstead 1100 250th St.32 20 31 SE-SE Forest Lake XX-2010-3H WA-NSC-029 farmstead 32 20 31 SE-SE Forest Lake XX-2010-2H WA-NSC-029 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-16 • 2/8/16 Page 1 of 5 State Environmental Review Process (SERP) Mailing List Form Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program Doc Type: Wastewater Point Source Instructions: This is the complete mailing list that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will use to public notice the Environmental Summary or other environmental review documents. Please type names and addresses on this form and return to the MPCA staff engineer. This list should be considered minimum. If a more substantial mailing list is available for the Public Participation Program, it should be added to this mailing list. Please return this mailing list in MS Word format only. Example address blocks: The Honorable Mark Anderson Minnesota State Senator 135 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55113 Marv Johnson, City Administrator City of Willmar 236 Oriole Avenue Willmar, MN 55699 Municipality name: City of Scandia Project number: 280805 Contact name: Teresa Burgess Phone number: 507-625-4171 x2638 (person completing the form) Public notice address information 1. The Honorable State Senator: 6. City Administrator/Clerk: Karin Housley Capitol Office 95 University Avenue W. Minnesota Senate Bldg., Room 2213 St. Paul, MN 55155 sen.karin.housley@senate.mn Anne Hurlburt Interim Administrator 14727 209th St. N. Scandia, MN 55073 a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us 2. The Honorable State Representative: 7. Engineering Consultant: Josiah Hill 415 State Office Building * St. Paul, MN 55155 rep.josiah.hill@house.mn.gov Jacob Humburg Bolton & Menk, Inc. 12224 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337 3. The Honorable County Board Chair: 8. County Planning and Zoning Office: Fran Miron District 1 Washington County Commissioner P.O. Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-6132 fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E. Public Works Director and County Engineer of Public Works P.O. Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-6132 wayne.sandberg@co.washington.mn.us 4. The Honorable Mayor: 9. Watershed District (if established): Christine Maefsky 14727 209th St. N. Scandia, MN 55073 c.maefsky@ci.scandia.mn.us Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed 11660 Myeron Rd N, Stillwater, MN 55082 mike.isensee@cmscwd.org 5. Township Board Clerk:* 10. Regional Development Commission: www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-16 • 2/8/16 Page 2 of 5 *Include if any portion of the project (including the facility, interceptor, influent or outfall lines) will be located in the township(s). To add rows, place your cursor in the last row of the second column and hit tab. Interested citizens: Interested groups: (i.e., homeowners associations, environmental, business, civic, etc., organizations) Teresa Burgess, PE, CPESC Bolton & Menk, Inc. 1960 Premier Drive Mankato, MN 56001 Teresa.burgess@bolton-menk.com Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Bobby Komardley Chairman PO Box 1330 Anadarko, OK 73005 bkomardley@outlook.com Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Edith Leoso THPO PO Box 39 Odanah, WI 54861 thpo@badriver-nsn.gov Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma Max Bear THPO 700 Black Kettle Blvd Concho, OK 73022 mbear@c-a-tribes.org Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Garrie Kills-A-Hundred THPO PO Box 283 Flandreau, SD 57028 garrie.killsahundred@FSST.org Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Jill Hoppe THPO 1720 Big Lake Rd Cloquet, MN 55720 JillHoppe@fdlrez.com Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana Michael Blackwolf THPO 656 Agency Main Street Harlem, MT 59526-9455 mblackwolf@ftbelknap.org Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Maryann Gagnon THPO PO Box 428 Grand Portage, MN 55605 maryanng@grandportage.com Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Lance Foster THPO 3345 B Thrasher Rd. White Cloud, KS 66094 lfoster@Iowas.org Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan Alden Connor THPO 16429 Beartown Rd. Baraga, MI 49908 Aconnor@kbic-nsn.gov www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-16 • 2/8/16 Page 3 of 5 Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Alina Shively THPO P.O. Box 249 Watersmeet, MI 49969 alina.shively@lvd-nsn.gov Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Amy Burnette Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 190 Sailstar Drive NE Cass Lake, MN 56633 amy.burnette@llojibwe.org Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Cheyanne St. John THPO PO Box 308 