vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago. Illinois 60604
January 1981
Water Division
905R81102 -
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
St. Croix, Wisconsin, and
Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
Water Treatment
Systems
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ST. CROIX FALLS, WISCONSIN
AND
TAYLORS FALLS, MINNESOTA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
AND
WAPORA, INCORPORATED
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Approved by:
hn McGuire
gfonal Administrator
February 1981
-------
For further information contact:
Marilyn Sabadaszka, Project Officer
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-2157
ABSTRACT
An improved system to treat the wastewater that is generated by the
residents of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota, is
needed to come into compliance with the Clean Water Act and to protect the
quality of the St. Croix National Scenic and Recreational Riverway. Alter-
natives considered include upgrading/expanding the two existing facilities,
combined treatment of the two communities' wastewater, and alternatives that
would eliminate direct discharge of treated effluent to the St. Croix River.
These alternatives consisted of various combinations of treatment processes,
siting options, effluent disposal options, and sludge processing and dis-
posal options. Implementation of any of the alternatives would produce
short-term construction impacts to the local environment. Few long-term
operational impacts are anticipated. Based on the technical feasibility,
cost-effectiveness, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns addressed
in this EIS, USEPA concludes herein that the City of St. Croix Falls should
upgrade and expand the existing wastewater treatment plant at St. Croix
Falls and that the City of Taylors Falls should construct a new stabiliza-
tion pond treatment system to replace the existing wastewater treatment
facility at Taylors Falls.
-------
SUMMARY
(X) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Final Environmental Impact Statement
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
1. NAME OF ACTION
Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and, to protect
the quality of the St. Croix National Scenic and Recreational Riverway,
compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and an improved system to treat
wastewater at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
(across the St. Croix River from each other) is needed. Presently, both
communities discharge partially treated wastewater to the River from deteri-
orated, overloaded treatment facilities.
Because of their deteriorated condition, the existing wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTPs) at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls are not capable of
meeting State effluent limitations, which have been established under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to protect
the quality of the receiving water. The communities therefore are required
either to upgrade the quality of, or eliminate entirely, the discharge of
wastewater effluent to the River.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plans have been completed by the two
communities that consider alternative solutions for meeting future waste-
water treatment needs. These include upgrading/expanding the two existing
facilities, a new stabilization pond system for Taylors Falls, combined
treatment of the two communities' wastewater, and land disposal of treated
effluent.
ii
-------
The possible treatment alternatives have been evaluated on the bases of
technical feasibility, reliability, costs, public desirability, environ-
mental and socioeconomic effects, and the ability to meet the specified
effluent discharge limitations.
3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Initially, sixteen wastewater treatment alternatives were considered as
potential solutions to improve the quality of effluent from the existing St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs. After completing the preliminary alter-
native screening process, ten potential wastewater treatment alternatives
were developed and evaluated for technical feasiblity, cost-effectiveness,
environmental concerns, and socioeconomic concerns. The alternatives in-
clude no action, independent treatment systems for St. Croix Falls and
Taylor Falls, and regional treatment systems that would serve both communi-
ties. A number of combinations of treatment processes, siting options,
ef-fluent disposal options, and sludge processing and disposal options were
considered.
No-action Alternative
The "no-action" alternative would entail continued operation of the
existing WWTPs with discharge to the St. Croix River, without any signifi-
cant expansion, upgrading, or replacement during the design period (to the
year 2000). The no-action alternative implies that USEPA would not provide
funds to support new construction, upgrading, or expansion of existing
WWTPs. The costs associated with the no-action alternative for both St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls would be minimal, and would constitute the
normal expenditures required for the continuing operation, maintenance, and
repair of the existing equipment. This alternative is not feasible because
the capacity of the existing plants would be inadequate for treatment of the
projected wastewater flows and effluent limitations could not be met. The
reliability and flexibility of the existing facilities also are limited, and
the minor operational, equipment, and personnel improvements that could be
made would not compensate for the age and deteriorated conditon of the
equipment.
iii
-------
Alternative 1 Upgrading and Expanding the Existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP
at St. Croix Falls to a 400,000 gpd secondary treatment plant with direct
discharge to the St. Croix River. This alternative would serve only the
treatment needs of the St. Croix Falls Service area. The estimated initial
capital cost is $1,124,000 and the estimated annual operation and main-
tenance (O&M) cost is $31,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$1,414,000.
Alternative 2 Land Disposal System for St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of rehabilitation of the existing WWTP at St.
Croix Falls, followed by land disposal of the effluent. This alternative
only would serve the needs of St. Croix Falls. The existing WWTP would be
modified, upgraded, and expanded to treat the average design flow of 400,000
gpd and to produce an effluent capable of meeting a BODc effluent limitation
of 50 mg/1. The effluent from the rehabilitated existing WWTP would be
pumped through an 8-inch-diaraeter force main approximately 2.0 miles to a
land disposal site in the northeast quarter of Section 29 of St. Croix Falls
Township. The effluent would be discharged into flooding basins and would
percolate to the groundwater. During the three winter months, the effluent
would be stored in a basin. The total land area required for the rapid
infiltration system, including the storage basin and a buffer zone, is
approximately 30 acres. An underdrain system or recovery wells may be
required to control groundwater levels, depending on the hydrogeological
conditions at the site. This alternative has an estimated initial capital
cost of $1,181,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $40,000. The total
present worth is estimated to be $1,466,000.
Alternative 3 Compact Activated Sludge System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for Taylors Falls proposes the demolition of the
existing WWTP and construction of a new 140,000 gpd treatment plant at the
same site utilizing a compact activated sludge (CAS) secondary treatment
process. The treated wastewater would be discharged directly to the St.
iv
-------
Croix River. To implement this alternative all existing wastewater treat-
ment process units would have to be demolished. During the construction
period, interim treatment facilities would be required. This alternative
has an estimated initial capital cost of $988,000 and an estimated annual
O&M cost of $36,000. The total present worth is estimated to be $1,348,000.
Alternative 4 Rotating Biological Contactor System for Taylors Falls
This treatment system alternative for Taylors Falls would involve
demolition of the existing WWTP and construction of a new 140,000 gpd WWTP
at the same site utilizing a rotating biological contactor (RBC) secondary
treatment process. The treated wastewater would be discharged directly to
the St. Croix River. Like Alternative 3, all the existing unit processes
would have to be demolished and interim treatment facilities would be pro-
vided during construction. This alternative has an estimated initial capi-
tal cost of $985,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $27,000. The total
present worth is estimated to be $1,233,000.
Alternative 5 Stabilization Pond System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for the Taylors Falls area involves the abandonment of
the existing WWTP and the construct!an of a new stabilization pond treatment
facility at a site in the northwest, quarter of Section 26 of Shafer Town-
ship. Implementation of this alternative would require approximately 30 to
40 acres of land. The treated wastewater would be discharged to the St.
Croix River. However, the discharge to the River would be controlled and
designed to discharge twice a year. The wastewater would be conveyed to the
proposed site using four pumping stations and approximately 2.5 miles of new
force main. This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of
$1,164,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $18,000. The total present
worth is estimated to be $1,218,000. The cost for the demolition of exist-
ing facilities is not included in these figures.
-------
Alternative 6 Land Disposal System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for the Taylors Falls is similar to Alternative 5
except that the treated wastewater from the ponds would be discharged on
land. The treatment facility and the land application site would be located
in the northwest quarter of Section 26 of Shafer Township. Approximately
110 acres of land would be required for this alternative. To avoid the
potential for raising the level of the groundwater, an underdrainage system
would be provided. The renovated water would be collected as drainage and
pumped through a discharge force main to the St. Croix River. This alter-
native has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,584,000 and an estimated
annual O&M cost of $21,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$1,569,000.
Alternative 7 Regional Conventional WWTP at St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of upgrading and expanding the existing St.
Croix Falls WWTP to treat wastewater from both the St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls service areas. The existing Taylors Falls WWTP would be
abandoned and an additional 0.25 acre of land would be needed at the St.
Croix Falls WWTP site. A pumping station and interceptor line constructed
from the Taylors Falls WWTP, attached to the US Highway 8 bridge, through
the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, to the St. Croix Falls WWTP, would
divert the wastewater from Taylors Falls to the regional WWTP on the St.
Croix Falls side of the river. The effluent from the WWTP would be dis-
charged directly to the St. Croix River. This alternative has an estimated
initial cost of $2,113,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $62,000.
The total present worth is estimated to be $2,657,000.
Alternative 8 Regional Stabilization Pond System near Taylors Falls
This alternative consists of a new regional stabilization pond treat-
ment facility to be constructed at a site at the northwest quarter of Sec-
tion 26 of Shafer Township, to treat wastewater from both the St. Croix
Falls and Taylors Falls service areas. Approximately 90 acres of land would
vi
-------
be needed for this alternative. The treated wastewater would be discharged
to the St. Croix River and, as described for Alternative 5, the discharge
would be controlled. The facility would be designed to discharge during two
periods of the year.
The existing St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs would be aban-
doned. A pumping station would be constructed at the St. Croix Falls WWTP. A
force main would extend from the existing St. Croix Falls WWTP site through
the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, crossing the St. Croix River attached
to the highway bridge, to the existing Taylors Falls plant site. The com-
bined system wastewater collected at the existing Taylors Falls WWTP site
would be transported to the new stabilization pond system with the assis-
tance of four pumping stations and approximately 2.5 miles of force main via
the same route as discussed in Alternative 5. The effluent from the stabi-
lization pond system would be pumped through 2.5 miles of force main and
would discharge to the St. Croix River. This alternative has an estimated
initial cost of $2,660,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $31,000. The
total present worth is estimated to be $2,652,000.
Alternative 9 Regional Land Disposal System near Taylors Falls
This alternative is similar to Alternative 8 except that the effluent
from the pond system would be discharged on land and not to the River. The
regional treatment facility and the land application site would be located
in Section 26 of Shafer Township. Approximately 280 acres of land would be
needed for this alternative. The existing St. Croix Falls and Taylor Falls
WWTPs would be abandoned and the wastewater would be diverted to the new
regional plant by pumping stations and force mains as described for Alterna-
tive 8. To avoid the potential for raising the level of the groundwater, an
underdrainage system would be provided. The renovated drainage water would
be collected and pumped through a discharge force main to the St. Croix
River. This alternative has an estimated initial cost of $3,651,000 and an
estimated annual O&M cost of $23,000. The total present worth is estimated
to be $3,375,000.
vii
-------
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Construction Phase
Construction of any of the nine alternatives will produce primarily
short-term impacts to the local environment. Construction of alternatives
utilizing the existing WWTP sites (Alternatives 1, 3, and 4) would have the
least potential for disruption and environmental impacts. The stabilization
pond and land treatment alternatives (Alternatives 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9) would
result in impacts along the force main and/or effluent discharge routes and
the pond and/or land application sites. The regional alternatives (Alterna-
tives 7, 8, and 9) would result in additional impacts along the force main
route through the Wisconsin Interstate State Park and across the US Highway
8 bridge. Alternatives 8 and 9 also would involve the conversion of a
"significant" amount of "prime" agricultural land (more than 40 acres) from
crop production.
Operation Phase
Implementation of independent treatment alternatives or a regional
alternative by the communities would bring them into compliance with the
effluent discharge standards of the respective States. Operation of any of
the treatment alternatives would produce few significant long-term impacts.
The operation of an expanded and rehabilitated St. Croix Falls WWTP
(Alternative 1) with proper maintenance, alternate power supply, and dupli-
cate unit processes would ensure a reliable treatment system that would
improve water quality and create few long-term adverse environmental im-
pacts. The rapid infiltration land application system for St. Croix Falls
(Alternative 2) would have the potential for contaminating groundwater in
the area and for raising the level of the groundwater. Because of the
limited size of the site area for new secondary treatment facilities at
Taylors Falls (Alternatives 3 and 4), it may be difficult to duplicate unit
processes to provide for greater reliability in the treatment of waste-
water. The stabilization pond treatment and spray irrigation disposal sys-
viii
-------
terns for Taylors Falls (Alternatives 5 and 6) offer greater flexibility for
future expansion of the treatment system than the conventional treatment
facilities (Alternatives 3 and 4), because they are not limited by the re-
strictive size of the site. However, Alternatives 5 and 6 potentially could
result in raw sewage spills at the pumping stations because of a malfunction
or power failure. Proper maintenance of the pumps and a backup power source
would minimize or eliminate the potential for such an impact. The regional
alternatives (Alternatives 7, 8, and 9) would present another potentially
problematic system component with the force main supported over the St.
