www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats p-ear2-156a Page 1 of 1 Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Albertville Wastewater Treatment Facility – Discharge Re-location Doc Type: Public Notice Public comment information EAW public comment period begins: March 18, 2019 EAW public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on April 17, 2019 Notice published in the EQB Monitor: March 18, 2019 Facility name and location: Facility contact: City of Albertville Wastewater Treatment Facility 11728 63 rd Street NE Albertville, Minnesota Wright County, Minnesota City of Albertville Seth Peterson, Principal Engineer/Project Manager Bolton & Menk, Inc. 12224 Nicollet Avenue Phone: 612-803-5223 Email: [email protected]MPCA contact information MPCA EAW contact person: Nancy Drach, Planner Principal Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-757-2317 Fax: 651-297-2343 Email: [email protected]Admin staff phone: 651-757-2100 General information The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any comments received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects from the project and decide on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/eaw. If you would like a copy of the EAW or have any questions on the EAW, contact the appropriate person(s). Description of proposed project The city of Albertville (City) is proposing to construct a new lift station and 5.5-mile discharge pipe to convey treated wastewater from its wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to the Mississippi River. This will eliminate its current treated wastewater discharge to Hunters Lake (also known as Mud Lake). The City will also modify the WWTF to add biosolids storage and replace the existing ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system with a new UV disinfection system. The City’s WWTF design average wet weather flow (AWWF) will remain at 929,700 gallons per day. Need for an EIS The MPCA Commissioner will make a final decision on the need for an EIS after the end of the comment period.
Transcript
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats p-ear2-156a Page 1 of 1
Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment
Public comment information EAW public comment period begins: March 18, 2019
EAW public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on April 17, 2019
Notice published in the EQB Monitor: March 18, 2019
Facility name and location: Facility contact: City of Albertville Wastewater Treatment Facility 11728 63rd Street NE Albertville, Minnesota Wright County, Minnesota
City of Albertville Seth Peterson, Principal Engineer/Project Manager Bolton & Menk, Inc. 12224 Nicollet Avenue Phone: 612-803-5223 Email: [email protected]
MPCA contact information
MPCA EAW contact person: Nancy Drach, Planner Principal Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-757-2317 Fax: 651-297-2343 Email: [email protected] Admin staff phone: 651-757-2100
General information The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any comments received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects from the project and decide on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/eaw. If you would like a copy of the EAW or have any questions on the EAW, contact the appropriate person(s).
Description of proposed project The city of Albertville (City) is proposing to construct a new lift station and 5.5-mile discharge pipe to convey treated wastewater from its wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to the Mississippi River. This will eliminate its current treated wastewater discharge to Hunters Lake (also known as Mud Lake). The City will also modify the WWTF to add biosolids storage and replace the existing ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system with a new UV disinfection system. The City’s WWTF design average wet weather flow (AWWF) will remain at 929,700 gallons per day.
Need for an EIS The MPCA Commissioner will make a final decision on the need for an EIS after the end of the comment period.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/environmental-review-guidance-practitioners-and-proposers. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 1. Project Title: Albertville Wastewater Treatment Facility – Discharge Relocation 2. Proposer: City of Albertville 3. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Contact person: Seth Peterson, P.E. Contact person: Nancy Drach Title: Principal Engineer/City Project Manager Title: Planner Principal Bolton & Menk Address: 12224 Nicollet Avenue Address: 520 Lafayette Road North City, State, ZIP: Burnsville, MN 55337 City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Phone: 612-803-5223 Phone: 651-757-2317 Fax: 952-890-8065 Fax: 651-297-8683 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required: Discretionary: oEIS Scoping o Citizen Petition X Mandatory EAW o RGU Discretion o Proposer Initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minn. R. pt. 4410.4300, subp. 18. B Wastewater Systems.
5. Project Location: County: Wright City/Township: City of Albertville/City of Otsego
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF): Range(R) 24 North (N), Township (T) 121 West (W) Discharge Pipe originates: Southwest (SW) Quarter (1/4) of Southeast (SE) ¼ of Section (S) 36 Passes in/through the following: SW ¼ of SE ¼ S. 36 Northwest (NW) ¼ of SE ¼ S. 36 Northeast (NE) ¼ of SE ¼ S. 36 Border between NE ¼ S.36 and NW ¼ S. 31 Border between S. 25 and S. 26 Border between S. 23 and Border between SW ¼ S. 13 and SE ¼ S. 14 SW ¼ of NW ¼ S. 13 NW ¼ of NW ¼. S. 13
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): North Fork Crow River Mississippi River – St. Cloud
GPS Coordinates: 45°14’31.3” N93°47.2”W Tax Parcel Number: Albertville Wastewater Treatment Facility (101500364303) Discharge Pipe Primarily in road right-of-way Attachments: · County map showing the general location of the Project; · U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating Project boundaries (photocopy
acceptable); and · Site plans showing all significant Project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-
construction site plan.
Figure 1. County Map Figure 2. Project Location Map 1 Figure 3. Project Location Map 2 Figure 4. Proposed Biosolids Storage Tank Figure 5. Albertville Zoning Map Figure 6. Otsego Existing Zoning Map Figure 7. Otsego Future Land Use Map Figure 8. Well Map Figure 9. Wetlands Map 1 Figure 10. Wetlands Map 2 Attachment A – MDNR Natural Heritage Information System Response dated July 30, 2018 Attachment B – MDNR Blanding Turtle Factsheet Attachment C – Minnesota State Historical Society - State Historic Preservation Office information dated August 17, 2018
Attachment D – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Identification Guide to Large Nests
Project Description: a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words).
The city of Albertville (City) is proposing to construct a new lift station and 5.5-mile discharge pipe to convey treated wastewater from its wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to the Mississippi River. This will eliminate its current treated wastewater discharge to Hunters Lake (also known as Mud Lake). The City will also modify the WWTF to add biosolids storage and replace the existing ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system with a new UV disinfection system. The City’s WWTF design average wet weather flow (AWWF) will remain at 929,700 gallons per day.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
Existing WWTF and Discharge The City’s WWTF is in the southeast (SE) quarter (1/4) of Section (S) 36, Township (T) 121 North (N), Range (R) 124 West (W), Albertville, Wright County. See Figure 1. The WWTF is a mechanical treatment system that currently consists of a main lift station, three static fine screens, three anaerobic/anoxic selector basins, two oxidation ditches, three final clarifiers, chemical addition for phosphorus removal, and UV disinfection. The City treats biosolids resulting from the treatment process using two aerobic digester tanks and a reed bed system for disposal. The City also has two 6-acre stabilization ponds that still exist at the WWTF location. The City has the ability to use one of the stabilization ponds to equalize wastewater flow and temporarily store wastewater when necessary. The WWTF has an AWWF of approximately 1 million gallons per day (mgd), and currently discharges through an outfall pipe to Hunters Lake (also known as Mud Lake) immediately west of the WWTF.
City Project The City is proposing to construct a new lift station and discharge pipe, new manholes, a new biosolids storage tank, replacing the existing UV disinfection system with a new UV disinfection system, and replacing and upgrading existing electrical, and communications systems at the WWTF (Project). The City submitted design plans and construction specifications to the MPCA for review and approval for all components of the Project. In addition to having an issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit, the MPCA must review and approve all components of the Project, before the Project can proceed.
1. New Discharge Pipe and Discharge Location
The City is proposing to construct a new lift station and 5.5-mile discharge pipe to convey treated wastewater from the City’s WWTF to a point on the Mississippi River north of the City in Otsego. See Figure 2. After completion of the Project, the City will then eliminate discharge of treated wastewater to Hunters/Mud Lake. See Figures 2 and 3.