Morton, MN 56270 cheyanne.stjohn@lowersioux.com Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin David Grignon Tribal Historic Preservation Officer PO Box 910 Keshena, WI 54135-0910 mitwadmin@mitw.org Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (The Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe) Terry Kemper Tribal Preservation Officer 43408 Oodena Drive Onamia, MN 56359 terry.kemper@millelacsband.com Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Noah White THPO 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089 noah.white@piic.org Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Christopher Boyd THPO 88385 Pike Road Bayfield, WI 54814 Chris.Boyd@redcliff-nsn.gov Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska Misty Frazier THPO 425 Frazier Ave. N. Suite 2 Niobrara, NE 68760 ssn.thpo@gmail.com Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota Dianne Desrosiers THPO P.O. Box 907 Sisseton, SD 57262-0509 dianned@swo-nsn.gov www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-16 • 2/8/16 Page 4 of 5 Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin Garland McGeshick Chairperson 3051 Sand Lake Road Crandon, WI 54520 garland.mcgeshick@scc-nsn.gov Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Susie Fox Interim Director THPO P.O. Box 198 Fort Totten, ND 58335-0359 sfox@gondtc.com Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Samantha Odegard THPO PO Box 147 Granite Falls, MN 56241-0147 samanthao@uppersiouxcommunity-nsn.gov White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Jaime Arsenault THPO and NAGPRA Representative PO Box 418 White Earth, MN 56591 Jaime.Arsenault@whiteearth-nsn.gov To add rows, place your cursor in the last row of the second column and hit tab. Property owners: Property owner list should include all property owners of the site to be, or which has been previously acquired. For pond systems, include the property owner(s) of the pond site, spray irrigation site(s) and all property owners of homes within one -fourth mile of the pond site and any clusters of homes within one-half mile of the pond site. Federal agencies: State agencies: www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-16 • 2/8/16 Page 5 of 5 ATTN: Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Twin Cities Field Office 4101 American Boulevard East Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 ATTN: Environmental Review Supervisor MN Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 -4025 ATTN: Environmental Compliance Chief U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 ATTN: Manager of Government Programs and Compliance MN Historical Society Minnesota Historic Preservation Office 345 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102-1906 ATTN: Regional Environmental Officer Federal Emergency Management Agency Region V Office 536 South Clark Street, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60605 ATTN: Cultural Resource Director MN Indian Affairs Council 161 St. Anthony Avenue, Suite 919 St. Paul, MN 55103 MPCA regional office(s): https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-32 • 2/1/23 Page 1 of 2 Project Priority List (PPL) Wastewater Application Doc Type: Wastewater Point Source Instructions: Submit completed form to ppl.submittals.pca@state.mn.us. For more information, please contact Bill Dunn, Clean Water Revolving Fund Coordinator at 651-757-2324 or bill.dunn@state.mn.us. You can also visit our website at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/apply-for-financial- assistance 1. New project/Update to existing PPL project: New project Update to existing project Rescore MPCA Project number: 280805 2. NPDES/SDS Permit number: MN0054119 3. Project description: Constuction of new nitrification/denitrification process to remove nitrates. 4. Facility Plan/Preliminary Engineering Report submitted along with PPL Application? Yes No 5. Applicant name: City of Scandia Project area: Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Town/city: Scandia, MN Population: 3,963 (2022) County: Washington 6. Contact person: Anne Hurlburt Address: 14727 209th Street North Scandia, MN 55073-8503 Phone: 651-433-2274 Email: a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us 7. Project engineering consultants/Firm name (if applicable): Bolton & Menk Inc. Contact name: Jacob Humburg, P.E. Address: 12224 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337-1649 Phone: 952-890-0509 ext.3167 Email: Jacob.Humburg@bolton-menk.com 8. Project area description: Sewered Unsewered (submit map of project area) a. Number of existing households: 75 b. Number of non-residential users: 0 c. Number of failing SSTS systems: N/A https://www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-32 • 2/1/23 Page 2 of 2 Need or problem project addresses: (Check all that apply) Rehab collection system Failing SSTS systems Connection to an existing system Rehab of an existing facility New treatment and/or collection system Advanced treatment Expansion of existing treatment plant Other Note: Required attachments for unsewered area projects. A map of the project service area which has an identifiable scale, identifies all the structures with wastewater flows, and has the maximum impact zone clearly encircled. 