Croix River by the US Highway 8 bridge. The force main would be subject to
exposure and temperature extremes, and bridge flexure could cause leaks or
joint failures resulting in a direct discharge of untreated sewage to the
St. Croix River.
5. IMPLEMENTATION
The total costs to St. Croix Falls residents (annual user fees) would
be higher for the construction and operation of a regional treatment system
than for an independent treatment system; the costs to system users in
Taylors Falls would be lower with a regional system. The ability to con-
struct a regional treatment system may not be feasible, however, because of
the difference in funding priorities for treatment facilities by the two
States. Finally, the two communities have expressed no desire to form an
interstate wastewater treatment district and to join in a regional system.
The City of St. Croix Falls has gone on record preferring the expansion and
rehabilitation of their existing treatment plant and the City of Taylors
Falls has recommended the construction of a new stabilization pond waste-
water treatment system.
6. RECOMMENDED ACTION
In consideration of these factors and others described in this EIS,
USEPA recommends that the City of St. Croix Falls upgrade and expand its
existing WWTP (Alternative 1) and that the City of Taylors Falls construct
a new stabilization pond treatment system (Alternative 5) to replace its
ix
-------
existing WWTP. These two alternatives represent cost-effective, environ-
mentally acceptable, and implementable solutions to meet these communities'
wastewater treatment needs and to protect the. quality of the St. Croix
National Scenic and Recreational Riverway.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . i
SUMMARY ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS xi
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF TABLES xvii
1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1. Project Need and Legal Basis for Action 1-1
1.2. Project History 1-4
1.3. Study Process 1-6
1.4. EIS Issues 1-7
2.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1. Existing Wastewater Conveyance
and Treatment Systems 2-1
2.1.1. Existing Service Areas 2-1
2.1.2. Existing Treatment Systems 2-2
2.1.3. Existing Effluent Quality 2-3
2.1.4. Wastewater Flows 2-5
2.2. Design Factors 2-8
2.2.1. Wastewater Load Factors 2-8
2.2.2. Effluent Standards 2-12
2.2.3. Economic Factors 2-15
2.3. System Component Options 2-17
2.3.1. Flow and Waste Reduction 2-18
2.3.1.1. Infiltration and Inflow Reduction . . 2-18
2.3.1.2. Water Conservation Measures 2-19
2.3.1.3. Other Reduction Measures 2-20
2.3.2. Collection Systems 2-21
2.3.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes 2-22
2.3.3.1. Preliminary Treatment and
Primary Sedimentation 2-22
2.3.3.2. Secondary Treatment 2-23
2.3.3.3. Tertiary Treatment 2-24
2.3.3.4. Disinfection 2-25
2.3.4. Effluent Disposal 2-26
2.3.4.1. Surface Water Discharge 2-26
2.3.4.2. Land Application 2-27
2.3.4.3. Wetlands Discharge 2-31
2.3.4.4. Reuse 2-31
2.3.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal 2-32
2.3.5.1. Sludge Digestion 2-33
2.3.5.2. Sludge Disposal 2-33
xi
-------
2.4. System Alternatives 2-34
2.4.1. No Action Alternative 2-38
2.4.2. Alternative 1 Upgrading and Expanding
the Existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls 2-39
2.4.3. Alternative 2 Land Disposal
System for St. Croix Falls 2-39
2.4.4. Alternative 3 Compact Activated
Sludge System for Taylors Falls 2-41
2.4.5. Alternative 4 Rotating Biological
Contactor System for Taylors Falls 2-43
2.4.6. Alternative 5 Stabilization Pond
System for Taylors Falls 2-46
2.4.7. Alternative 6 Land Disposal System
for Taylors Falls 2-47
2.4.8. Alternative 7 Regional Conventional
WWTP at St. Croix Falls 2-50
2.4.9. Alternative 8 Regional Stabilization
Pond System near Taylors Falls 2-50
2.4.10. Alternative 9 Regional Land
Disposal System near Taylors Falls 2-52
2.5. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives . . 2-54
2.5.1. Flexibility 2-54
2.5.2. Reliability 2-56
2.6. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection
of the Recommended Action 2-58
2.6.1. Comparison of Alternatives 2-58
2.6.2. Recommended Action 2-62
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1. Natural Environment 3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-5
3-6
3-6
Treatment of Wastewater 3-8
3.1.4. Surface Water 3-11
3.1.4.1. Hydrology 3-12
3.1.4.2. Uses 3-14
3.1.4.3. Quality 3-14
3.1.4.4. Existing Discharges 3-25
3.1.5. Groundwater 3-27
3.1.5.1. Resources 3-27
3.1.5.2. Quality 3-28
xii
Natural
3. 1.1.
3.1.2.
3. 1.3.
3. 1. 1. 1. Climate
3.1.1.2. Air Quality
3.1.1.3. Noise and Odor
Physiography, Topography, and Geology . . . .
3.1.2.1. Physiography and Topography . . . .
3.1.2.2. Geology
3.1.3.1. Soils of the Project Area
3.1.3.2. Suitability of Soils for Land
-------
3.1.6. Terrestrial Biota 3-29
3.1.6.1. Vegetation and Landscape 3-29
3.1.6.2. Wildlife 3-35
3.1.7. Aquatic Biota 3-36
3.1.8. Endangered and Threatened Species 3-38
3.1.8.1. Federal Designation 3-38
3.1.8.2. State Designation 3-38
3.2. Man-made Environment 3-42
3.2.1. Economics 3-42
3.2.1.1. Income 3-42
3.2.1.2. Employment 3-43
3.2.2. Demographics 3-45
3.2.2.1. Historical Population Trends .... 3-45
3.2.2.2. Population Projections 3-47
3.2.3. Public Finance 3-49
3.2.3.1. Financial Status of the
City of St. Criox Falls 3-49
3.2.3.2. Financial Status of the
City of Taylors Falls 3-53
3.2.4. Land Use 3-55
3.2.4.1 Land Use Trends 3-55
3.2.4.2. Development Controls 3-64
3.2.4.3. Housing Characteristics 3-64
3.2.4.4. Transportation 3-65
3.2.4.5. Recreation 3-67
3.2.5. Archaeological, Historical,
and Cultural Resources 3-68
3.2.5.1. Archaeological Sites 3-68
3.2.5.2. Historical Sites and
Cultural Resources 3-69
3.2.6. National Wild and Scenic Riverway 3-70
4.0. ENVIR01MENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1. Construction Impacts 4-1
4.1.1. Air Quality 4-8
4.1.2. Floodplains and Wetlands 4-9
4.1.3. Prime Agricultural Land 4-10
4.1.4. Endangered and Threatened Species 4-11
4.1.5. Cultural Resources 4-11
4.2. Operation Impacts 4-12
4.2.1. Conventional Treatment Plant Alternatives. . . 4-13
4.2.1.1. Wastewater Treatment Facilities . . 4-13
4.2.1.2. Discharge of Treated Wastewater. . . 4-21
4.2.1.3. Sludge Disposal 4-22
4.2.1.4. Conveyance System 4-24
4.2.2. Stabilization Pond Treatment
System Alternatives 4-25
4.2.2.1. Treatment and Storage Ponds .... 4-25
4.2.2.2. Discharge of Treated Wastewater. . . 4-26
4.2.2.3. Conveyance System 4-26
xiii
-------
Page
4.2.3. Land Application Wastewater
Treatment Alternatives 4-28
4.2.3.1. Rapid Infiltration Land Applica-
tion System for St. Croix Falls. . . 4-29
4.2.3.2. Spray Irrigation Land
Application System 4-31
4.3. Public Finance Impacts 4-34
4.3.1. User Costs 4-34
4.3.2. Municipal Indebtedness 4-42
4.4. Secondary Impacts 4-44
4.5. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts 4-45
4.5.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts 4-46
4.5.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts 4-49
4.5.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 4-51
4.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4-51
4.7. Irretrievable and Irreversible
Resource Commitments , 4-52
5.0. CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1
6.0. LITERATURE CONSULTED 6-1
7.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 7-1
8.0 INDEX 8-1
APPENDIX A: EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS A-l
APPENDIX B: POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS .... B-l
APPENDIX C: GEOLOGY AND SOILS C-l
APPENDIX D: WATER QUALITY D-l
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC FINANCE AND USER FEES E-l
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1 Location and boundaries of the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 1-2
2-1 Existing and proposed site areas for the wastewater
treatment facilities alternatives and force main routes. . . 2-36
2-2 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 1 2-40
2-3 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 2 2-41
2-4 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 3 ..... 2-44
2-5 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 4 2-45
2-6 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 5 2-48
2-7 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 6 2-49
2-8 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 7 2-51
2-9 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 8 2-53
2-10 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 9 2-55
3-1 Topography of the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 3-4
3-2 Soil Associations in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 3-7
3-3 Areas potentially suitable for land application of
treated wastewater in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 3-9
3-4 Water quality sampling sites 3-22
3-5 Land cover in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 3-30
3-6 Existing land uses in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area, 1979 3-57
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (concluded)
3-7 Existing land uses in Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1979 .... 3-59
3-8 Existing land uses in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, 1979 . . . 3-60
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1 Raw sewage and final effluent data for the St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin, wastewater treatment plant for 1978 . . . 2-4
2-2 Raw sewage and final effluent data for the Taylors
Falls, Minnesota, wastewater treatment plant for 1978 . . . 2-5
2-3 Wastewater load factors projected for St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota for the year 2000 . . 2-10
2-4 Interim and final effluent limitations for the St. Croix
i Falls, Wisconsin, wastewater treatment plant 2-13
2-5 Interim and final effluent limitations for the Taylors
Falls, Minnesota, wastewater treatment plant 2-14
2-6 Effluent limitations for a discharge
to Lawrence Creek or Dry Creek 2-16
2-7 Summary of estimated costs for the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota wastewater
treatment alternatives (in thousands of dollars) 2-59
3-1 Summary of flow data for the St. Croix River at
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for the period 1902-1977 . . . 3-13
3-2 Monthly flow data for the gaging station at
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for water year 1976-1977 . . . 3-13
3-3 Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, for 1976 and 1977 3-17
3-4 Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for 1976 and 1977 3-18
3-5 Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at
Stillwater, Minnesota, for 1977 3-19
3-6 Water quality survey of the St. Croix
River to assess the impact of the St.
Croix Falls, Wisconsin wastewater discharge 3-23
3-7 Water quality survey of the St. Croix
River to assess the impact of the Taylors
Falls, Minnesota wastewater discharge 3-24
3-8 Uses of groundwater withdrawn
from the St. Croix River Basin 3-28
3-9 Endangered and threatened species that
may be present in the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota project area 3-34
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
3-10 Species in the project area with watch status in Wisconsin
and with priority species designation in Minnesota 3-41
3-11 Species of plants that are protected under
the Minnesota Wildflower Protection Act 3-42
3-12 Estimated 1980 median family income 3-42
3-13 Per capita personal income in thousands of dollars 3-43
3-14 Employment by category, 1971 and 1976 3-44
3-15 Historic population trends in the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota project area 3-46
3-16 Population projections for St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1980 to 2000 . . . 3-48
3-17 Common municipal debt measures 3-52
3-18 Existing land use in the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota project area 3-56
3-19 Existing developed land uses in Taylors Falls,
Minnesota and St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin 3-58
3-20 Projected residential acreage in
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1977-2000 3-62
3-21 Projected residential acreage in
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, 1977-2000 3-63
3-22 Housing starts in Chisago and Polk County, 1970-1979 .... 3-66
3-23 Traffic volumes between Chisago County
and Washington County, Minnesota 3-66
3-24 Recreational visitation in the
Wisconsin Interstate State Park 3-68
4-1 Potential major primary impacts from the construction
of new wastewater treatment facilities at St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota 4-2
4-2 Potential major primary impacts from the operation
of new wastewater treatment facilities at St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota 4-14
xviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
4-3 Quality of drain tile water at
Muskegon, Michigan, land treatment site 4-35
4-4 Estimated user costs for typical families
of three for wastewater treatment and
collection for Alternatives 1 through 9 4-37
4-5 Comparison of user charges and debt service
as a percentage of median family income 4-40
4-6 Per capita debt levels associated with financing
new wastewater treatment facilities at St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota 4-43
xix
-------
1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1. Project Need and Legal Basis for Action
To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and to protect
the quality of the St. Croix National Scenic and Recreational Riverway, an
improved system to treat the wastewater at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, (across the St. Croix River from each other
Figure 1-1) is needed. Presently both communities discharge partially
treated wastewater to the River from deteriorated, overloaded treatment
facilities.