Discharge Pipe Construction The City has designed the discharge pipe to be approximately 5.5 miles in length. The discharge pipe will be a combination of forcemain and gravity sewer pipe. The length of the discharge pipe consists of approximately 5.45 miles of forcemain connecting to a 296-foot gravity sewer that then discharges the treated wastewater into the Mississippi River. Forcemain pipes use pressure to convey treated wastewater from the City’s WWTF, and gravity pipes use gravity to move the treated wastewater. In general, the City will construct the proposed discharge pipe in space parallel to the adjacent roadways, ditches and turf areas. The discharge pipe will originate as a forcemain pipe at the City’s WWTF and will be constructed along the following route:
· Travel east, on the north side of 63rd Street NE, approximately 25’ off the roadway edge, to MacIver Avenue NE
· Travel north, on the west side of MacIver Avenue NE, approximately 23’ off the back of curb, to 70th Street E
· Travel west, on the south side of 70th Street, approximately 31’ off the proposed back of curb, to County Road 19
· Travel north, on the west side of County Road 19, approximately 14’ off the edge of bituminous, to County Road 39
· Cross under County Road 39 and extend north to the Mississippi River through the Riverwood Property
The forcemain pipe will be 16-inch nominal polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or 16-inch nominal high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The City will use 18-inch Class-5 reinforced concrete pipe to construct the gravity sewer pipe. The City will construct the majority of the forcemain pipe using horizontal/directional drilling, and will open cut for some areas to accommodate pipe bends, manholes, and to avoid construction issues in areas with soils unfavorable to pipe placement via directional drilling. The last 300-feet of discharge pipe before reaching the Mississippi River will be gravity sewer. The land area for the gravity sewer portion of the Project will be open cut with an approximate depth of 8 feet. Excavated soil will be stockpiled onsite and used as backfill. The City will use most of the materials excavated during on-site construction as backfill after installing the discharge pipe, but a small amount of pipe bedding material will be imported. The City plans to restore all disturbed areas to pre-construction conditions.
The City does not anticipate the need for significant dewatering, but will work with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) if a MDNR’s temporary water appropriation permit for construction dewatering is necessary. All construction south of County Road 39 will take place on city-owned property (Albertville and/or Otsego), Wright County-owned property, or within existing right-of-way or existing utility easements. The City has reached agreements with the property owners north of County Road 39 for permanent and temporary easements. The City intends to construct the discharge pipe in 2019, after completion of the environmental review process and receiving all required permits and approvals.
2. Lift Station Construction
The City will construct a new lift station and valve vault at the WWTF. The lift station will use pressure to pump wastewater treated at the WWTF to the discharge pipe. The City will also construct:
· Air release manholes to allow venting of air in the discharge pipe · Maintenance manholes to provide access for pipe repairs and maintenance · Sanitary manholes, junction points for pipes
The lift station and manholes will be constructed below grade. The City will excavate soils, prepare a support base, install the concrete components for the lift station, manholes and associated piping, then seal the concrete components and piping.
3. Biosolids Treatment Construction
In order to expand on-site biosolids storage capacity, the City will construct one cast-in-place 280,000 gallon concrete biosolids storage tank. . The City will prepare the biosolids storage tank area by removing soils as needed, prepare a support base, then install and seal the concrete tank and associated piping. See Figure 4.
4. Replacement of UV Disinfection Equipment
The City will replace the WWTF’s existing UV disinfection system with a new UV Disinfection system. The new UV Disinfection system consists of two modules with 12 lamps per module.
Other construction/installation The City is also planning to replace and upgrade existing electrical and communications equipment at the WWTF. Project magnitude:
Total Project Acreage Estimated 5 acres of total surface
disturbance Linear project length 5.5 miles Number and type of residential units Not applicable Commercial building area (in square feet) Not applicable Industrial building area (in square feet) Not applicable Institutional building area (in square feet) Not applicable Other uses – specify (in square feet) Not applicable Structure height(s) 10’ (biosolids storage)
d. 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 City is proposing the Project in order to ensure the WWTF treats and discharges wastewater in compliance with federal regulations and state rules for surface water quality. The City’s community benefits from the wastewater treatment.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely
to happen? o Yes x No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review. f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? o Yes x No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
7. Cover Types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:
Before
(acres) After (acres)
Before (acres)
After (acres)
Wetlands 5.19 5.19 Lawn/landscaping Deep water/streams Impervious surface 0.41 0.56 Wooded/forest Stormwater Pond Brush/Grassland 72.40 72.25 Other (describe) Cropland TOTAL 78.00 78.00
8. Permits and Approvals Required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications
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. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit
To be obtained if applicable.
State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Wastewater Permit
To be obtained
MPCA NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Construction (CSW) Permit (NPDES/SDS CSW Permit)
To be obtained as needed
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Temporary Water Appropriation Permit (dewatering)
To be obtained if permit threshold is met*
MDNR Utility Crossing Permit for work under public waters
To be obtained
MDNR Public Waters Work Permit Application submitted Gopher State One Call Utility line location verification Prior to excavation Local Wright County County Road Right of Way Permit To be obtained Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District
Wetland Conservation Act approval
To be obtained
City of Albertville Building Construction Permit
To be obtained
City of Albertville (Albertville will serve as the LGU)
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Application
To be obtained
City of Otsego Conditional use permit To be obtained *The City does not anticipate the need to obtain a MDNR temporary water appropriation permit for dewatering in Project areas. However, the City will be continuing to evaluate this as construction proceeds in the Project areas, and will contact the MDNR if there is a potential of meeting the threshold for obtaining the permit.
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19
9. Land Use:
a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails,
prime or unique farmlands.
Project areas are either on or adjacent to land the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Wright County has classified as prime farmland. However, the land is not currently being considered for row crop agriculture.
ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other
applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency.
There are no aspects of the Project that change land use in the City or Otsego, or alter waterbodies.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
Figure 5, 6, and 7 show the various zoning classifications along the proposed discharge pipe path for
both the City and Otsego. The majority of the discharge pipe construction will occur along La Beaux Avenue NE/County Road
19, and in areas zoned as agricultural rural areas. However, there are discharge pipe construction activities that will take place alongside areas of that are zoned as single family residential, high- density residential, planned unit development, and public institutional. The City will construct discharge pipe in two areas classified as shoreland overlay districts.
The City’s discharge to the Mississippi River is within the area from St. Cloud to Anoka that is part of
the Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. More specifically, the discharge pipe is within the Clearwater to Anoka/Champlin stretch of the Mississippi River that is designated as “recreational.” The MPCA rules (Minn. R. 7050.0335) also classify the Mississippi River, at this reach, as an Outstanding Resource Value Water (ORVW). The MPCA considered this designation, along with other criteria in the effluent limits for the proposed discharge. See EAW Item 11 for more information.
The discharge pipe also outlets across from the easternmost tip of the Mississippi River Islands Scientific
and Natural Area (SNA). The MPCA believes that because of the distance between the discharge and the Mississippi River Islands SNA, along with the volume and velocity of the Mississippi River, the discharge will have little to no impact on the Mississippi River Islands SNA, even during a low flow period.
According to the City of Otsego’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Future Land Use, portions of the
land east and west of County Road 19/LeBeaux Avenue will be reclassified as commercial, low/medium density residential, office, rural, and commercial. See Figure 7. See also
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The City’s WWTF construction activities, including the new lift station, construction of the biosolids storage tank, replacement of the existing UV disinfection system with a new disinfection system, and replacement and upgrade of electrical and communications are compatible with current and future City land use, as the work will take place within the City’s WWTF property. The City’s discharge pipe will be put in below ground, and will not alter current or future land uses for either the City or Otsego. The City will construct the discharge pipe concurrently with planned road construction activities in Wright County, including roadwork in Otsego, so as to streamline construction activities.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as
discussed in Item 9b above.