9. Project estimated cost ($): $1.60 Million 10. Current project status: Pre-Design 11. Desired construction state date, if financing is available (month/year): April 2025 12. Project Needs Categories (check all that apply): New Collector System New Interceptors Sewer System Rehab Infiltration/Inflow Secondary Treatment Advanced Treatment Reuse Water Efficiency Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy 13. Please indicate if this project may qualify for Green Project Reserve (GPR), and has potentially eligible components or the entire project is applying to be determined GPR eligible. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided a guidance document listing examples of projects that will qualify for Green Project Reserve dollars. Below is an abbreviated list of those examples. If the proposed project matches one or more of the examples, check the box next to the example that describes the project. For more information, see Guidance for Green Project Reserve at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/apply-for-financial-assistance. Categorical eligible project types (check all that apply): 1. Water Efficiency 2. Energy Efficiency 3. Environmentally Innovative 4. Non-categorical (describe below) On behalf of an eligible project as their authorized authority, I hereby submit this application for placement on the PPL: Authorized Representative Signature: Title: (This document has been electronically signed.) Email: Date (mm/dd/yyyy): Anne Hurlburt a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us City Administrator 03/01/2023 www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-34 • 12/18/13 PPL – Existing Facility Page 1 of 4 PPL Wastewater Existing Facility Improvements Scoring Worksheet Project Priority List (PPL) Minnesota Rule Chapter 7077.0117 Doc Type: PPL Points Determination MPCA Use Only Facility Information (please print) Project name: Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvments Project Number Applicant name (if different): City of Scandia Staff Engineer Contact name: Jacob Humburg, P.E. Title: Environmental Project Engineer Total Points E-mail address: Jacob.Humburg@bolton-menk.com Phone: 952-890-0509 ext.3167 Date Instructions: This worksheet is used to score all requests for state financial assistance for wastewater improvement projects for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permitted facilities. Scoring is based on the environmental criteria contained in Minnesota Rule Chapter 7077. The result of scoring is a ranked list called the Project Priority List (PPL) from which projects will be selected for funding. Applicants must complete their sections of the worksheet and submit it with their requests for placement on the PPL. As part of completing the worksheet, the applicant must provide sufficient documentation to support the award of points. Complete application information is located on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ppl. Complete this form if your proposal includes improvements to wastewater collection and/or treatment facilities that have an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit or a State Disposal System (SDS) Permit. For more information, contact: Bill Dunn, Clean Water Revolving Fund Coordinator at 651-757-2324, Fax 651-297-8324, or bill.dunn@state.mn.us. Applicant completes questions 15-40 and 85; MPCA completes 45-80, 90-95 Points [15] Existing and proposed stabilization ponds located in karst areas and SDS facilities with high ground water table [subp. 6] 15.1 Does this project replace or rehabilitate stabilization ponds located over karst areas? Yes No 15.2 Does this project replace or rehabilitate wastewater treatment facilities having a disposal site (spray irrigation, rapid infiltration, etc.) with less than three feet of vertical separation from the treated wastewater discharge point to the seasonally high ground wat er table or to bedrock? Yes No If Yes to either 15.1 or 15.2, enter 20 points [20] Existing facility at or above 85% capacity [subp. 1] Complete 20.1 if project improves only the treatment facility or improves both the treatment facility and the collection facilities. 