The Clean Water Act (CWA PL 92-500 as amended by PL 95-217) esta-
blishes a uniform, nationwide water pollution control program administered
by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) within which all state
water quality programs operate. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources (WDNR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have been
delegated administrative responsibilities for the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) program by USEPA. The NPDES program was
established by the CWA to regulate the quality of wastewater discharged to
rivers and streams. USEPA retains approval and supervisory control over the
NPDES program. Because of their deteriorated condition, the existing waste-
water treatment plants (WWTPs) at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls are not
capable of meeting State effluent limitations, which have been established
under the NPDES program to protect the quality of the receiving water. The
communities therefore are required either to upgrade the quality of, or
eliminate entirely, the discharge of wastewater effluent.
Facilities Plans have been completed by the two communities that con-
sider alternative solutions for meeting future wastewater treatment needs.
These include upgrading/expanding the two existing facilities, a new stabil-
ization pond system for Taylors Falls, combined treatment of the two com-
munities' wastewater, and land disposal of treated effluent. The possible
treatment alternatives have been evaluated on the bases of technical feasi-
bility, reliability, costs, public desirability, socioeconomic and environ-
1-1
-------
to
c
o
o
to
O tfl
V-l a)
4-1 4-1
to a
JS O
u M
a.
(4-1
o -
to
CO 4J
01 O
H CO
^ 0)
to a
C rH
tfl a)
o to
H M
4-1 O
td iH
O >!
o rt
hJ H
-------
mental effects, and the ability to meet the applicable effluent discharge
standards.
Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided under
Section 201 of the CWA. The Act provides 75% Federal funding for eligible
Facilities Planning, design, and construction costs. Portions of projects
that are defined as innovative or alternative are eligible for 85% funding
under the CWA.
The dispersal of Federal funds is made to local applicants via the
National Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program
which is administered by USEPA. The program consists of a three-step grant
process: Step 1 includes wastewater facilities planning; Step 2 involves
the development of detailed engineering plans and specifications; and Step 3
covers construction of the pollution control system. St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls currently are completing Step 1, which involves planning for
wastewater facilities that will be serviceable for at least 20 years, or
until the year 2000.
The State of Wisconsin, through the WDNR, and the State of Minnesota,
through the MPCA, administer the Federal Construction Grants Program at the
State level. The State of Minnesota also provides an additional 15% of the
costs for planning, design, and construction for Minnesota projects, except
where the Federal share is larger than 75%. In such a case, the State's
share is reduced. Because Federal grant regulations are, for the most part,
the controlling factor in determining the selected (fundable) alternative,
they significantly influence how the State grant funds are spent.
Communities may choose to construct wastewater treatment facilities
without financial support from the USEPA/State Grants Program. In such
cases, the design must be considered by the State to be technically sound
and the facility must be capable of meeting discharge standards. Without
Federal assistance construction costs would be borne by the States and local
units of government. The funds available under the Wisconsin Fund (144.24
Wisconsin Statutes), provides for 60% of eligible costs when Federal funds
are unavailable.
1-3
-------
If a community chooses to construct a wastewater treatment plant with
USEPA grant assistance, the project must meet all requirements of the Grants
Program. The CWA stresses that the most cost-effective alternative be
identified and selected. USEPA defines the cost-effective alternative as
the one that will result in minimum total resource costs over the life of
the project, yet meet Federal, State, and local requirements. However, the
cost-effective alternative is not necessarily the lowest cost proposal. The
analysis for choosing the cost-effective alternative is based on both the
capital construction costs and the operation and maintenance costs for a
20-year period, although only the capital costs are funded. Non-monetary
costs also must be considered, including social and environmental factors.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Federal
agency to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on "...major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
...". In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) to guide Federal agencies in determina-
tions of whether Federal funds, such as those that may be committed to the
St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls projects through the Construction Grants
Program, or Federal approvals, would result in a project that would signi-
ficantly affect the environment. USEPA developed its own regulations (40
CFR Part 6) for the implementation of the EIS process. Pursuant to these
regulations, USEPA Region V determined on 27 July 1978 that an EIS was
required for the proposed project at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
before grants, or approvals, for Step 2 and Step 3 could be made. This
decision was based on the potential for adverse impacts to the St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway, the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, the Minnesota
Interstate State Park, the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve, cultural
sites, prime agricultural lands, wetlands, wildlife, recreational areas, and
the socioeconomic environment.
1.2. Project History
During the past five years, wastewater treatment needs have been consi-
dered for a study area that included the municipalities of St. Croix Falls,
Dresser, and Osceola, Wisconsin; the City of Taylors Falls, Minnesota; and
1-4
-------
adjacent areas. The St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewerage District
was formed in 1975 in response to the need to upgrade existing wastewater
treatment facilities in the Wisconsin section of the project area. The
District initiated facilities planning for the construction of new treatment
works that would serve the needs of both St. Croix Falls and Dresser and
replace the existing, overloaded treatment plants.
A Facilities Plan for the St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewerage
District was completed by Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Asso-
ciates, Inc. during March 1976 and revised during August 1976. The Facili-
ties Plan recommended that a new regional WWTP be constructed at a location
between St. Croix Falls and Dresser to serve the wastewater treatment needs
of the two communities. The proposed facility would have discharged treated
wastewater directly to the St. Croix River. Acceptance of the Facilities
Plan by WDNR and USEPA was delayed because of questions regarding the poten-
tial impacts of the proposed new conveyance lines, system cost, and whether
alternative systems might be feasible.
On 27 July 1978, the USEPA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an
EIS on a study area that included the St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan
Sewerage District and the City of Taylors Falls planning area. During the
year, the F&A Dairy, which contributed a significant amount of wastewater to
the Dresser WWTP, decided that it would discontinue its discharge to the
City sewers and treat its own wastes. Because of the decision by F&A Dairy,
Dresser determined that it could handle its own treatment system needs and
withdrew from the District. This left St. Croix Falls to find its own
solutions for wastewater improvement. After Dresser withdrew from the
District, the EIS project area was revised to include only the cities of St.
Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota. The City of St. Croix
Falls amended the 1976 Facilities Plan for the St. Croix Falls-Dresser
Metropolitan Sewerage District for its own use.
In 1978 the City of Taylors Falls received a Step I Grant from MPCA to
begin preparation of the Facilities Plan. The City of Taylors Falls and
MPCA determined that the planning area for the Facilities Plan would be the
corporate limits of Taylors Falls. The Draft Facilities Plan for Taylors
1-5
-------
Falls was completed in March 1980 by Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engi-
neers. This plan recommended the construction of a new stabilization pond
treatment system to be located in Section 26 of Shafer Township, west of the
City. At about the same time, the St. Croix Falls Facilities Planner, Short,
Elliott, and Hendrickson, Inc., recommended that the expansion and upgrading
of the existing St. Croix Falls WWTP would be the most environmentally sound
and cost-effective alternative for St. Croix Falls.
On 28 April 1980, the St. Croix Falls City Council passed a resolution
in favor of upgrading and expanding the existing wastewater treatment plant.
On 14 May 1980, the City of Taylors Falls went on record in favor of the
construction and operation of a stabilization pond system with a controlled
discharge to the St. Croix River.
1.3. Study Process
The major efforts in the preparation of this Draft EIS occurred during
1979 and 1980. During this period, WAPORA, Inc., USEPA's EIS consultant,
submitted various interim reports to USEPA, including "Existing Environmen-
tal Conditions in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
Wastewater Facilities Project Area."
Public meetings were sponsored by USEPA to facilitate public involve-
ment during the preparation of the EIS:
Date Location Subject
24 May 1979 St. Croix Falls Study process, EIS issues, and
existing environmental conditions
10 December 1979 Taylors Falls Wastewater treatment system alter-
natives and initial analyses of
impacts
14 April 1980 Taylors Falls Initial cost analysis and environ-
City Council mental impacts of the wastewater
treatment system alternatives
15 April 1980 St. Croix Falls Initial cost analysis and environ-
City Council mental impacts of the wastewater
treatment system alternatives
Several informational newsletters also were prepared during this time
and mailed to persons who expressed interest in the project. The following
1-6
-------
participants in the wastewater planning process have coordinated their
activities during the last two years: USEPA; WAPORA, Inc. (EIS consultant);
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers (Taylors Falls Facilities Planner);
City of Taylors Falls; Short, Elliott, and Hendrickson, Inc. (St. Croix
Falls Facilities Planner); City of St. Croix Falls; MPCA; WDNR; Minnesota-
Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission; National Park Service; and other
Federal, State, local, and private agencies and organizations.
1.4. EIS Issues
Issues initially identified by USEPA in the 27 July 1978 Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and other issues subse-
quently determined through the EIS process include:
The quantity and quality of wastewater effluent that is
produced by various wastewater treatment processes and the
most cost-effective and implementable treatment methods and
sites
The impact of increased user charges to system users in St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
The impact to local government finances from the indebted-
ness related to the local share of construction costs
Potential for, and possible impacts of, the release of
pollutants to the St. Croix River (National Scenic Riverway)
or groundwater from the various treatment methods and sites
The conversion of prime agricultural land or wetlands to
other uses through the construction of a new wastewater
treatment facility and the potential for new residential
growth from expanded wastewater treatment capacity
Impacts along the proposed interceptor/force main routes
from the existing wastewater treatment plant sites to the
stabilization pond and land application sites proposed in
several of the alternatives
Construction of a force main through the Wisconsin Inter-
state State Park, if a regional treatment system alternative
is selected
Potential contamination of soil and groundwater, and produc-
tion of odors from the disposal of effluent on land
1-7
-------
Potential production of offensive odors from storing waste-
water in storage ponds prior to release to the St. Croix
River or land application
Potential for leakage from the storage lagoons to contami-
nate groundwater, precluding use of groundwater for water
supply
Effect on the value of property of areas adjacent to a
wastewater land treatment or stabilization pond site
Determination of composition of sludge and residuals gener-
ated from various treatment processes and the best methods
of treatment, transportation, disposal, and monitoring of
sludges
Possible danger to public health and welfare from aerosoli-
zation of pathogenic organisms and/or their accumulation on
soil and plant surfaces, and possible transmission into and
through ground and surface waters for all treatment alterna-
tives
Committment of resources including but not limited to:
construction materials, financial resources, and labor and
energy resources
Secondary impacts that would result from the implementation
of all treatment alternatives
Other environmental impacts that would result from the
implementation of all treatment alternatives including but
not limited to: rare, endangered, or unique plant and animal
species or associations; and cultural, archaeological,
historical, and recreational resources.
1-8
-------
2.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
2.1. Existing Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Systems
2.1.1. Existing Service Areas
ST. CROIX FALLS
The St. Croix Falls wastewater collection system consists of approxi-
*
mately 8.6 miles of vitrified clay, gravity sewers (primarily 8-inch-
diameter pipe), five lift stations, and an undetermined length of force main
(WCWRPC 1976). Two of the lift stations pump sewage from the Wisconsin
Interstate State Park. The City is served by separate storm and sanitary
sewer systems. There appears to be sufficient hydraulic capacity in the
system. No sanitary sewer overflows or bypasses because of hydraulic over-
loading have been reported for the sewer system.