Not applicable.
10. Geology, Soils and Topography/Land Forms: a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible
geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. The MPCA wastewater permit program requires the City to conduct geotechnical exploration and review, including soil borings, for the Project. The City hired a licensed subcontractor to conduct this work. The City’s subcontractor determined the Project site does not have susceptible features, such as shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. The site geology generally consists of topsoil (both surficial and overlain by fill) and fill or possible fill to depths ranging from 1 to 16.5 feet at the boring locations. The topsoil and fill consisted of lean clay, sandy lean clay, clayey sand, sandy silt, and silty sand. The N-values (the level of compaction of the soil based on standard penetration tests) in these soils ranged from 4 to 30 blows per unit penetration. The water content ranged from 14% to 19%. Below the fill and topsoil, borings generally identified naturally-deposited till, which was occasionally found interbedded with layers of fine, mixed, and coarse alluvial soils. The till soils generally consisted of sandy lean clay, clayey sand, and silty sand. The N-value in these soils ranged from 1 to 46 blows per unit penetration. The water content ranged from 9% to 30%. The final alluvial soils consisted of lean clay, silty with sand, and clayey sand. These soils were very loose to stiff in consistency, based on the N-values. The water content ranged from 30% to 44%.
Several of the borings identified coarse alluvial soils consisting of silty sand, sand with silt and sand at several. These soils were medium dense to very dense, based on the N-values. Several of the borings also identified swamp deposited soils. The borings encountered clays at borings B-12 (6.5 to 12.5 feet), B-20 (11.5 to 16.5 feet) and B-24 (2 to 4.5 feet). Hemic peat was encountered at boring B-21 from 16.5 feet to the termination depth of the boring at 41 feet below grade, with a layer of sandy lean clay till from 17.5 to 19 feet. The N-values ranged from the weight of the drill rod string and hammer to 9 blows per unit penetration. The water content ranged from 30% to 32% in the swamp deposited soils.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. The general topography consists of gently undulating plain, with steeper slopes boarding the Mississippi River. The USDA-NRCS Soil Survey for Wright County indicates Angus-Cordova clay loam, Cordova clay loam, Lester clay loam, and silts. Soil borings generally indicated lean clay, sandy lean clay, clayey sand, silt, and silty sands. The soils are deemed generally adequate to support the proposed discharge pipe, as well as the lift station, additional biosolids tank, and electrical/communication equipment construction. The in-situ soils are moderately erodible with no special site conditions of note. The City will require the use of erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices (BMPs). BMPs may include erosion control blankets, silt fences, and bio rolls. The majority of the City’s pipe construction will use horizontal directional drilling, minimizing surface disturbance. The City estimates the total disturbed area for the Project at approximately 5 acres. The City will not have mass grading areas on Project areas.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.
11. Water Resources: a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below.
i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
Figure 3 provides general water resource information.
The WWTF and both the existing and proposed discharge locations are in the Mississippi River-St. Cloud major watershed.
The construction of the discharge pipe will be within 1 mile of School Lake (AUID:86-0025-00), and
Hunters Lake (AUID:86-0026-00). The MPCA has listed both Hunters Lake and School Lake as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication and biological indicators. The MDNR has also listed both Hunters Lake and School Lake as protected waters.
Starting at the WWTF, the discharge pipe will run parallel along 70th Street, and cross underneath a
creek that MDNR has identified as Otsego Creek. The discharge pipe will turn and run north, parallel along LaBeaux Avenue/County Road 19, crossing underneath an unnamed creek that then flows into Otsego Creek. Further north on LaBeaux Avenue/County Road 19, the discharge pipe will cross under wetland areas and another unnamed stream.
The discharge pipe will then outlet to and discharge treated wastewater into the reach of the Mississippi
River classified as a restricted ORVW (Mississippi River Reach: Clearwater River to Crow River). MPCA has listed the Mississippi River as impaired for mercury in fish tissue in the discharge area.
As noted, this area of the Mississippi River is part of the Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, and
the discharge pipe is at a stretch of the Mississippi River that is designated as “recreational.” The City or its contractors will obtain a NPDES/SDS General CSW Permit and follow all requirements,
including, where applicable, all additional requirements for construction stormwater activities within 1 mile of an impaired and/or special water.
See 11.b.iii. for additional information. ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a
MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
The depth to groundwater varies along the discharge pipe pathway from 4.3 feet to more than 40 feet. The discharge pipe path will pass through the Albertville Drinking Water Supply Management Area,
and the Otsego West wellhead protection area (ID#78501). When constructing the discharge pipe, the City is required to comply with isolation distances in these areas as required in the state’s well code (Minn. R. ch. 4725).
The City has prepared mapping that shows several domestic, sealed, and other wells within a
1-mile radius of the Project area, including the WWTF site and the proposed discharge pipe. See Figure 8 for well locations and unique well numbers. The MPCA conducted a review of the Minnesota Well Index (MWI) https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/. The MDH requires the discharge pipe to be installed in additional casing when the pipe is less than 50 feet from a well. While unlikely, should there need to be any construction-oriented or permanent impacts to wells, the City will work with the landowner to ensure no disruption of water supply. Although also very unlikely, if aspects of the City’s discharge pipe construction requires a water supply well to be
closed, the City will accommodate the property owner, and obtain necessary permitting and approvals through MDH. There are “unverified wells” near the discharge pipe. According to the MWI, the original information source for well locations, these type of wells have not been field checked and digitized or determined via GPS. They are calculated from township-range-section and subsection (if available) information recorded on the well log submitted. The coordinates may be only those of the center of the section in which the well is located.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the
effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure.
The City’s new discharge pipe to the Mississippi River will convey treated wastewater from the City’s WWTF. The City’s WWTF has an AWWF of approximately 1mgd. The discharge pipe is designed to convey the same volume of treated wastewater as the AWWF, and is designed to carry a peak flow of 4.608 mgd in order to accommodate periods of precipitation. The City anticipates the discharge pipe will remain in use for several decades. Therefore, the City must design and construct the discharge pipe large enough to meet the needs of the City’s long-term planning. The City’s WWTF will not be expanding. The City’s WWTF will have effluent limits and monitoring that are reflective of the change in discharge to the Mississippi River. See 11.b.i.3. for additional information.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. Not applicable.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
The Project will relocate the City’s WWTF treated wastewater discharge from Hunters Lake (Mud Lake), to the Mississippi River. As a result, this new discharge will meet effluent limits based on the type of wastewater treatment, the Mississippi River classification, and downstream impairments, as applicable.
Antidegradation Review The current discharge to Mud Lake/Hunters Lake ultimately reaches the Mississippi River. The most recent NPDES/SDS Permit for the WWTF expired on June 30, 2017. The City applied for reissuance of the NPDES/SDS Permit prior to permit expiration as required in Minn. R. 7001. The City was aware that if it maintained the existing discharge, it would be required to meet a more stringent effluent limit for phosphorus, and new effluent limits for chlorides, bicarbonates as HCO3, total dissolved solids, and sodium as a percent of total cations. As a result, the City completed a facility planning process to look at its options for the WWTF discharge – maintain the same discharge pipe and discharge location, move the discharge downstream of the lake, or moving the discharge pipe and discharge to the Mississippi River.