20.1 Is this treatment facility at or above 85% of either its permitted hydraulic flow or organic loading capacity as determined by the last 12 month average wet weather flow (AWW) or average annual discharge, and will the project proposal appropriately resolve capacity issues either through expansion of treatment capacity or reduction of loadings? Yes No Permitted hydraulic and/or organic loading capacity: Actual hydraulic and/or organic loading capacity: Complete 20.2 if project improves only the collection facilities. 20.2 Is this collection facility at or above 85% of the design peak instantaneous wet weather flow (PIWW) or provide documentation of other physical conditions, such as by -passing to show the peak flow has exceeded the design PIWW, and will the project proposal appropriately resolve capacity issues through expansion of collection facility capacity? Yes No Design PIWW: Documented peak flow: If Yes to either 20.1 or 20.2, enter 5 points www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-34 • 12/18/13 PPL – Existing Facility Page 2 of 4 Project name: Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvments Points [25] Existing age of treatment or collection facilities within the proposed project service area [subp. 2] (Age is determined by the construction year of all or a substantial portion of the existing facility addressed by project.) 25.1 Last significant construction year of treatment or collection facilities, which are proposed to be repaired or replaced within the service area? Yes No Enter Year: 1986 25.2 Are the facilities 20 years or more old? If yes, attach documentation of last significant construction year. Yes No If Yes, enter 20 points 20 [30] Existing excessive infiltration/inflow (i/i) with proposed reduction plan [subp. 3] 30.1 Does this facility have excessive infiltration or inflow? (Minn. R. 7077.0105, subp. 12 and 13) Calculate infiltration: 48 gallon/capita/day Greater than 120 gallon/capita/day? Yes No Calculate inflow: 199 gallon/capita/day Greater than 275 gallon/capita/day? Yes No 30.2 Does the proposal include measures to correct excessive infiltration or inflow? Yes No If Yes to both 30.1 and 30.2, enter 15 points [35] Existing or proposed land (including sub-surface) discharge [subp. 4] 35.1 Does the facility currently land discharge treated wastewater effluent, will it continue to land discharge, and not create or contribute to known ground water nitrate levels over 10 mg/L? Yes No 35.2 Does the proposed alternative call for the consumptive use (nit rogen or volume) spray irrigation or on-land disposal systems, that are required by permit to denitrify (nitrate limit)? Yes No If Yes to either 35.1 or 35.2, enter 20 points 20 [40] Existing stringent limit that exceeds secondary treatment [subp. 5] 40.1 Is the existing facility currently subject to CBOD or TSS permit limits that are more stringent than secondary treatment (25 mg/l and 30 mg/l), or has an ammonia, total nitrogen or phosphorus limit? (Minn. R. 7050.0211) Exclude facilities discharging to Class 7 waters that are subject to 15 CBOD. Yes No If Yes, enter 10 points 10 [45] Existing effluent discharge violations (Enforcement staff) [subp. 7] 45.1 Is the existing facility on the Significant Noncompliance List (CFR, title 40, section 123.45, appendix A) and would the proposed project designed to eliminate the problem? Yes No If Yes, enter 5 points [50] Existing repeated facility failures (Enforcement staff) [subp. 8] 50.1 Has the existing treatment or collection facility experienced bypasses, overflows and/or surcharges during two or more storm events within a 12-month period when operating at less than “peak instantaneous wet weather flow” and is the proposed project designed to eliminate such failures? Yes No If Yes, enter 10 points [55] Existing discharge to outstanding resource value water (ORVW) or impaired water (Effluent Limits Coord.) [subp. 9] 55.1 Does the existing facility currently discharge into an ORVW or Impaired water? Yes No If Yes, enter 5 points 55.2 If yes, does the existing facility also have existing acute/chronic effluent discharge standards violations? (see question 45.1 or subp. 7)? Yes No If Yes to both 55.1 and 55.2, enter 5 points 55.3 If yes, does the existing facility also have existing chronic failures? (see question 50.1 or subp. 8) Yes No If Yes to 55.1, 55.2, and 55.3, enter 5 points [60] Existing discharge near potable water intake (Effluent Limits Coordinator) [subp. 10] 60.1 Is there potable water intake within 25 miles downstream of the existing facility discharge? Yes No If Yes, enter 5 points www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-34 • 12/18/13 PPL – Existing Facility Page 3 of 4 Project name: Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvments Points [65] Existing endangered or threatened species (Effluent