Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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