The City decided to move the WWTF’s discharge pipe and treated wastewater discharge to an upstream reach of the Mississippi River. As a result, the City prepared and submitted antidegradation information the MPCA in accordance with Minn. R. 7050. The MPCA reviewed this information and determined the Proposer provided adequate documentation of “no prudent and feasible alternatives” to the proposed new discharge. More information for this review is available with the NPDES/SDS Permit Program. Below are effluent limit and monitoring tables for the existing discharge through the expired NPDES/SDS Permit (Tables 1a and 1b), the effluent limits and monitoring required if the City keeps the discharge pipe and outfall the same (Table 2), and the City’s selected and proposed discharge to the Mississippi River (Tables 3a and 3b).
Table 1a. Existing Discharge (SD002) to Mud Lake - Expired NPDES/SDS Permit Effluent Limit Requirements
Parameter
Milligrams per Liter (mg/L) Calendar Average (“Avg”) monthly
Kilograms(kg)/day Calendar AVG monthly
Five Day carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5)
pH (Range) (Standard Units) 6.0-9.0 NA Total Phosphorus 661 kg/year Rolling Total
Table 1.b. Additional Monitoring Requirements for Existing Discharge Pollutant or Pollutant Characteristic Frequency Phosphorus (in Influent and Effluent) 1 x Week Mercury (in Effluent) 1 x Year (July) Mercury (Total plus Dissolved) and TSS Grab nanograms per liter (ng/L)
1 x Year Plus 1 x year large volume sampling
Total Orthophosphate (in Influent, Effluent and Receiving Water)
1 x month year round (Effluent) 1 x month April – September (Receiving Water)
Pollutant or Pollutant Characteristic Frequency Chloride (Effluent) 1 x month Nitrite plus Nitrate, TKN, and TN – mg/l 2 x Year (Spring and Fall Discharge) Total Ammonia Nitrogen 2 x Year (Spring and Fall Discharge) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2 x Year (Spring and Fall Discharge)
pH (Range) (Standard Units) 6.0-9.0 NA Total Phosphorus 0.06 mg/L (by permit expiration) Chloride 230 mg/L Bicarbonate as HC03 336 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids 734 mg/L Sodium as a % total Cations 60%
Table 3.a. City Project- Proposed Discharge (SD004) in NPDES/SDS Permit to Mississippi River
Effluent Limits Substance or Characteristic Milligrams per Liter (mg/L)
Calendar Average (“Avg”) monthly Kilograms(kg)/day Calendar AVG monthly
CBOD5 25 mg/L 87.0 kg/day TSS 30 mg/L 106 kg/day DO 5.0 (daily average) NA Fecal Coliform (Geometric mean):
200 organisms/100 mL April 1 through October 31
NA
pH (Range) (Standard Units) 6.0-9.0 NA Total Phosphorus 1 mg/L 1,284 kg/year - 12 months
moving total January - December
Table 3.b. Additional Monitoring Requirements for Proposed Discharge to Mississippi River
Pollutant or Pollutant Characteristic Frequency Phosphorus (in Influent and Effluent) 1 x Week Mercury in the Effluent 1 x Year (July)
Receiving Water Impairments Some downstream receiving waters from the City’s proposed Mississippi River discharge point are impaired. The MPCA has proposed effluent limits and monitoring requirements for the Project in consideration of the impairments. The MPCA considers the proposed effluent limits and monitoring requirements to be protective of the downstream receiving waters.
Downstream Receiving Water Impairments Receiving Water Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Status Permit Consideration
Mississippi River Mercury in Fish Tissue (F) Mercury in Water Column (W)
MPCA is requiring monitoring in accordance with MPCA Mercury Statewide TMDL and Mercury Permitting Strategy.
The City will be required to monitor total and dissolved mercury, along with TSS associated with mercury.
Fecal Coliform EPA approved the Upper Mississippi River – Bacteria TMDL on November 20, 2014.
The MPCA did not assign a WLA for the Project in this TMDL as the proposed discharge is outside of the TMDL area.
TSS The MPCA completed a draft South Metro Mississippi River TMDL Turbidity Impairment. The MPCA has drafted a Waste Load Allocation (WLA) for the City’s WWTF.
The City’s WWTF proposed TSS limit is for 45 mg/L calendar month average, and equivalent to the WLA.
Nutrients These impairments are located in the Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed. A TMDL has not been developed to address the impairments.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) in Fish Tissue (F)
TMDLs are not underway for PCB impairments at this time.
See note.*
Perfluoro- octanesulfonic acid (PFOS) F
TMDLSs are not underway for PFOS impairments at this time.
See note.**
PFOS in Water Column (W) TMDLs are not underway for PFOS impairments at this time.
See note.**
Pepin Lake Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
EPA approved the site-specific standard in January 2015. The MPCA has scheduled the draft Lake Pepin-Excess Nutrients TMDL to public noticed in spring 2019. The MPCA will incorporate the site-specific standard into Minn. R. when MPCA next revises Minn. R. Chapter 7050.
The MPCA has determined the proposed annual mass phosphorus limit as a Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) for Lake Pepin.
Mississippi River Mercury in F MPCA is requiring monitoring in
accordance with the statewide Mercury TMDL/MPCA Mercury Permitting Strategy.
The MPCA requires the City to monitor total and dissolved mercury, along with TSS associated with Mercury.
PCB F TMDLs are not underway for PCB impairments at this time.
See note.*
*PCBs are known as “legacy pollutants” – PCBs have not been manufactured in the United States since the late 1970s. PCBs tend to persist in the environment for a long time. MPCA believes the Pond WWTF’s discharge does not have PCBs, as there is no contributing source (industry) to the City. **PFOS are extremely persistent in the environment. MPCA believes the Pond WWTF’s discharge does not have PFOS, as there is no direct contributing source (industry) to the City.
ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction.
The City will install the discharge pipe below ground. When the City removes roads and/or ditches as part of the discharge pipe, the City will be replacing the roads to be the same as pre-construction. The City is also working with Otsego and the Wright County Engineering Department to coordinate construction activities. Post-construction stormwater drainage direction, quantity and quality will remain generally unchanged. Construction of the Project will cause soil disturbance and, therefore, increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. The City will apply for an MPCA- NPDES/SDS CSW Permit. The City will develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will identify BMPs to mitigate surface water impacts. BMPs may include erosion control blankets, silt fences, and bio rolls. The City will stabilize disturbed soils and will comply with the NPDES/SDS CSW Permit
The City’s construction activities, and resulting drainage, will take place within one mile of Mud/Hunter’s Lake, School Lake, and the Mississippi River. All three water bodies are impaired, and the Mississippi River is a special water (restricted ORVW and a recreational water). As a result, the City must ensure they and their contractors follow the “Additional Requirements for Discharges to Special (Prohibited, Restrict, Other) and Impaired Waters”outlined in Section 23 of the NPDES/SDS General CSW Permit.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater
(including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Based on the geotechnical study completed for the design of the Project, the City believes construction activities will require little to no dewatering. However, the City will contact the MDNR and obtain the MDNR Groundwater Appropriations Permit for construction dewatering if necessary. Once constructed, the discharge pipe will not require groundwater or groundwater dewatering to operate.
iv. Surface Waters a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as
draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations.