The service area includes approximately 347 residential, 82 commercial,
3 industrial, and 3 public customers (WCWRPC 1976). Industrial users pre-
sently discharge only domestic wastewater to the St. Croix Falls sewer
system. There are no known major wastewater discharges in the St. Croix
Falls service area. Approximately 30 residences within the City limits are
served by septic tank-soil absorption systems (By telephone, Mr. Ron Mahaf-
fey, City of St. Croix Falls, to WAPORA, Inc., 11 January 1979).
The wastewater service area also is served by a municipally-owned
potable water supply system. The system serves approximately 356 residen-
tial, 85 commercial, 3 industrial, and 13 public customers.
TAYLORS FALLS
The Taylors Falls sanitary sewer system consists of approximately
25,800 feet of 6-inch and 8-inch, vitrified clay, gravity sewer and 1,290
feet of 4-inch, ductile iron force main. Two lift stations and a
5,000-gallon Imhoff tank are included in the wastewater facilities for the
Minnesota Interstate State Park that discharge to the City's sewer system.
-------
The City is partially served by storm sewers. There are no combined sewers
in the City, and no known instances of sanitary sewer overflows or bypasses
of the sewer system.
Taylors Falls is served entirely by the sanitary sewer system except
for three residences near the intersection of Hill Street and Basil Street.
These residences have septic tank-soil absorption systems and are not con-
nected to the sanitary sewer system because of the steep grade. The most
significant individual major sources of wastewater in the Taylors Falls
service area are the Minnesota Interstate State Park, the Cherry Hill Meat
Processing Company, and the Taylors Falls Public School.
2.1.2. Existing Treatment Systems
ST. CROIX FALLS
The wastewater treatment facility for St. Croix Falls was designed in
1948 and constructed in 1951. The treatment plant is located on the bank of
the St. Croix River on approximately 0.5 acres of land leased from the WDNR.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary treat-
ment, biological filtration, final clarification, flow measurement, chlori-
nation, sludge digestion, and sludge dewatering. The facility was designed
to treat 120,000 gallons per day (gpd), with a BOD5 loading of 250 pounds
per day and a total suspended solids loading of 240 pounds per day. The
1975 yearly average wastewater flow was 211,400 gpd. The monthly peak flow
was 299,400 gpd (Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates
1976). Based on the 1978 average raw sewage BOD,- concentration of 159 mg/1
and the 1975 average flow, the current BOD^ loading is 280 pounds per day.
This estimate assumes that there has been no significant increase in waste-
water flow since 1975.
Raw sewage from the St. Croix Falls service area enters the treatment
plant from sewers located along River Street. The old outfall sewer that
2-2
-------
was used before the construction of the treatment facility could be used as
an emergency bypass from the River Street sewer. There are no reported
instances of its use. A detailed discussion of the existing facilities at
the St. Croix Falls WWTP is presented in Appendix A, Exhibit A-l.
TAYLORS FALLS
The existing sewage treatment facility for the City of Taylors Falls
was constructed in 1941. The plant is located on the bank of the St. Croix
River immediately north of the US Highway 8 bridge.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary treat-
ment, biological filtration, final clarification, chlorination, sludge
digestion, and sludge dewatering. The existing facilities were designed for
a flow rate of 75,600 gpd and a maximum raw sewage BOD,- concentration of 250
mg/1 (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1979). A How measurement and
sampling survey conducted by SERCO (1978) during November 1978 showed that
the treatment plant loading was 90,900 gpd and 105 pounds of BOD5 per day.
The peak flow rate observed during this period was 144,000 gpd. A detailed
discussion of the existing facilities at the Taylors Falls WWTP is presented
in Appendix A, Exhibit A-2.
2.1.3. Existing Effluent Quality
ST. CROIX FALLS
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored three times per week at the
St. Croix Falls WWTP, in accordance with the NPDES permit (Section 2.2.2.).
The monthly averages of the BOD^, suspended solids, and fecal coliform data
are presented in Table 2-1. On the basis of these data, the effluent ap-
pears to be within the concentration limits of the interim discharge permit
(Section 2.2.2.). The load calculations (in kg/day) cannot be determined
accurately because the flow meter for the facility was not calibrated for
accurate flow measurements during 1978. This deficiency was corrected early
in 1979.
2-3
-------
Table 2-1. Raw sewage and final effluent data for the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, wastewater treatment plant for 1978 (WDNR 1978c).
Raw
BOD5
(mg/1)
156
210
178
137
159
144
153
116
136
151
230
141
159
Sewage
Suspended
Solids
(mg/D
165
239
167
211
202
135
148
112
129
144
150
141
162
Final Effluent
BOD5
(mg/1)
67
39
71
61
65
70
63
67
58
69
95
54
69
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
54
49
21
24
28
32
29
48
32
26
30
33
34
Fecal Coliform
(counts per
100 ml)
7,100
270
30
900
100
250
390
440
650
220
390
TAYLORS FALLS
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored monthly for the Taylors
Falls facility, as previously required by the expired NPDES Permit (Section
2.2.2.). The monthly averages of the BODc, suspended solids, and fecal
coliform data are presented in Table 2-2. These data indicate that the
Taylors Falls WWTP effluent generally fails to comply with the State regula-
tions.
2-4
-------
Table 2-2. Raw sewage and final effluent data for the Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, wastewater treatment plant for 1978 (MPCA 1978b).
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Novembe r
December
Mean
Raw
BOD5
(mg/1)
170
290
270
320
460
700
560
300
570
1,480
120
540
482
Sewage
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1),
76
200
143
450
135
269
80
32
389
2,100
142
1,130
429
BOD5
(mg/1)
76
56
35
39
90
140
152
41
100
43
9
13
66
Final
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
23
38
23
23
41
40
44
20
52
28
28
38
33
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(counts per
100 ml)
20
20
20
20
20
20
TNTC1
20
TNTC
TNTC
20
20
_«.
1
TNTC
too numerous to count.
2.1.4. Wastewater Flows
ST. CROIX FALLS
The Facilities Plan for the St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan
Sewerage District (Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates
1976) contains information on the base wastewater flow rates and infiltra-
tion and inflow (I/I) quantity for the City of St. Croix Falls. The report
on the wastewater treatment plant at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin (Banister,
Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates 1973) contains flow measure-
ments for the City of St. Croix Falls that were made during several 24-hour
periods.
2-5
-------
The cost-effectiveness analysis in the Facilities Plan for the elimina-
tion of I/I for the St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewerage District
contains the conclusion that it would be cost-effective to eliminate 30,000
gpd of inflow at St. Croix Falls by sealing the manhole-wet well at the
Virginia Street Pumping Station. This lift station subsequently was re-
paired. Therefore the remaining I/I quantity is 162,000 gpd minus 30,000
gpd, or 132,000 gpd.
According to the Facilities Plan (Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrick-
son, and Associates 1976), the base wastewater flow of 137,400 gpd for the
City of St. Croix Falls was determined to be equivalent to the potable water
sold by the City during September 1975. The population of St. Croix Falls
in 1974 was approximately 1,460, as indicated in the Facilities Plan.
Assuming that the 1975 population was the same size as the 1974 population,
a per capita base flow of 94 gpd was determined.
Wastewater flows from the Wisconsin Interstate State Park are collected
in sanitary sewers tributary to the St. Croix Falls collection system.
Metering devices are not installed on the sanitary sewage collection system
within the Interstate State Park; thus the exact volumes of flow are not
known. The wastewater flows from the Interstate State Park presumably are
included in the base wastewater flow rate presented in the Facilities Plan.
TAYLORS FALLS
The I/I analysis report for the City of Taylors Falls (Howard A.
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1979) contains information on water consump-
tion, base wastewater flows, and I/I quantities. The Draft Facilities Plan
for Taylors Falls, Minnesota (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980),
indicates that the I/I report for the City of Taylors Falls has been re-
viewed and certified by both MPCA and USEPA. The I/I report concludes that
I/I does exist in the Taylors Falls sanitary sewer system but is not exces-
sive relative to the regulations and standards established by USEPA.
The analysis of water pumpage and water records indicated an average
daily consumption rate of 65 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (Howard A.
2-6
-------
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1979) . This yields a base domestic and commer-
cial wastewater flow of 41,000 gpd based on a Taylors Falls population of
625 persons in 1979.
Wastewater flow monitoring conducted during the I/I analysis revealed a
peak month infiltration/inflow rate of 102,000 gpd, a peak week I/I rate of
128,000 gpd, and a peak day I/I rate of 148,000 gpd. Total flow to the
wastewater treatment plant during the 118 day monitoring period averaged
132,000 gpd (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1979).
The Facilities Plan for Taylors Falls indicates that the I/I rates
monitored during this period are the only data available and do not repre-
sent flows throughout the year. Furthermore, climatic and groundwater
conditions are quite variable and may change the amount of I/I from year to
year. Therefore, in an attempt to alleviate the data gaps of the flow
monitoring, it was assumed that the I/I rate would average 50,770 gpd for
the six dry months (September to February) and 102,000 gpd for the six wet
months (March to August), for an average yearly I/I rate of 76,400 gpd
(Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980) .
The Minnesota Interstate State Park, bordering the St. Croix River to
the south of the City of Taylors Falls, contributes a wastewater flow that
fluctuates with the seasonal tourist population. The Park is divided pri-
marily into two separate areas. The northern section serves a day-oriented
tourist traffic and has a low-flow toilet facility that is connected direct-
ly to the Taylors Falls municipal collection system. Park officials esti-
mate that about 200,000 people, out of an average of 430,000 visitors per
year, visit this section of the Park during June, July, and August. This is
an average of approximately 2,000 visitors per day. Using an estimate of 2
gpd per visitor, a daily wastewater contribution of 4,000 gpd could be
expected during an average summer day. The 2 gpd/visitor estimate is reason-
able considering the low-flow toilet facilities and the fact that many
visitors make short visits and would not use the facilities.
The southern section of the Park consists of campground facilities that
include showers, flush toilets, and a wastewater dump for recreational
2-7
-------
vehicles. The campground wastewater is collected and passed through an
Imhoff tank having a volume of approximately 5,000 gallons. The effluent
from the Imhoff tank is pumped through force mains tributary to a gravity
sewer and the municipal collection system. The wastewater is measured with
a time clock on the two 100-gpm pumps in the upper pump stations. The
clocks are read on a yearly basis.
The number of visitors to the campground is included in the total of
430,000 persons per year. The average number of campers during the 15 June
to 15 August peak period was approximately 188 campers per day (based on 4
campers per site and 47 available camping sites). At other times during the
season, the average number of campers per day was about 94. Based on an
estimated 50 gpd/person, the daily average flow from the Park is estimated
to be 9,400 gpd. Therefore, the total average daily flow from the Park is
13,400 gpd.
2.2. Design Factors
Three categories of factors must be considered in the design of a
wastewater treatment system: the present and projected wastewater flows in
the service area, the existing and proposed effluent standards established
by Federal and State authorities, and economic cost criteria (duration of
the planning period, interest rate, service factor, and service life of
facilities and equipment). Each of these factors is discussed in the fol-
lowing sections.
2.2.1. Wastewater Load Factors
ST. CROIX FALLS
The major source of wastewater in St. Croix Falls is from residential
and commercial development, with small contributions from the Wisconsin In-
terstate State Park and an 8-acre industrial park located in the southeast
section of the City. These conditions are expected to continue in the
future.
2-8
-------
Wastewater load factors for the St. Croix Falls Service Area for the
year 2000 were developed by WAPORA, Inc., on the basis of information pre-
sented in the Report on Wastewater Treatment Plant, St. Croix Falls (Bani-
ster, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson & Associates 1973) and on a projected year
2000 design population of 2,170 as calculated by WAPORA (Section 3.2.2.2.).
The design flows for wastewater from all sources (including the Wisconsin
Interstate State Park, the industrial park, and infiltration/inflow) were
calculated to be:
Average design flow: 397,700 gpd
Peak design flow: 657,000 gpd.
The flow from the industrial park (presently under development) is projected
to be approximately 10% of the design flow from all other sources (361,500
gpd average daily flow), or 36,200 gpd. The peak flow from the industrial
park is estimated to be twice this amount, or 72,400 gpd.