Limits Coordinator) [subp. 11] 65.1 Does the receiving water downstream from the existing facility discharge support any endangered or threatened species? Yes No If Yes, enter 5 points [70] Proposed introduction of more stringent discharge limits for an existing facility (Effluent Limits Coordinator) [subp. 12] Does this existing treatment facility need to meet more intensive and/or extensive wastewater treatment standards because of: 70.1 More stringent facility discharge limits as incorporated into MPCA permit revisions? Yes No 70.2 Discontinuation of an existing permit variance? Yes No 70.3 Need to treat additional hydraulic or organic loading capacities withou t increasing either the permitted frozen effluent mass limit or concentration of discharges to the receiving waters? Yes No If Yes to 70.1, 70.2 or 70.3, enter 10 points [75] Existing receiving water classification (Effluent Limits Coordinator) [subp. 13] Only the most strict classification can be used, 7 points maximum 75.1 Receiving water classification is 2A Yes No If Yes to 75.1, enter 7 points 75.2 Receiving water classification is 1, 2Bd Yes No If No to 75.1 and Yes to 75.2, enter 5 points 75.3 Receiving water classification is 2B, 2C, 2D Yes No If No to 75.1 and 75.2 and Yes to 75.3, enter 3 points 75.4 Receiving water classification is 7 Yes No If No to 75.1, 75.2 and 75.3 and Yes to 75.4, enter 1 point [80] Project facility effluent to stream impact dilution ratio (Effluent Limits Coordinator) [subp. 14] For all discharges to rivers, streams, or ditches (flowing receiving water), calcul ate the facility effluent low flow by averaging the influent flow reported on the monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for the three consecutive months with the lowest influent flow in three climatic years, April 1 to March 31. 80.1 What is the ratio of the influent low flow of the facility to the 7Q10 flow of the receiving water? Dilution Ratio* = Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) Low Flow (million gallons per day [mgd]) / Receiving water low flow (mgd) ( mgd/ mgd = Dilution Ratio ) Dilution Ratio = *For all “Dilution Ratios” greater than 1.0 or if the 7Q10 receiving water flow = 0 mgd set dilution ratio = 1.0 Note: Round up calculated value for dilution ratio to the next whole number (e.g., 8.3 = 9). 15 x dilution ratio = [85] Proposed project implements corrective measures (Effluent Limits Coordinator) [subp. 15] 85.1 Will the project implement corrective measure(s) for problems identified in a study, such as: • Clean Water Partnership Project • Impaired Water Study • EPA-approved Watershed Restoration Action Strategy • Equivalent (other) study, e.g., County Water Plan Yes No Type of Study: Attach supporting documentation and identify relevant sections. If Yes, enter 5 points [90] Proposed project helps meet a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for a receiving water (Effluent Limits Coord) [subp. 16] 90.1 Does this project contribute to the achievement of a TMDL by being designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants as required by an Agency approved TMDL implementation plan or does the project require an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit or State Disposal System (SDS) Permit that will require the reduced discharge of pollutants based on a TMDL? Yes No If Yes, enter 20 points www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-wwtp2-34 • 12/18/13 PPL – Existing Facility Page 4 of 4 Project name: Bliss Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvments Points [95] Propose project points reduction for new/expanded discharges into specified waters (Effluent Limits Coord) [subp. 17] 95.1 Does the proposed project involve a new or expanded discharge* to one or more of the following specified waters? Yes No a) Outstanding Resource Value Waters (Minn. R. 7050.0180) b) Impaired waters (Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) c) Classification 2A, lake, or wetland that exceeds 200,000 gallons per day * If new permit requirements include frozen effluent mass limits f rom the existing permit, the facility is not defined as expanding and negative points will not be assigned. If Yes, enter minus 5 points [100] Project includes wastewater reuse 100.1 Does the project include the beneficial use of treated wastewater effluent that will reduce or replace the use of a groundwater, surface water, or potable water source? Yes No 100.2 Do the project components needed to beneficially use treated wastewater effluent account for at least 20% of the total eligible project cost? Yes No 100.3 Does the project receive points under item 35 (Minn. R. 7077.0117, subp. 4) for land discharge? Yes No If Yes to both 100.1 and 100.2, enter 30 points Total Approx 50