The City’s consultant completed two wetland delineations in October and November 2017. The first wetland delineation identified a total of 29 wetlands within the discharge pipe area, for a total of 5.19 acres. The second delineation included 70th Street NE, and a total of 12 additional wetlands. The MPCA also reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper to identify wetlands in the Project areas. See Figures 9 and 10 for identified wetland areas. The City will use directional drilling to avoid disturbing wetland. The City, as the LGU, will work with the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District on approvals for wetland work, as well as wetland replacement plan approvals. The City will also contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to determine if the discharge pipe construction activities are exempt from Section 404 Permit Requirements for wetlands. If not, the City will also obtain USACE review and approval for work in wetlands. The City must also work with the MPCA to ensure the Project meets applicable 401 Water Quality Certification requirements.
b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water
features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
The City’s construction and installation of discharge pipe will be primarily through underground horizontal/directional drilling. Where the discharge pipe is proposed to intersect a portion of Otsego Creek and other unnamed streams, the horizontal drilling will be conducted below floor of the water bodies. The drilling will begin and end outside of creek beds. The discharge pipe will outlet to the Mississippi River. The City has applied for the MDNR Public Waters Work Permit.
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or
in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
The City conducted a review of the MPCA’s “What’s in my Neighborhood” database https://www.pca.state.mn.us/data/whats-my-neighborhood along the path of the proposed discharge pipe. The City does not anticipate environmental impacts due to the distance to each identified contamination site and the methods for excavation and installing the discharge pipe. If the City does encounter contamination, they must follow the requirements for notifying the Minnesota State Duty Officer.
Potential Environmental Hazards
Name/Address Hazard Type Site ID Number Distance Heidi’s Market 11850 62nd Street NE Albertville, MN 55301
Not applicable - Leak Site cleaned up with both excavation and thermal treatment. Not applicable - Tank removed.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored during
construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling.
The City does not expect generation of significant amounts of materials related to installation of the forcemain, gravity sewer pipe, or from construction of the lift station or biosolids tank bed disposal, or replacement of the UV disinfection equipment. The City and its contractors must manage and dispose of any remaining construction and demolition debris under Minnesota Solid Waste Requirements. The existing discharge pipe will remain in place, but will be permanently capped.
c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
The City does not expect waste typically associated with the components of the Project to be toxic,
hazardous, or radioactive. The only chemicals/hazardous materials which may be present onsite during construction include petroleum products such as fuel and other engine fluids for maintaining construction equipment. Any hazardous materials used during construction will be stored in leak-proof containers and located away while not in use. The City will ensure waste associated with the construction of the Project to be appropriately disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
If a spill of chemical/hazardous materials should occur during construction activities, the City must ensure the requirements are followed for notifying the Minnesota Duty Officer, as well as ensuring the cleanup and disposal of materials are conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements.
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site. The Project areas consist of the City’s WWTF property, areas in/adjacent to city/county roads, undeveloped area north of County Road 95, and on the bank of the Mississippi River. The City requested and received a MDNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) review of the Project areas. See Attachment A. The MDNR letter, dated July 30, 2018, summarizes the MDNR’s NHIS review of the Project area. The Project will include primarily horizontal drilling under an unnamed creekbed to install pipe, both horizontal and open drilling in/immediately adjacent to county and local roads, and constructing a discharge outfall to the Mississippi River. The City has applied for the MDNR Public Waters Work Permit. The MDNR stated rare features have been documented within Project areas and noted the MDNR Rare Species Guide website: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html provides more information on the biology, habitat use, and conservation measures of the rare species. Although not included in the MDNR NHIS review, the DNR notes there are records of bald eagle nests near the Project area. Because of this, the City should work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services staff to identifying best practices to avoid impacts to bald eagle nests, especially when removing trees. The City should also work with construction staff to be prepared to implement best practices to avoid
impacts, beginning with being able to identify eagle nests. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a handout “Identification Guide to Large Nests,” which has been included as Attachment D.
b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB20190020) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. As noted, the City requested and received a MDNR NHIS review dated July 30, 2018. See Attachment A. The MDNR specifically noted that the following rare features may be adversely affected by the Project:
· Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been reported near the Project area. Blanding’s turtles use wetlands as well as upland areas up to and over a mile distant from wetlands. Blanding’s turtles use uplands for nesting, basking, periods of dormancy, and traveling between wetlands
· Black sandshell (Ligumia recta), a state-listed mussel species of special concern, has been documented in the Mississippi River near the Project area. Mussels can be negatively affected by riverbed disturbance, changes in water flow, and deterioration in water quality including sedimentation/siltation, nutrient loading, and possibly temperature alterations.
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. Blanding’s Turtles Factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include collisions with vehicles, wetland drainage and degradation, and the development of upland habitat. Any added fatality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding’s turtles, as these habitats have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels.
The MDNR has included a Blanding’s turtle fact sheet that described the habitat use and life history of the species, along with two lists of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to the rare turtle. The MDNR states the fact sheet should be given to all contractors working on the Project. If turtles are in imminent danger during construction, they should be moved by hand out of harm’s way, otherwise they are to be left undisturbed. If the City’s contractors use erosion control mesh, the MDNR recommends that the mess be limited to wildlife friendly materials. See Attachment B for additional information.
Black Sandshell Mussels can be negatively affected by riverbed disturbance, changes in water flow, and deterioration in
water quality including sedimentation/siltation, nutrient loading, and possibly temperature alterations.
Black sandshell (Ligumia recta), a state-listed mussel species of special concern, has been documented in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Project. The MDNR notes it is important effective erosion prevention and sediment control practices be implemented and maintained through the duration of this Project, especially at the discharge pipe outfall at the Mississippi River.
The MDNR also recommends a copy of the MDNR NHIS information be included in any state or local license or permit application, and that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses. The City will ensure Project construction and operation activities, including the construction of the pipe outfall and associated riprap, will avoid working directly within the Mississippi River, and will also use appropriate construction stormwater BMPs to prevent any direct or indirect impacts to the Mississippi River.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife,
plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. The City and its contractors must use and maintain erosion prevent and sediment control measures to prevent impacts on the Mississippi River. The City’s WWTF has been at its current location for a number of years. The City’s proposed construction at the WWTF site will occur on land that has been previously disturbed, and the City currently has ongoing daily operational activities at that location. The City’s does not expect the construction activities at the WWTF, which are limited in location and temporary in nature, to impact the WWTF location. The City does not anticipate spreading or introducing invasive species with the construction or operation of the various components of the Project. The City’s contractor will use BMPs to control state-listed noxious weeds. The construction contractor will dispose of excavated material, which does not remain on site as backfill, according to regulatory requirements. Construction vehicles that may come into contact with invasive species will be checked and washed onsite prior to leaving Project areas. The City will ensure reseeding and landscaping materials are free of invasive plants or plant parts.
The City and its contractors must use measures such as those recommended in the MDNR Blanding’s Turtle handout to prevent impacts to the Blanding’s turtle. The City must inform construction workers of the potential presence of Blanding’s turtles in the Project areas, and ensure construction workers use and maintain erosion prevention and sediment control measures.
14. Historic Properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties.
The City requested and received a Minnesota State Historical Society SHPO Report (SHPO Report). See Attachment C dated August 17, 2018.