The organic loads were projected on the basis of the accepted design
values of 0.17 pounds of BOD,- per capita per day and 0.20 pounds of sus-
pended solids (SS) per capita per day. These values were applied to the
future projected increase in population of 769 for the year 2000 (Section
3.2.2.2.) plus existing and projected data provided by the St. Croix Falls
Facilities Planners, Short, Elliott, and Hendrickson (1980), to obtain the
following estimates:
Design BOD,-: 460 pounds per day (Ib/day)
Design SS: 500 Ib/day.
The BOD,- and SS concentrations were calculated on the basis of the average
design flow of 397,700 gpd and were estimated to be 139 mg/1 and 151 mg/1,
respectively. The average per capita wastewater flow for the residential
and commercial component of the flow is 94 gpd. The individual components
of each total estimate for both wastewater flows and organic loads are given
in Table 2-3.
2-9
-------
cfl CJ
4J a
O M
CO
rH I |O
Ico
to
o
oo
LOCO
(O ,fl
CO
to io
CO vD
s
LO
LO
O I
.-I I
o
i
CM
1-
CO l_|
o
co .»
£ o
o oo
o cr\
co _,
o
rH
Cfl
CU
^
p.
00
o
o
CS1
00
0
o
o
o
00
CO
o
o
CNI
o
o
o
CN
CO
1 1
0
o
0
o
o
o
to
vO
o
o
o
ft
o
o
o
o
o
r-^
CN
O
1 0
1 0
oo"
4-> O
O K
n) ^
cfl
VJ CU
CU >-.
*->
Cfl CU
cu u ^
CD !H co
cfl O ON
S LH I-H
CN
§
H
cu
u
V-i
3
O
c/>
CO
rH
rH
Cfl
fc
.2
o
H
CJ
4-1
C/>
i_^
cO
H
CJ
J_l
g
CJ
'g
cfl
rH
Cfl
,_|
4J
C
cu
H
CO
cu
erf
M
cfl
CXj
CU
ctf U
4J Cfl
c/> Cu
CU rH
4J Cfl
cO iH
4_f J.^
CO 4->
£ s
4-1 TJ
C C
M -H
d *^
H 0)
CO 4->
C CJ
O CU
CJ !-)
CO O
rS PM
C
3 o
O -iH
rH 4J
LH CO
C S-i
H 4->
\ rH
C -rl
O UH
H C
4-> -rH
CO
v-i cu
4J rH
rH J3
H Cfl
*C 0
rH T3
00 Cfl CJ
C &
H CU 6O
4-1 >H rH
CO 3 ON cfl
H «-> ' 4J
X 3 0
W Pn H
rH
Cfl
H
CJ
}_j
CU
£3
O
-d
C
cfl
rH
Cfl
H
CO 4->
r-t C
rH 0)
cd TJ
pt* *H
CO
Cfl 0)
V-i Crf
o
rH
cfl
H
6 0
o cj
}_l
IH &o
CJ
5 -H
o co
rH CO
LH cu
0
H O
cu v-i
4J PL,
CO
5 -M
4) cfl
4-1 CU
co s;
cfl
5 rH
rH
W -r-l
0) 33
T3
3 ^>
rH VJ
0 M
C CU
H rC
^^ O
V-* O
cfl CJ
PM
00
CU CJ
4-J vH
CO CO
4-> CO
C/) (!)
CJ
CU O
4-1 M
cfl PL,
4->
CO 4-<
M cfl
cu cu
4"* g
pj
M rH
rH
Cfl -rH
4-" EC!
O
CO >,
CU VJ
C CU
rH &
g U
Jj
o
rH
LH
.s
"^
0
O
H
4-1
Cfl
H
4-1
rH rH
H Cfl
LH 4->
c o
M H
rH
CO
4-1
O
H
CJ
O
H
8P
erf
^^
^
x S
H
o co
M >-H
0 rH
Cfl
p£4
4-1
cn co
V-i
V-i 0
O rH
IJH ^
cfl
CO H
rH
Cfl T3
4J C
O cfl
4J
M
LH S
O
CO
g rH
3 1-H
CO efl
T3
0)
"e
3
O
H
C
cu
cu
cu
*>
cfl
rC
CO
cu
3
rH
CO
i-H
rH
w
H
0
2-10
-------
TAYLORS FALLS
The primary source of wastewater in Taylors Falls (as it is for St.
Croix Falls) is from residential and commercial development. The Taylors
Falls Public School also is included in this category. The Minnesota In-
terstate State Park is smaller than the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, and
thus contributes a smaller volume of wastewater to the Taylors Falls treat-
ment facility then does the Wisconsin Park. The wastewater flow from the
Cherry Hill Meat Processing Co., the only industry in the community, is
small.
Wastewater load factors for the Taylors Falls Service Area for the year
2000 were developed by WAPORA, Inc., on the basis of information presented
in the Draft Facilities Plan for Taylors Falls (Howard A. Kuusisto Con-
sulting Engineers 1980) and a projected year 2000 design population of 769,
as estimated by WAPORA (Section 3.2.2.2.). The design flows for wastewater
for all sources, including the Minnesota Interstate State Park, the Cherry
Hill Meat Processing Co., and infiltration/inflow, were calculated to be:
Average design flow: 139,800 gpd
Peak design flow: 275,000 gpd.
The BOD,, and SS loads were calculated by applying the design values
mentioned previously (0.17 Ibs of BOD^ and 0.20 Ibs of SS per capita per
day) to the projected year 2000 population of 769 people. An additional
BODr load for 140 people was included to account for the contribution from
public school students who reside outside the City but would contribute to
the wastewater system during part of the day. The total BOD,- and SS loads
from all sources (including the Minnesota Interstate State Park and the
Cherry Hill Meat Processing Co.) were estimated to be:
Design BOD5: 210 Ib/day
Design SS: 305 Ib/day.
Based on the average design flow of 139,800 gpd, the concentrations of BODr
and SS were estimated to be 180 mg/1 and 263 mg/1, respectively. The aver-
age per capita wastewater flow for the residential-commercial component of
2-11
-------
the total flow is 65 gpd. The individual components of each total estimate
also are indicated in Table 2-3.
REGIONAL
The wastewater load factors for the St. Croix Falls WI and Taylors
Falls MN region were obtained by addition of the totals from the two service
areas for each factor. The following estimates were obtained:
Average design flow: 537,500 gpd
Peak flow: 932,000 gpd
BOD5: 670 Ib/day
SS: 805 Ib/day.
On the basis of the average regional daily flow of 537,500 gpd, the BODr and
SS concentrations were calculated to be 150 mg/1 and 180 mg/1, respectively.
These factors have been used in the consideration of regional treatment
alternatives.
2.2.2. Effluent Standards
ST. CROIX FALLS
The City of St. Croix Falls was reissued its original NPDES permit on
30 June 1978 to continue discharging effluent from the WWTP to the St. Croix
River. This permit, Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)
Permit No. WI-0020796-2, will expire on 30 June 1982. The permit establish-
es interim effluent limitations that will be in effect until 30 June 1982,
or until construction of upgraded wastewater treatment facilities is com-
pleted. Both the interim effluent limitations that are applicable during
the duration of the participation by the City in the Construction Grants
Program and the final effluent limitations applicable after completion of
the upgrading process are presented in Table 2-4. These limitations were
established by WDNR for discharge from the St. Croix Falls WWTP to the St.
Croix River and were based on a design flow of 0.18 mgd. Effluent limi-
tations for fecal coliform bacteria are not stated in the existing permit.
A copy of the WPDES permit is included in Appendix B, Exhibit B-l.
2-12
-------
Table 2-4. Interim and final effluent limitations for the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, wastewater treatment plant (WDNR 1978).
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Parameter Interim Final
BOD,
(monthly average) 110 mg/1 30 mg/1
(weekly average) 165 mg/1 45 mg/1
Suspended solids
(monthly average) 75 mg/1 30 mg/1
(weekly average) 110 mg/1 45 mg/1
(minimum) 6.0 units 6.0 units
(maximum) 9.0 units 9.0 units
TAYLORS FALLS
The City of Taylors Falls was reissued its original permit to discharge
from the WWTP to the St. Croix River on 13 November 1979. This permit,
NPDES Permit No. MN 0021768, will expire on 30 June 1984. The interim
effluent limitations listed in the permit will be in effect until 30 June
1983. The City is required to comply with the final effluent limitations
listed in the permit by 1 June 1983, and to meet those limitations for the
final year of the permit period. If Federal funds are not available in time
to meet the compliance date of 1 July 1983, the time extension stated in the
permit for the interim limitations will be terminated. A copy of the NPDES
permit is included in Appendix B, Exhibit B-2.
Both the interim and final effluent limitations for a discharge to the
St. Croix River are presented in Table 2-5. These limitations also would
apply to a discharge to Colby Lake, and a 1 mg/1 phosphorus limitation also
would be required for a discharge to Colby Lake or to Dry Creek. Effluent
limitations for a discharge to Lawrence Creek or Dry Creek are shown in
2-13
-------
Table 2-5. Interim and final effluent limitations for the Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, wastewater treatment plant (MPCA 1979).
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Parameter
BOD,
(monthly average)
(weekly average)
Suspended solids
(monthly average)
(weekly average)
Q
Fecal coliform organisms
(monthly average)
(weekly average)
Turbidity
Hd
(minimum)
(maximum)
Floating solids or visible foam
Oil or other substances
Interim
50 mg/1
30 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
6.5 units
8.5 units
Trace amounts
only
No visible color
film on surface
of receiving
water
Final0
25 mg/1
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
400 MPN/lOOml
25 NTU
6.5 units
8.5 units
Trace amounts
only
No visible color
film on surface
of receiving
water
Both monthly and weekly average limitations are applicable during con-
tinuous discharge periods. The average concentrations during a period
of controlled discharge must not exceed the monthly average limitations,
and the weekly average limitations also must not be exceeded if the period
of discharge is equal to or greater than one week.
Arithmetic mean.
£
Geometric mean.
Not subject to averaging; must be met at all times.
MPN = Most probable number.
NTU = nephelometer turbidity unit.
2-14
-------
Table 2-6. These limitations are more stringent, and include restrictions
on the ammonia and chlorine levels for a discharge to Lawrence Creek because
it has been designated as a Class A fisheries and recreation stream by the
State of Minnesota.
REGIONAL SYSTEM
The effluent limitations for a regional treatment facility would be
those applicable in the particular State in which the regional treatment
facility would be sited. The discharge to the St. Croix River, to another
body of water, or on land would be within the boundaries of one State,
either Wisconsin or Minnesota.
2.2.3. Economic Factors
The economic cost criteria used in the comparison of project alterna-
tives include an amortization, or planning, period from the present to the
year 2000, or approximately 20 years; an interest (discount) rate of 7.125%;
a service factor of 25%; and service lives of 15 to 20 years for process and
auxiliary equipment, 40 years for structures, and 50 years for piping and
ponds. Salvage values were estimated using straight-line depreciation for
items that could be used at the end of the 20-year planning period, and
replacement costs were estimated for items with a service life shorter than
the planning period.
Costs of land purchase were estimated for alternatives that include
land treatment or disposal. An annual appreciation rate of 3% over the
planning period was used to calculate the salvage value of the land. All
costs used in this report were updated to third quarter 1979 dollar values.
The total capital cost includes the initial construction cost plus 25% for
engineering, legal, fiscal, and administrative costs. Operation and mainte-
nance (O&M) costs include labor, materials, and utility (power) costs as-
sociated with the treatment works, pumping stations, and solids handling and
disposal processes and are based on prevailing rates. Annual revenue-
producing benefits, such as irrigation of crops, are subtracted from O&M
costs.
2-15
-------
Table 2-6. Effluent limitations for a discharge to Lawrence Creek or Dry
Creek (Peissig 1979; Pederson 1980).
EFFLUENT LIMITATION
Parameter
BOD
Suspended solids
Fecal coliform organisms
Turbidity
PH
(minimum)
(maximum)
3.