As previously described, the Project areas include the City’s WWTF Property, in/immediately adjacent to county and local roads, ditches, turf areas, an private undeveloped area north of County Road 95, and on the bank of the Mississippi River. The SHPO Report includes a list of identified properties, including a segment of rail, a feed mill, five homes, and the Albertville Creamery within the same section as the WWTF, the proposed lift station, proposed biosolids tank, and the initial portion of the proposed discharge pipe. The SHPO Report also includes a list of four sites in the vicinity of the Project areas: two sites along the discharge pipe route where two single artifacts were previously found, as well as two areas of earthwork in the vicinity of the WWTF. Site 21WRa The City’s consultant also reviewed additional information specifically related to Site 21WRa, which is on the WWTF property. In 1972, Les Peterson initially documented Site 21WRa in the course of the Albertville Interchange survey along 94. (1972. David W. Nystuen. The Minnesota Trunk Highway Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey: Annual Report 1972. On file with SHPO). This site was reported as “a prehistoric burial mound lies just outside of the interchange rights-of-way.” The site form says that it is a possible mound north of the right-of-way about 500 feet and that there is a small round cottage in the side of possible “mound” that is 5 feet by 50 feet on the southeast shore of Hunters/Mud Lake. In 1979, Vernon and Doreatha Helmen surveyed the site of the City’s proposed wastewater stabilization ponds and associated interceptor. (1979 Vernon R. and Dorothea Voss Helmen. Archaeological Survey of the Site of the Proposed Wastewater Stabilization Pond Site and Interceptor Main, Albertville, Minnesota. On file with SHPO). Their survey included both pedestrian and shovel test survey techniques, but no cultural materials were encountered. In 1993, another entity, the 106 Group Ltd., also conducted a survey for the City’s proposed expansion of the WWTF. (1993. the 106 Group Ltd. Archaeological Reconaissance Survey, Albertville Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion, Albertville, Wright County. On file with SHPO). Their literature review revealed Site 21 WRa and the associated work completed by the Trunk Highway Survey. The 106 Group Ltd. carried out a pedestrian survey at Site 21WRa found no cultural resources nor did they located any mounds in the supposed location of 21WRa. The City’s consultant has conducted a review of aerial imagery, portions of old plans, and archaeological site records and reports, the City believes that the possible mound may be the City’s concrete reservoir tank, which used to be present in this area and is depicted on 1992 plans. The City removed the concrete reservoir tank in 2004. In comparing the Project construction areas to the SHPO Report, including the other sites identified in the SHPO Report, the City believes the Project construction activities will avoid the other sites. If, during construction, the City’s consultants and/or contractors find historic, cultural, or archaeological resources, the City requires, through plans and specifications, that work be stopped until the area can be properly investigated and, if necessary, appropriate measures to prevent and/or mitigate impacts will be implemented.
15. Visual: Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
The Project construction activities at the WWTF site will be temporary in nature, and as such, will not impact any views. The construction of the new lift station is in the location of the existing UV disinfection system. The construction of the new biosolids storage tank, with the height projected to be 10 feet high, is adjacent to the existing biosolids tank and in between the WWTF Public Works building and other wastewater structures. Because of this, the City anticipates the new tank will not be considered a significant new visual impact. The City’s discharge pipe portion of the Project will be constructed in road, ditch, or turf areas adjacent to existing roads. Construction will use either directional drilling or open-cut activities, the construction will be temporary in nature, and the Project areas will be restored to preconstruction conditions. After completion of construction, the discharge pipe will be underground, so will have no visual impacts.
16. Air: a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
The City does not anticipate any increase in air emission at the WWTF because of construction or operation activities. The City is not constructing or adding stationary equipment with air emissions. The wastewater discharged through the discharge pipe is treated, and the City does not anticipate air emissions or odors. The City is constructing and locating the new discharge pipe underground, using either horizontal or open drilling. The City will be constructing one portion of the discharge pipe on private undeveloped land north of County Road 95 and on the bank of the Mississippi River.
b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the
project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. The City expects a temporary increase in vehicle emissions during construction of the Project due to the use of powered construction equipment, as well as the arrival and departure of construction worker vehicles. The Project construction work must meet applicable federal, state, and local seasonal or weight restrictions. While construction may work cause a temporary, slight increase in traffic in the Project areas, the City’s operation of the WWTF or discharge pipe, after completion of the Project, will not permanently increase traffic to the Project site or in the Project area over existing levels.
c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and
odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
The City’s construction of the Project will result in dust and odors during construction. The City and its contractors must meet applicable Wright County, City and Otsego ordinances related to dust and odors. The City and its contractors, if required by the Wright County and or township ordinance, will use measures to mitigate dust emissions from construction activities such as:
· Minimizing the period and extent of areas being exposed or regarded at any one time · Spray construction areas and haul roads with water, especially during, and during periods of
high winds · Cover or spray material piles and truckloads with water
Construction vehicles onsite can cause occasional odors from vehicle exhaust. When the City removes waste materials, such as biosolids at the City’s WWTF in preparation for application, the removal of biosolids may result in transitory odors during removal. Such odors are temporary. The City does not anticipate changes in the amount or frequency of biosolids removal at this time.
17. Noise: Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. Project construction activities will cause noise from construction vehicles entering and leaving Project areas during construction, and during operation of heavy construction equipment. This noise will be temporary and will end once the Project is completed. Although the construction work in both the City and Otsego will result in noise that is more than existing conditions, the noise is temporary and limited in duration and time. Noise from the operation of construction vehicles and equipment must remain below applicable local town and/or county noise ordinances.
The City and its contractors will follow applicable local noise ordinances, and do not expect extra noise mitigation measures will be necessary.
18. Transportation: a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. There will be a temporary increase in traffic over existing conditions, at the WWTF, and in the areas of drilling and installation of pipe, because of construction vehicles and construction worker vehicles. The numbers of construction vehicles will vary dependent on the stages of construction. Construction vehicles and construction workers will only be during the period of construction. Once construction is complete, the amount of traffic in the area will return to existing conditions.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance, The City’s Project will not permanently increase traffic on nearby roads. The City, Wright County, or Otsego did not identify a need for traffic improvements during or post construction.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
As the City’s contractors construct and/or install components of the Project, they must ensure that transportation into and out of the Project construction areas follow federal, state and local requirements, including seasonal and/or weight restrictions, as well as debris management and control.
Project construction will be occurring concurrently with planned Wright County road construction work,
including road reconstruction activities on 70th Street, which may require periodic but temporary closures and detours. The City has been working with both Wright County and Otsego to coordinate construction activities and ensure planning in order to minimize traffic congestion or delays during construction.
Once the City has completed the Project, the operation activities at the City’s WWTF and discharge pipe
will return to pre-construction levels. 19. Cumulative Potential Effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are
addressed under the applicable EAW Items) a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could
combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
The discharge pipe portion of the Project is 5.5 miles long, which travels along MacIver Avenue, 70th Street, and County Road 19 in the cities of Albertville and Otsego. The City anticipates all Project components to be constructed in 2019.
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid)
that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. Wright County is proposing to reconstruct 70th Street to an urban section between County Road 19 and MacIver Avenue. Wright County is proposing round-a-bouts at the intersections with County Road 19 and at MacIver Avenue. The Wright County improvements will take place at the same time as the Project.
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information
relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
Proposed Biosolids
Storage Tank
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
City of AlbertvilleProposed Discharge Pipe Minnesota Well Map
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
Albertville – National Wetlands Inventory Map
(MPCA – February 13, 2019)
FIGURE 10
ATTACHMENT A
Environmental Review Fact Sheet Series
Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species of Minnesota
Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)
Minnesota Status: Threatened State Rank1: S2 Federal Status: none Global Rank1: G4
HABITAT USE Blanding’s turtles need both wetland and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. The types of wetlands used include ponds, marshes, shrub swamps, bogs, and ditches and streams with slow-moving water. In Minnesota, Blanding’s turtles are primarily marsh and pond inhabitants. Calm, shallow water bodies (Type 1-3 wetlands) with mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation (e.g., cattails, water lilies) are preferred, and extensive marshes bordering rivers provide excellent habitat. Small temporary wetlands (those that dry up in the late summer or fall) are frequently used in spring and summer -- these fishless pools are amphibian and invertebrate breeding habitat, which provides an important food source for Blanding’s turtles. Also, the warmer water of these shallower areas probably aids in the development of eggs within the female turtle. Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands, often some distance from water bodies. Frequently, nesting occurs in traditional nesting grounds on undeveloped land. Blanding’s turtles have also been known to nest successfully on residential property (especially in low density housing situations), and to utilize disturbed areas such as farm fields, gardens, under power lines, and road shoulders (especially of dirt roads). Although Blanding’s turtles may travel through woodlots during their seasonal movements, shady areas (including forests and lawns with shade trees) are not used for nesting. Wetlands with deeper water are needed in times of drought, and during the winter. Blanding’s turtles overwinter in the muddy bottoms of deeper marshes and ponds, or other water bodies where they are protected from freezing.