Ammonia (as nitrogen)
Chlorine3 b
Phosphorus
Controlled Discharge
25 mg/1
30 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
10 MPN/100 mia
25 NTU
6.5 units
8.5 units
0.2 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
Continuous Discharge
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
10 MPN/100 ml
25 NTU
6.5 units
8.5 units
0.2 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
Applicable for a discharge to Lawrence Creek only.
b
Applicable for a discharge to Dry Creek only.
MPN = Most probable number.
NTU = Nephelometer turbidity unit.
2-16
-------
2.3. System Component Options
Wastewater management alternatives were developed for the St. Groix
Falls - Taylors Falls study area to meet the needs of the current and future
populations of the service area and to conform with the requirements of
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Federal regulations. The principal objective was
to reduce pollutant loads to surface waters. Other objectives were to
explore the feasibility of various land application and disposal options.
All alternatives must provide treatment to achieve the effluent requirements
set by Federal and State permits or pretreatment requirements for land
disposal (Section 2.3.4.2.).
The development of alternatives began with the identification of funct-
ional components within the wastewater collection and treatment system. The
components considered were:
Flow and waste reduction including I/I reduction and
water conservation measures
Collection systems including an interceptor sewer and
pumping station from one community to a new regional WWTP or
land application site
Wastewater treatment processes including biological
and/or physical unit processes for treating wastewater to
the desired effluent quality
Effluent disposal including available means for dis-
charge, land application, or reuse of adequately treated
wastewater
Sludge treatment and disposal including processes for
stabilization, conditioning, dewatering, volume reduction,
and disposal of wastewater treatment residues.
The methods considered for fulfillment of the functions of each of these
five system components can be termed "component options" or "options". The
selection of options for any one component is, to some extent, dependent on
the options considered for the other components, so that a compatible system
can be produced.
In the following sections, component options for the independent treat-
ment facilities at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, a regional treatment
2-17
-------
facility to serve both communities, and various land treatment processes are
identified and discussed to the extent necessary to justify or reject their
inclusion in system-wide alternatives. Reasonable combinations of component
options that comprise complete system alternatives are identifed. For each
alternative the level of technical detail is suitable for this planning
stage. Detailed engineering plans and specifications will be developed by
engineering consultants after the EIS process is completed, with Federal
financial assistance through a "Step 2" grant (Section 1.0.).
2.3.1. Flow and Waste Reduction
2.3.1.1. Infiltration and Inflow Reduction
ST. CROIX FALLS
An infiltration/inflow (I/I) analysis of the St. Croix Falls wastewater
collection system was performed by Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson &
Associates, Inc., (1976) to determine the presence, quantity, and type of
infiltration/inflow conditions that were present. Infiltration is the
process through which water enters a sewer system from the ground through
defective pipes, pipe joints, or manhole walls. Inflow is the water that is
discharged into the collector system and service connections from roof,
cellar, yard, area, and foundation drains; cooling water discharges; drains
from springs and swampy areas; manhole covers; cross connections from storm
sewers and combined sewers; catch basins; storm waters, surface runoff,
street washwaters, and other sources. The sanitary sewage collection system
in the City of St. Croix Falls is separate from the storm sewer system, and
no known roof drains or surface runoff collection points currently are
connected to the sanitary sewage collection system.
The maximum quantity of I/I entering the existing collection system in
1975 was estimated to be 162,000 gpd. Two sources of inflow to the sewer
system were identifed during the I/I survey. As much as 12,500 gpd of
inflow might occur through basement floor drains during periods of high
groundwater conditions. However, waterproofing the approximately 25 base-
ments involved could increase the external hydrostatic pressure and cause
additional cracking of floors and walls. The second known source, contri-
2-18
-------
buting approximately 30,000 gpd of inflow, is the wet well of the pumping
station located on Virginia Street. On the basis of a cost-benefit analysis
prepared by Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates (1976) it
was determined and recommended that the manhole of the wet well could be
sealed and 30,000 gpd of inflow eliminated; but the most-effective alter-
native for basement inflow (12,500 gpd) would be to transport and treat this
volume of wastewater at an upgraded WWTP.
The net I/I of 132,000 gpd was included as a design factor in the
Facilities Plan for the alternatives considered herein , and a limit of
6,400 additional gpd was established for future allowable infiltration
(Short, Elliott, and Hendrickson, Inc., 1980). A check of the 1979 flow
records at the St. Croix Falls WWTP confirms that there have been no changes
in the flows that would affect the conclusions of the 1976 analysis (Short,
Elliott, and Hendrickson, Inc. 1980).
TAYLORS FALLS
An I/I analysis was conducted of the wastewater collection system in
the City of Taylors Falls by Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers (1979).
Wastewater flow monitoring conducted during the I/I analysis revealed a peak
day I/I rate of 148,000 gpd and an average yearly rate of 76,400 gpd. Based
on this analysis, it was concluded that the largest amount of extraneous
flows are a result of infiltration. Many of the sources of this I/I flow
appear to be on private property. It was determined that the amount of I/I
within the sanitary sewer system is not excessive, according to USEPA pro-
gram requirements, and that no additional steps need to be taken to control
I/I exclusive of the improvement of the wastewater treatment facilities.
This analysis was submitted to and subsequently certified by MPCA and USEPA
(Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980).
2.3.1.2. Water Conservation Measures
Water conservation as a means of significantly reducing wastewater
flows is usually difficult to attain and often is only marginally effective.
Traditional water conservation practices have proven to be socially unde-
2-19
-------
sirable except in areas where water shortages exist. Such measures usually
succeed in limiting only luxury water usages such as lawn sprinkling, car
washing, or swimming pool use, which do not impose loads on sanitary sewer
systems .
One possible method for reduction of sewage flow is the adjustment of
the price of water to control consumption. This method normally is used to
reduce water demand in areas with water shortages. It probably would not be
effective in reducing sanitary sewer flows because much of its impact is
usually on luxury water usage, such as lawn sprinkling or car washing. None
of the luxury uses impose a load on a separated sewerage system, such as the
existing systems at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls. Therefore, the use
of water price control probably would not be effective in significantly
reducing wastewater flows.
Mandatory water conservation through the imposition of plumbing code
restrictions could reduce domestic sewage flows. Two primary targets would
be toilet tanks and shower heads. Typical plumbing code restrictions in-
clude a requirement that all new or replacement toilets have a 3.5-gallon
capacity and that new or replacement shower heads deliver 3 gallons per
minute (gpm). Such measures would reduce water demand and sewage flow
directly.
The projected amount of water consumed per capita by the year 2000 in
the two service areas is 95 gpd in St. Croix Falls and 65 gpd in Taylors
Falls. Visitors to the Interstate State Parks would contribute approximate-
ly 2 gpcd, and campers would contribute approximately 50 gpcd (Howard A.
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980). These per capita amounts are relative-
ly small, and thus water conservation measures would be only marginally
effective in reducing wastewater flows in the two communities.
2.3.1.3 Other Reduction Measures
Other conservation measures include educational campaigns, retrofitting
of water-saving devices in toilets and showers, and the installation of
pressure-reduction valves in areas where the water pressure is excessive
2-20
-------
(greater than 40 to 60 pounds per square inch). Educational campaigns
usually take the form of spot television and radio commercials, and the
distribution of leaflets with water bills or independently. Water-saving
devices must continue to be used and maintained for flow reduction to be
effective. Pressure reduction valves can be used where water pressure is
higher than necessary, sometimes on a neighborhood basis. Where older pipes
(especially iron pipes) are present, however, this excess pressure may be
necessary to overcome higher head losses through the older pipes.
Because the efficacy of water conservation is complex and must be de-
termined on a case-by-case basis, a comprehensive water conservation al-
ternative is not proposed in this document. However, implementation of con-
servation measures in the future could reduce flows and could extend the
design capacity of the collection and treatment components for each com-
munity.
2.3.2. Collection Systems
The existing collection systems for both St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls are discussed in Section 2.1.1. The sanitary sewer system in St.
Croix Falls has been inspected periodically, and all required repairs and
reconstruction have been completed since the last investigation in 1970
(Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson and Associates, Inc. 1976). No
repairs or reconstruction are required for this system or for the Taylors
Falls sanitary sewer system.
No new interceptors or other collection facilities would be required
for wastewater management alternatives that involve upgrading or replacement
of either the St. Croix Falls WWTP or the Taylors Falls WWTP. The construc-
tion of a regional conventional treatment facility at St. Croix Falls or the
implementation of a regional stabilization pond or land treatment alterna-
tive near either community would require the construction of a force main
between the two communities that would connect the existing treatment
plants. The line would pass through the Wisconsin Interstate State Park and
be suspended within the bridge support system of the US Highway 8 bridge. A
pumping station would be required in the community of origin and an addi-
2-21
-------
tional pumping station would be required in the receiving community if the
wastewater were to be treated at a site remote from the WWTP. A stabiliza-
tion pond or land treatment alternative specific to either community would
require the construction of a force main from the WWTP to the treatment
site. New pumping stations also would be required for transportation of the
wastewater to the site. The treated wastewater could be sprayed onto crop-
land or applied to land in flooding basins (rapid infiltration) with re-
covery of the treated water for irrigation or reuse. If the effluent will
be discharged to the St. Croix River, an outfall sewer discharge line must
be constructed from the treatment site to the point of discharge. It is
expected that such a line would parallel the raw wastewater line to the
site. The particular conveyance system required for each alternative con-
sidered is discussed in Section 2.4.
2.3.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes
A variety of treatment options were considered for both communities.
In general, wastewater treatment options include conventional physical,
biological, and chemical processes, and land treatment. The conventional
options utilize preliminary treatment, primary sedimentation, secondary
treatment, and tertiary treatment (including addition of chemicals) for
phosphorus removal. These unit processes are followed by disinfection prior
to effluent disposal. Land treatment processes include lagoons, slow-rate
infiltration or irrigation, overland flow, and rapid infiltration.
The degree of treatment required is dependent on the effluent disposal
option selected (Section 2.3.4.). Where disposal of treated wastewater is
by effluent discharge to surface waters, effluent quality limitations de-
termined by WDNR and MPCA (Section 2.2.2.) are used to establish the re-
quired level of treatment. Where effluent is disposed on land, groundwater
protection standards must be met.
2.3.3.1. Preliminary Treatment and Primary Sedimentation
Conventional preliminary treatment and primary sedimentation processes
serve to remove coarse solids, readily-settleable suspended solids, floating
2-22
-------
solids, and grease from the influent wastewater. The preliminary treatment
generally consists of a bar screen (a screening device) or a combination of
a coarse bar screen and a comminutor, followed by a grit chamber. Solids
are ground in the comminutor and left in the waste, thereby eliminating the
separate disposal of screenings. The grit chamber is used for the removal
of inorganic solids such as sand. The next treatment unit is a primary
sedimentation tank, in which heavy solid matter settles to the bottom and
light solid matter floats to the top. The sludge (settled solids) and the
scum (floating solids) are removed to the solids (sludge) handling facili-
ties. The clarified liquid flows out of the primary sedimentaiton tank to
the subsequent treatment units. It is assumed that these processes will
remove approximately 30% of the BOD and approximately 50% of the SS from
the wastewater.
2.3.3.2. Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment consists of biological processes in which soluble
and colloidal-sized organic substances are removed from wastewater. The
most frequently used processes provide a fluid media, such as the activated
sludge process, or a fixed media, such as the trickling filter or the rotat-
ing biological contactor (RBC) process. Three processes were selected for
cost-effective analysis: activated sludge systems, the RBC system, and the
stabilization pond or aerated pond system. These systems were described in
detail in the Facilities Plans. For comparative purposes, a brief dis-
cussion of these processes is presented here.
Activated sludge consists of an aerated suspension of microorganisms
that utilize organic wastewater for respiration and reproduction. Aeration
generally is provided by diffusion of air from the bottom of the tank or
mechanical agitation. Separate settling facilities are used to remove
viable organisms from the treated wastewater. There are a number of modi-
fications to the basic activated sludge process, each specific to a differ-
ent strength of waste. Efficiencies of BOD removal by primary treatment and
conventional diffused air and pure oxygen system options range from 85% to
95%.
2-23
-------
The RBC system is a recent advance in fixed-media-type treatment sys-
tems (trickling filter process). This system is more compact and the cost
of providing a cover over the units to eliminate freezing also is considera-
bly less than the cost of providing a cover for the conventional rock trick-
ling filter system. RBCs consist of a fixed medium (disks) on which biolo-
gial growth develops. The disks rotate partially through the wastewater.
Separate settling facilities are used to remove slough (excess biomass) from
the treated wastewater. The efficiency of the RBC process is comparable to
that of an activated sludge system.
A stabilization pond (sometimes called a lagoon) is a shallow, man-made
basin into which wastewater is discharged. The interaction of sunlight,
algae, and oxygen provides treatment of the wastewater. An aerated pond is
a variation of this system in which air is passed through the wastewater to
increase the level of oxygen in the water and the circulation of the waste-
water to increase the rate of the treatment process. Less land is required
to treat the same volume of wastewater in an aerated pond because of the
reduced requirement for surface area for the reaeration to occur. The
effectiveness of the stabilization pond-aerated pond process may vary with
weather conditions, but generally is close to that obtainable by other
methods of secondary treatment. A preliminary cost comparison between these
two variations was performed by the Facilities Planners. It was determined
that the additional capital and O&M costs required for the aerated pond
system were higher than the savings in land area and other costs over the
stabilization pond system.
Compact activated sludge (CAS), RBC, and stabilization pond systems
were selected for detailed costing and analysis as viable alternatives for
secondary treatment processes for both St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls by
the communities' Facilities Planners.
2.3.3.3. Tertiary Treatment
Tertiary treatment or advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) involves
treatment of wastewater beyond the primary and secondary processes. Ter-
tiary treatment processses may include chemical treatment, biological nitri-
2-24
-------
fication, and land application. Tertiary treatment is not required by either
State for a WWTP discharge to the St. Croix River. However, any discharge
to Colby Lake and to Dry Creek would require advanced treatment for removal
of phosphorus because of the 1.0 mg/1 phosphorous limitation set by MPCA.
All three secondary treatment processes discussed in Section 2.3.3.2.
are capable of providing nitrification. Basically, an increase in retention
time during the process would produce the effects of nitrification (oxida-
tion of ammonia to nitrate).
Chemical treatment consists of adding a chemical to promote the removal
of suspended and/or colloidal matter or to precipitate dissolved pollutants
such as phosphates. The chemical agents are added in a mixing tank; the
water then is passed through a flocculation chamber and clarifier. Chemi-
cals commonly used for phosphorus removal are lime, alum, and iron salts.
Land application consists of applying primary or secondary effluent to
sites that have proper vegetation, soil, bedrock, and groundwater condi-
tions. The application method may be either spray irrigation or rapid in-
filtration. The economics of this process depend on allowable application
rates, site preparation costs, pretreatment and storage lagoon requirements,
and the distance of the application site from the WWTP. These alternatives
are described further in Section 2.3.4., where various methods of effluent
disposal are discussed.
2.3.3.4. Disinfection
Disinfection processes are used to destroy disease-causing organisms.
Three commonly used disinfection techniques are chlorine, hypochlorite and
ozone. Chlorine is the least expensive of these chemicals to produce, to
handle, and to provide the necessary disinfection to meet the present bac-
teriological standards. Residual chlorine, however, can reach toxic levels
in receiving waters if chlorine is not applied properly or if the retention
time is not sufficient. Sodium hypochlorite must be mixed in a dry state in
water and fed to the wastewater. Ozone generation requires large amounts of
electric energy. Ozonation does not leave residual reaction products but is
2-25
-------
significantly more costly than chlorination. Therefore, chlorination is the
disinfection process proposed in all system alternatives, assuming that
chlorine will he carefully applied and that residual levels will be moni-
tored and controlled.
2.3.4. Effluent Disposal
Three WWTP effluent disposal options are available: discharge to re-
ceiving waters, disposal on land or wetland, and reuse.
2.3.4.1. Surface Water Discharge
Presently, the most common method of the disposal of treatment plant
effluent is to the waterways of the nation. Within the St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls service areas, the only major waterway that could be utilized
for effluent disposal is the St. Croix River. Of the ten wastewater facili-
ties alternatives considered, five propose direct discharge to the River,
two propose discharge of effluent to the river only at two periods of the
year, and two propose discharge of renovated water or underdrainage from the
land treatment of the effluent. Only one alternative proposed the disposal
of effluent at a land application site with no discharge to the St. Croix
River. The alternatives and type of discharge are:
No significant change in the existing systems, with con-
tinued effluent discharge to the St. Croix River ("no-ac-
tion" alternative)
Upgrade and expand the St. Croix Falls WWTP with continuous
discharge to the St. Croix River (St. Croix Falls only)
Rehabilitate the St. Croix Falls WWTP, with disposal of
effluent by land application instead of discharging it to
the St. Croix River (St. Croix Falls only)
Upgrade and expand the Taylor Falls WWTP (activated sludge
or rotating biological contactors), with continuous dis-
charge to the St. Croix River (Taylors Falls only)
New Taylor Falls pond system with discharge to the St. Croix
River during only two periods of the year (Taylors Falls
only)
2-26
-------
New Taylors Falls pond system, with disposal of effluent on
land and the underdrainage discharged to the St. Croix River
(Taylors Falls only)
Upgrade and expand the existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls to
provide regionalized treatment for both communities, with
continuous discharge to the St. Croix River
Regionalized treatment for both communities by a pond sys-
tem, with discharge to the St. Croix River during only two
periods of the year
Regional land treatment system, with discharge of under-
drainage to the St. Croix River.
2.3.4.2. Land Application
Land application or land treatment of wastewater utilizes natural
physical, chemical, and biological processes in vegetation, soils, and
underlying geological formations to renovate and dispose of domestic waste-
water. Land application methods have been practiced in the US for over 100
years and presently are being used by hundreds of communities throughout the
nation (Pound and Crites 1973).
Land disposal (including subsurface disposal and irrigation) involves
transport of effluent to a suitable site. The site must have suitable soil
and geological conditions to prevent contamination of groundwater. In
addition to wastewater renovation, the advantages of land application may
include groundwater recharge, soil conditioning, and stimulation of plant
growth. The applicability of this disposal option depends significantly on
social acceptance, costs, and the amount of energy required to transport the
effluent from the treatment facility to its disposal site.
The three principal processes utilized in the land disposal of treated
wastewater are:
Overland flow
Slow-rate application or irrigation
Rapid infiltration.
2-27
-------
In the overland flow process, the wastewater is allowed to flow over a
sloping surface and is collected at the bottom of the slope. This type of
land application requires a stream for final disposal. Overland flow gen-
erally results in an effluent with an average phosphorus concentration of 4
mg/1. Phosphorus removals usually range from 30% of 60% on a concentration
basis (USEPA and others 1977).
In the slow-rate method, treated wastewater is applied to the land to
enhance the growth of crops or grasses. Wastewater is applied by spray,
ridge and furrow, or flood methods, depending on the soil drainage charac-
teristics and the type of vegetation. Application rates range from 0.5 to
4.0 inches per week. Renovation of wastewater occurs in the first 2 to 4
feet of soil, because organic matter, phosphorus, heavy metals, and bacteria
are retained by adsorption and other mechanisms. Nitrogen is utilized by
plants as they grow, and nitrogen removals at irrigation sites may be as
high as 90%. Water is lost from the system through infiltration and evapo-
transpiration. The potential exists for affecting groundwater quality if
the system is improperly designed or operated. A minimum depth to ground-
water of 5 feet is required to allow for treatment of the wastewater before
it mixes with the groundwater (USEPA and others 1977). Relatively large
amounts of land are needed for the slow-rate process.
The rapid infiltration method involves high rates (4 to 120 inches per
week) of application to highly permeable soils, such as sands and loamy
sands. Although vegetative cover may be present, it is not an integral part
of the system. Cleansing of wastewater occurs within the first few feet of
soil by filtering, adsorption, chemical precipitation, and other geochemical
reactions. In most cases, SS, BOD, and fecal coliform are removed almost
completely. Phosphorus removal can range from 70% to 90%, depending on the
physical and chemical properties of the soils. Nitrogen removal, however,
generally is less significant, unless specific procedures are established to
maximize denitrification (USEPA and others 1977).
In rapid infiltration systems, there is little or no consumptive use of
wastewater by plants, and only minor evaporation occurs. Because most of
2-28
-------
the wastewater infiltrates the soil, groundwater quality may be affected. To
minimize the potential for groundwater contamination at a rapid infiltration
site, the minimum depth to the water table should be 10 feet. Due to ex-
tremely rapid rates of infiltration, the permeability of the underlying
aquifer must be high to insure that the water table will not rise signifi-
cantly and limit the usefulness of the site.
Recovery of renovated water usually is an integral part of the system.
Recovery can include groundwater recharge, natural treatment followed by
pumped withdrawal or underdrains for surface recovery, and natural treatment
with renovated water moving vertically and horizontally in the soil and thus
recharging surface waters. Removals of wastewater constituents by the fil-
tering and straining action of the soil are excellent.
LAND SUITABILITY
Several land areas in the vicinity of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
WWTPs were considered through the facilities planning process for land
application of effluent. Most of these areas were rejected because of
unacceptable soil conditions; hydrogeological conditions; or aesthetic,
environmental, or public non-acceptance. Two sites that have potential for
land application are located in Section 29 of St. Croix Falls Township,
Wisconsin, and Section 26 of Shafer Township, Minnesota. However, detailed
geotechnical investigations would have to be conducted and design parameters
established to determine the suitability of these sites for land disposal.
The Facilities Planners have determined, on the basis of available land area
and existing data, that the site in Section 29 of St. Croix Falls Township
is potentially suitable for rapid infiltration and the site in Section 26 of
Shafer Township is suitable for spray irrigation. The site in Section 29 is
located approximately 1.5 miles east of the existing St. Croix Falls WWTP.
The site in Section 26 is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the exist-
ing Taylors Falls WWTP.
2-29
-------
REGULATIONS
Wisconsin
The discharge limitations to the land disposal system are presented in
the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Section NR 214.07. The applicable dis-
charge limitations are summarized as follows:
Wastewater must receive, at minimum, secondary treatment
prior to disposal on land
The BOD concentration in the discharge to the land disposal
system must not exceed 50 mg/1 in more than 20% of the
monitoring samples that are requi red during a calendar
quarter
The discharge must be distributed on an alternating basis to
individual sections of the disposal system in a manner to
allow sufficient resting periods to maintain the absorptive
capacity of the soil
The geometric mean of the fecal coliform bacteria counts for
effluent samples taken during a calendar quarter, or such
other period as may be specified in the permit for the dis-
charge, shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml.
Minnesota
The limitations to the disposal of wastewater on land are presented in
MPCA1s "Recommended Design Criteria for Disposal of Effluent by Land Appli-
cation," including Addendum I"Evaluating Land Application in Facilities
Planning" and Addendum II"Design Considerations for Land Application
Systems." The MPCA land application program is based on the "Process Design
Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater," prepared by USEPA, the
US Army Corps of Engineers, and the US Department of Agriculture (1977).
Addendum II of the MPCA criteria does not state specific design para-
meters. Rather, it states that system design must be based on a particular
set of circumstances unique to the project and that the facilities planners
are responsible for interpreting field information and designing a land
application system using the Design Manual and other available sources of
information.
2-30
-------
2.3.4.3. Wetlands Discharge
Wetlands, which constitute approximately 3% of the land area of the
continental US (USEPA and others 1977), are hydrologically intermediate
areas. Wetlands usually have too many plants and too little water to be
called lakes, yet have enough water to prevent most agricultural or forestry
uses. The use of wetlands to receive and satisfactorily treat wastewater
effluents is a relatively new and experimental concept. In wetland applica-
tion systems, wastewater is renovated by the soil, by plants, and by micro-
organisms as it moves through and over the soil profile. Wetland systems
are somewhat similar to overland flow systems in that most of the water
flows over a relatively impermeable soil surface and the renovation action
is more dependent on microbial and plant activity than on soil chemistry.
The wetlands application option is not included in the alternatives con-
sidered herein because there are no suitable wetlands in the proximity of
the existing or proposed WWTP sites. Creating a wetlands area to treat
wastewater would require a large amount of land and could be environmentally
problematic.