LIFE HISTORY Individuals emerge from overwintering and begin basking in late March or early April on warm, sunny days. The increase in body temperature which occurs during basking is necessary for egg development within the female turtle. Nesting in Minnesota typically occurs during June, and females are most active in late afternoon and at dusk. Nesting can occur as much as a mile from wetlands. The nest is dug by the female in an open sandy area and 6-15 eggs are laid. The female turtle returns to the marsh within 24 hours of laying eggs. After a development period of approximately two months, hatchlings leave the nest from mid-August through early-October. Nesting females and hatchlings are often at risk of being killed while crossing roads between wetlands and nesting areas. In addition to movements associated with nesting, all ages and both sexes move between wetlands from April through November. These movements peak in June and July and again in September and October as turtles move to and from overwintering sites. In late autumn (typically November), Blanding’s turtles bury themselves in the substrate (the mud at the bottom) of deeper wetlands to overwinter.
IMPACTS / THREATS / CAUSES OF DECLINE • loss of wetland habitat through drainage or flooding (converting wetlands into ponds or lakes)• loss of upland habitat through development or conversion to agriculture• human disturbance, including collection for the pet trade* and road kills during seasonal movements• increase in predator populations (skunks, raccoons, etc.) which prey on nests and young
*It is illegal to possess this threatened species.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS These recommendations apply to typical construction projects and general land use within Blanding’s turtle habitat, and are provided to help local governments, developers, contractors, and homeowners minimize or avoid detrimental impacts to Blanding’s turtle populations. List 1 describes minimum measures which we recommend to prevent harm to Blanding’s turtles during construction or other work within Blanding’s turtle habitat. List 2 contains recommendations which offer even greater protection for Blanding’s turtles populations; this list should be used in addition to the first list in areas which are known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding’s turtles (contact the DNR’s Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program if you wish to determine if your project or home is in one of these areas), or in any other area where greater protection for Blanding’s turtles is desired. List 1. Recommendations for all areas inhabited by Blanding’s turtles.
List 2. Additional recommendations for areas known to be of state-wide importance to Blanding’s turtles.
GENERAL
A flyer with an illustration of a Blanding’s turtle should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding’s turtles in the area.
Turtle crossing signs can be installed adjacent to road-crossing areas used by Blanding’s turtles to increase public awareness and reduce road kills.
Turtles which are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harms way. Turtles which are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed.
Workers in the area should be aware that Blanding’s turtles nest in June, generally after 4pm, and should be advised to minimize disturbance if turtles are seen.
If a Blanding’s turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest.
If you would like to provide more protection for a Blanding’s turtle nest on your property, see “Protecting Blanding’s Turtle Nests” on page 3 of this fact sheet.
Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated.
Construction in potential nesting areas should be limited to the period between September 15 and June 1 (this is the time when activity of adults and hatchlings in upland areas is at a minimum).
WETLANDS
Small, vegetated temporary wetlands (Types 2 & 3) should not be dredged, deepened, filled, or converted to storm water retention basins (these wetlands provide important habitat during spring and summer).
Shallow portions of wetlands should not be disturbed during prime basking time (mid morning to mid- afternoon in May and June). A wide buffer should be left along the shore to minimize human activity near wetlands (basking Blanding’s turtles are more easily disturbed than other turtle species).
Wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides should be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes.
Wetlands should be protected from road, lawn, and other chemical run-off by a vegetated buffer strip at least 50' wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural condition.
ROADS
Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes (this reduces road kills by slowing traffic and reducing the distance turtles need to cross).
Tunnels should be considered in areas with concentrations of turtle crossings (more than 10 turtles per year per 100 meters of road), and in areas of lower density if the level of road use would make a safe crossing impossible for turtles. Contact your DNR Regional Nongame Specialist for further information on wildlife tunnels.
Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4 inch high curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred (Blanding’s turtles have great difficulty climbing traditional curbs; curbs and below grade roads trap turtles on the road and can cause road kills).
Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade.
ROADS cont. Culverts between wetland areas, or between wetland areas and nesting areas, should be 36 inches or greater in diameter, and elliptical or flat-bottomed.
Road placement should avoid separating wetlands from adjacent upland nesting sites, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details).
Wetland crossings should be bridged, or include raised roadways with culverts which are 36 in or greater in diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical (raised roadways discourage turtles from leaving the wetland to bask on roads).
Road placement should avoid bisecting wetlands, or these roads should be fenced to prevent turtles from attempting to cross them (contact your DNR Nongame Specialist for details). This is especially important for roads with more than 2 lanes.
Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical.
Roads crossing streams should be bridged.
UTILITIES
Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum (this reduces road-kill potential).
Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade.
LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible.
As much natural landscape as possible should be preserved (installation of sod or wood chips, paving, and planting of trees within nesting habitat can make that habitat unusable to nesting Blanding’s turtles).
Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs (some non-natives form dense patches through which it is difficult for turtles to travel).
Open space should include some areas at higher elevations for nesting. These areas should be retained in native vegetation, and should be connected to wetlands by a wide corridor of native vegetation.
Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1st and before June 1st ).
Ditches and utility access roads should not be mowed or managed through use of chemicals. If vegetation management is required, it should be done mechanically, as infrequently as possible, and fall through spring (mowing can kill turtles present during mowing, and makes it easier for predators to locate turtles crossing roads).
Protecting Blanding’s Turtle Nests: Most predation on turtle nests occurs within 48 hours after the eggs are laid. After this time, the scent is gone from the nest and it is more difficult for predators to locate the nest. Nests more than a week old probably do not need additional protection, unless they are in a particularly vulnerable spot, such as a yard where pets may disturb the nest. Turtle nests can be protected from predators and other disturbance by covering them with a piece of wire fencing (such as chicken wire), secured to the ground with stakes or rocks. The piece of fencing should measure at least 2 ft. x 2 ft., and should be of medium sized mesh (openings should be about 2 in. x 2 in.). It is very important that the fencing be removed before August 1st so the young turtles can escape from the nest when they hatch! REFERENCES 1Association for Biodiversity Information. “Heritage Status: Global, National, and Subnational Conservation
Status Ranks.” NatureServe. Version 1.3 (9 April 2001). http://www.natureserve.org/ranking.htm (15 April 2001).
Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Minnesota’s Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 473 pp.
REFERENCES (cont.) Moriarty, J. J., and M. Linck. 1994. Suggested guidelines for projects occurring in Blanding’s turtle habitat.
Unpublished report to the Minnesota DNR. 8 pp. Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis, 237 pp. Sajwaj, T. D., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Thermal ecology of Blanding’s turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology 3(4):626-636. Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Resources, Updated March 2008 Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 / 651-259-5109
CAUTION
BLANDING’S TURTLES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED
IN THIS AREA The unique and rare Blanding’s turtle has been found in this area. Blanding’s turtles are state-listed as Threatened and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. For additional information on turtles, or to report a Blanding’s turtle sighting, contact the DNR Nongame Specialist nearest you: Bemidji (218-308-2641); Grand Rapids (218-327-4518); New Ulm (507-359-6033); Rochester (507-206-2820); or St. Paul (651-259-5772). DESCRIPTION: The Blanding’s turtle is a medium to large turtle (5 to 10 inches) with a black or dark blue, dome-shaped shell with muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third, enabling the turtle to pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when threatened. The head, legs, and tail are dark brown or blue-gray with small dots of light brown or yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck.
BLANDING’S TURTLES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS
IT IS ILLEGAL TO KEEP THIS THREATENED SPECIES IN CAPTIVITY
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS
TO BLANDING’S TURTLE POPULATIONS (see Blanding’s Turtle Fact Sheet for full recommendations)
This flyer should be given to all contractors working in the area. Homeowners should also be informed of the presence of Blanding’s turtles in the area.
Turtles that are in imminent danger should be moved, by hand, out of harm’s way. Turtles that are not in imminent danger should be left undisturbed to continue their travel among wetlands and/or nest sites.
If a Blanding’s turtle nests in your yard, do not disturb the nest and do not allow pets near the nest.
Silt fencing should be set up to keep turtles out of construction areas. It is critical that silt fencing be removed after the area has been revegetated.
Small, vegetated temporary wetlands should not be dredged, deepened, or filled. All wetlands should be protected from pollution; use of fertilizers and pesticides
should be avoided, and run-off from lawns and streets should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes.
Roads should be kept to minimum standards on widths and lanes. Roads should be ditched, not curbed or below grade. If curbs must be used, 4" high
curbs at a 3:1 slope are preferred. Culverts under roads crossing wetland areas, between wetland areas, or between
wetland and nesting areas should be at least 36 in. diameter and flat-bottomed or elliptical.
Culverts under roads crossing streams should be oversized (at least twice as wide as the normal width of open water) and flat-bottomed or elliptical.
Utility access and maintenance roads should be kept to a minimum. Because trenches can trap turtles, trenches should be checked for turtles prior to being
backfilled and the sites should be returned to original grade. Terrain should be left with as much natural contour as possible. Graded areas should be revegetated with native grasses and forbs. Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas -- such as in ditches, along
utility access roads, and under power lines -- should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur fall through spring (after October 1st and before June 1st).
Compiled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Updated August 2012 Endangered Species Review Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 / 651-259-5109
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/gp_2004_0001_manual.html) Best Practices for Meeting DNR GP 2004-0001 (version 4, October 2014) Chapter 1, Page 25
Preventing Entanglement by Erosion Control Blanket
Plastic mesh netting is a common component in erosion control blanket. It is utilized to hold loose fibrous materials in place (EG straw) until vegetation is established. Erosion control blanket is being utilized extensively and is effective for reducing soil erosion, benefitting both soil health and water quality. Unfortunately there is a negative aspect of the plastic mesh component: It is increasingly being documented that its interaction with reptiles and amphibians can be fatal (Barton and Kinkead, 2005; Kapfer and Paloski, 2011). Mowing machinery is also susceptible to damage due to the long lasting plastic mesh.
Potential Problems: Plastic netting remains a hazard long after other components have decomposed. Plastic mesh netting can result in entanglement and death of a variety of small animals. The most vulnerable
group of animals are the reptiles and amphibians (snakes, frogs, toads, salamanders, turtles). Ducklings, small mammals, and fish have also been observed entangled in the netting.
Road maintenance machinery can snag the plastic mesh and pull up long lengths into machinery, thus binding up machinery and causing damage and/or loss of time cleaning it out.
Suggested Alternatives: Do not use in known locations of reptiles or amphibians that are listed as Threatened or Endangered species. Limit use of blanket containing welded plastic mesh to areas away from where reptiles or amphibians are likely
(near wetlands, lakes, watercourses, or rock outcrops) or habitat transition zones (prairie – woodland edges, rocky outcrop – woodland edges, steep rocky slopes, etc.)
Select products with biodegradable netting (preferably made from natural fibers, though varieties of biodegradable polyesters also exist on the market). Biodegradable products will degrade under a variety of moisture and light conditions.
DO NOT use products that require UV-light to degrade (also called “photodegradable”) as they do not degrade properly when shaded by vegetation.
Solution: Most categories of erosion control blanket and sediment control logs are available in natural net options.
Specify ‘Natural Netting’ for rolled erosion control products, per MnDOT Spec 3885. See Table 3885-1. Specify ‘Natural Netting’ for sediment control logs, per MnDOT Spec 3897
The plastic mesh component of erosion control blanket becomes a net for entrapment.
Literature Referenced Barton, C. and K. Kinkead. 2005. Do erosion control and snakes mesh? Soil and Water Conservation Society 60:33A-35A. Kapfer, J.M., and R.A. Paloski. 2011. On the threat to snakes of mesh deployed for erosion control and wildlife exclusion. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6:1-9.
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY SITENUM SITENAMETOWNSHIPRANGESECTIONXQUARTERS ACRESWORKTYPEDESCRIPT TRADITIONWright
21WR0081 121 24 25 NE-NE-SW-NW 0.1 1 SA
21WR0100 121 24 13 SW-NW-NW-NE 0.1 1 SA
21WRa 121 24 36 SE 0 EW W-2
121 24 36 SE 0 EW W-2
ATTACHMENT C.2
ReportNum
WR-93-02
THY-73-01
COUNTY CITYTWPPROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNSHIPRANGESECTIONQUARTERSUSGSWright
Albertville
St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba,
Albertville Segment BNSH 121 24 36 St. Michael
feed mill 6062 Lambert Ave. NE 121 24 36 SE-SW St. Michael
house 11322 60th St. NE 121 24 36 SE-SW St. Michael
house 11420 60th St. NE 121 24 36 SE-SW St. Michael
house 11430 60th St. NE 121 24 36 SE-SW St. Michael
house 121 24 36 SE-SW St. Michael
house 6041 Large Ave. NE 121 24 36 SW-SE St. Michael
Albertville Creamery 6065 Large Ave. NE 121 24 36 SW-SE St. Michael
ATTACHMENT C.3
REPORTNUMNRHPCEFDOEINVENTNUM
XX-2009-2H Y WR-ALC-016
XX-2009-2H WR-ALC-017
XX-2009-2H WR-ALC-018
XX-2009-2H WR-ALC-020
XX-2009-2H WR-ALC-021
XX-2009-2H WR-ALC-022
XX-2009-2H WR-ALC-023
XX-2009-2H WR-ALC-024
�
� US Fish and Wildlife Service
IDENTIFICATION GUIDE TO LARGE NESTS
Eagle Nests Eagle nests in Minnesota arid Wisconsin are usually built in white pine or cottonwood trees, but can be built in other trees, such as aspen. The nests are usually built in a supportive crotch of the tree, typically below the highest point of the canopy. Generally more bowl shaped than osprey nests. The typical eagle nest can vary in size greatly. They are usually about 5-9 feet in diameter, 3-5 feet deep, and composed of large sticks. (Note: Nests can be up to 8 feet deep). The nests are used year after year, and can reach 1,000-2,000 pounds. The nest tree of an active nest will frequently have whitewash on the tree trunk and under the nest, although this is not always obvious. Nests may also have feathers, bones, and small animal carcasses under them. Eagles will build multiple nests within their territory; some nests will never be completed and will be small. These unfinished alternate nests are still protected. Eagles, osprey, and owlscommonly take over each others nests. Once an eagle uses a nest, even if they don't build it, or if they don't use it on a subsequent year, it is still an eagle nest, and all Eagle Act laws still apply.
Large eagle nest in cottonwood tree in agricultural area. West central Wisconsin
Moderate-sized eagle nest in cottonwood tree, with person climbing up for size comparison. East central MN.