2.3.4.4. Reuse
Wastewater management techniques included under the category of treated
effluent reuse may be identified as:
Public water supply
Groundwater recharge
Industrial process uses or cooling tower makeup
Energy production
Recreation and turf irrigation
Fish and wildlife enhancement.
Reuse of treatment plant effluent as a public water supply or for
groundwater recharge could present potential public health concerns in the
St. Croix Falls-Taylors Falls area. There are no major industries in the
area that require cooling water. The availability of good-quality surface
water and groundwater and the abundant rainfall limit the demand for the use
2-31
-------
of treated wastewater for recreational and turf irrigation purposes. Or-
ganic contamination and heavy metal concentrations also are potential prob-
lems. Direct reuse would require very costly advanced wastewater treatment
(AWT), and a sufficient economic incentive is not available to justify the
expense. Thus, the reuse of treated effluent is not currently a feasible
management technique for the study area.
2.3.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal
All of the wastewater treatment processes considered will generate
sludge. The amount of sludge generated will vary considerably, depending on
the treatment process. Sludge is largely water and organic matter; however,
significant amounts of inert chemicals will be present if phosphorus removal
has been performed. A typical sludge management program would involve
interrelated processes for reducing the volume of the sludge and final dis-
posal .
Volume reduction depends on the reduction of both the water and the
organic content of the sludge. Organic material can be reduced through the
use of digestion, incineration, or wet-oxidation processes. Moisture reduc-
tion is attainable through concentration, conditioning, dewatering, and/or
drying processes. The mode of final disposal selected determines the pro-
cesses that are required.
The disposal of sludge from the existing WWTPs at St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls is by land application. The sludge produced at the St. Croix
Falls WWTP is anaerobically digested and hauled away by truck, either in
liquid or dewatered form, and applied on agricultural land. The sludge
produced at the Taylors Falls WWTP is anaerobically digested, dewatered on
sand beds, and hauled away by truck for application on agricultural land.
Because of the availability of adequate land in the proximity of the WWTP
sites, the final disposal selected for the proposed WWTPs is land disposal
of liquid sludge. The associated processes necessary for this selected mode
of disposal are digestion and storage.
2-32
-------
2.3.5.1. Sludge Digestion
During sludge digestion, organic solids are oxidized biologically to
reduce and stabilize the sludge solids. The digestion processes considered
are aerobic digestion and anaerobic digestion. In aerobic digestion, pri-
mary or biological sludges are oxidized by aeration in open tanks. This
process has relatively low capital costs and entails little operational
complexity, but it requires a high energy input. In anaerobic sludge diges-
tion, organic matter in sludge is broken down by anaerobic microorganisms in
a closed tank. Because the biological processes are complex, continuous
control of the operation is required. Although the capital costs for this
process are relatively high, the energy input is minimal, and the methane
produced in the digester usually is used to further reduce operating costs.
2.3.5.2. Sludge Disposal
Sludge hauling and disposal is required for all treatment systems and
is the last step in the sludge handling process. The type of vehicle used
for sludge hauling will vary depending on whether the sludge is in a liquid
or a solid form and whether land application is practiced. Sludge may be
disposed at sanitary landfills, and on agricultural or forest land. When
sludge is disposed in sanitary landfills, the sludge and other wastes are
covered and the site is managed to prevent seepage or other environmental
hazards. Although landfill disposal costs are relatively low, the nutrient
value of the sludge is not utilized. Sludge can be used as a fertilizer and
soil conditioner at agricultural land or forest disposal sites. Its utili-
zation may be limited by the metals and pathogens in the sludge and by the
soil conditions at the application site. Costs for utilization of sludge on
farms or in forests are dependent on hauling distance, assuming that there
are no costly limitations on the application of the sludge.
The disposal method recommended for both St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls is direct hauling from the digester, land application of the sludge
during non-frozen conditions, and storage of sludge during winter months.
2-33
-------
2.4. System Alternatives
Initially, sixteen wastewater treatment alternatives were considered as
potential solutions to improve the quality of effluent from the existing St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs, or to eliminate the direct discharge of
treated effluent altogether. The alternatives include no action, indepen-
dent treatment systems for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, and regional
treatment systems that would serve both communities. A number of combina-
tions of treatment processes, siting options, effluent disposal options, and
sludge processing and disposal options were considered. These alternatives
initially included the following:
Independent Treatment Systems for St. Croix Falls
1. No act ion
2. Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP (CAS)
3. Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP (RBC)
4. Land disposal system (rapid infiltration)
Independent Treatment Systems for Taylors Falls
5. No action
6. Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP (CAS)
7. Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP (RBC)
8. Stabilization pond system with effluent discharge to River
9. Stabilization pond system with land disposal of effluent by spray
irrigation
10. Land treatment of effluent by spray irrigation
Regional Treatment Systems
11. Conventional WWTP at St. Croix Falls
12. Conventional WWTP at Taylors Falls
13. Stabilization pond system near Taylors Falls with discharge of effluent
to St. Croix River
14. Stabilization pond system with disposal of effluent on land by spray
irrigation
15. Land disposal by rapid infiltration near St. Croix Falls
16. Land treatment by spray irrigation near Taylors Falls.
2-34
-------
These conceptual alternatives were screened on a preliminary basis and
seven (Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16) were eliminated from fur-
ther consideration because of technical infeasibility, poor costeffective-
ness, and/or unacceptable environmental impacts.
After completing the preliminary screening process, nine other poten-
tial wastewater treatment alternatives were further developed and evaluated
for technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and environmental concerns.
These alternatives, including the no-action alternatives (required to be
addressed in the EIS), are described in the following subsections.
The no-action alternative, in which no new construction or extensive
modification would occur, would consist of non-structural, in-plant measures
at each existing facility to improve the quality of effluent. Alternatives 1
and 2 involve upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls
for an independent treatment facility only for the St. Croix Falls service
area. Alternative 1 proposes direct discharge of effluent to the St. Croix
River while Alternative 2 proposes effluent disposal on land east of the
City. Alternatives 3 through 6 present different treatment and disposal
options only for Taylors Falls. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose new, conven-
tional treatment plants at the existing WWTP site; Alternatives 5 and 6
propose stabilization pond systems west 'of the City. Treated effluent from
the ponds would be discharged to the St. Croix River two times per year in
Alternative 5 and would be disposed on land by cropland irrigation in Alter-
native 6. Alternative 7 proposes the upgrading and expansion of the exist-
ing WWTP at St. Croix Falls to serve as a conventional regional treatment
plant, serving both communities. Alternatives 8 and 9 are regional treat-
ment alternatives at Taylors Falls using stabilization ponds, with effluent
disposal to the River and by land application techniques, respectively.
Approximate locations of the existing and proposed site areas for the waste-
water treatment alternatives are shown in Figure 2-1.
The treatment plant construction cost and O&M costs for each alterna-
tive were estimated by the Facilities Planners. The alternatives and their
costs are summarized in the following sections.
2-35
-------
STABILIZATION PONDS AND\
LAND APPLICATION SITES
Figure 2-1. Existing and proposed site areas for the wastewater
treatment facilities alternatives and force main routes.
2-36
-------
Propo»td Pumping Station
2-37
-------
2.4.1. No-action Alternative
The "no-action" alternative would entail continued operation of the
existing WWTPs with discharge to the St. Croix River, without any signifi-
cant expansion, upgrading, or replacement during the current design period
(to the year 2000). The "no-action" alternative implies that USEPA would
not provide funds to support new construction, upgrading, or expansion of
existing WWTPs.
The existing St. Croix Falls WWTP constructed in 1951 is incapable of
achieving the reduction of BODc and suspended solids required by the WPDES
discharge permit. Selection of this alternative would result in continued
violation of State and Federal water pollution laws.
The existing Taylors Falls WWTP, constructed in 1941, is incapable of
achieving consistantly the reduction of BOD- and suspended solids required
by the MPCA discharge permit. The non-structural improvements might include
improved scum and solids handling provisions, upgrading filter and digester
equipment, and improved chlorination/disinfection measures. In addition,
the operational improvements could be carried out by increased personnel,
increased operational budget, and training of personnel. The above non-
structural measures would result in improvement in effluent quality, but
would not meet the proposed limitation consistently. Selection of this
alternative would result in continued violation of State and Federal water
pollution laws.
The costs associated with the no-action alternative for both St. Croix
Falls and Taylors Falls would be minimal, and would constitute the normal
expenditures required for the continuing operation, maintenance, and repair
of the existing equipment. These costs have not been calculated for com-
parison with the costs of the other alternatives because the capacity of the
existing WWTPs would be inadequate for treatment of the projected wastewater
flows and effluent limitations could not be met. The reliability and flexi-
bility of the existing facilities also are limited, and the minor opera-
tional, equipment, and personnel improvements that could be made would not
compensate for the age and deteriorated conditon of the equipment. Thus the
2-38
-------
no-action alternative for the Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls facilities
is not feasible and will not be given further consideration.
2.4.2. Alternative 1 Upgrading and Expanding the Existing WWTP at St.
Croix Falls
This alternative consists of upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP
at St. Croix Falls (Figure 2-1) to a 400,000 gpd secondary treatment plant
with direct discharge to the St. Croix River. This alternative would serve
only the treatment needs of the St. Croix Falls service area. The treatment
processes would include: raw wastewater pumping station; preliminary treat-
ment consisting of screening and grit removal; primary clarification; sec-
ondary biological treatment using an RBC process; final clarification;
chlorination; and anaerobic digestion of sludge. The digested sludge would
be stored in a lagoon and/or hauled by tank truck for land spreading on
agricultural land. The schematic flow diagram for this alternative is shown
in Figure 2-2.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,124,000.
The estimated annual O&M cost is $31,000. The estimated salvage value after
20 years of use is $275,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$1,414,000 (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980; Short, Elliott,
Hendrickson, Inc. 1980).
2.4.3. Alternative 2 Land Disposal System for St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of rehabilitation of the existing WWTP at St.
Croix Falls, followed by land disposal of the effluent. This alternative
only would serve the needs of St. Croix Falls. The existing WWTP would be
modified, upgraded, and expanded to treat the average design flow of 400,000
gpd and to produce an effluent capable of meeting a BOD,, effluent limitation
of 50 mg/1. The effluent from the modified existing WWTP would be pumped
through an 8-inch-diameter force main approximately 2.0 miles along River
Road, through an area north of Kentucky Street, and along Washington and
Costs for subsequently prescribed alternatives are based on these same
sources; also see Section 2.2.3.
2-39
-------
»
c
o
o
60
0) *
601-1
la
«g
o
4J
Wi
c
o
rl
4J
n)
0
H
i-H
(X
^
"2
c
a)
_i
A
H
0)
4J
rH
<3
O
U-l
(U
CO
o
p.
O
to
0)
CO
CQ
OJ
o
o
M
a
4-1
C
M
M
60
fll
H
a
o
CJ
co
CM
CN
0)
4-1
§
-------
Louisiana Streets to a land disposal site in the northeast quarter of Sec-
tion 29 of St. Croix Falls Township (Figure 2-1). The effluent would be
discharged into flooding basins at an application rate of 10-inches per week
for a 9-month period, and stored for the 3 winter months in a storage basin.
The total land area required for the rapid infiltration system, including
the storage basin and a buffer zone, is approximately 30 acres. The modifi-
cations or additions that would be required to the existing WWTP were not
addressed in the St. Croix Falls Facilities Plan.
An underdrain system or recovery wells may be required, depending on
the hydrogeological conditions at the site. The digested sludge from the
WWTP would be stored in a lagoon and/or hauled by tank truck for land
spreading on agricultural land. The schematic flow diagram for this alter-
native is shown in Figure 2-3.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,181,000
and an estimated annual O&M cost of $40,000. The estimated salvage value
after 20 years of service is $540,000. The total present worth is estimated
to be $1,466,000. The cost associated with underdrains and recovery wells
were not included in the cost analysis for this alternative.
2.4.4. Alternative 3 Compact Activated Sludge System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for Taylors Falls proposes the demolition of the
existing WWTP and construction of a new 140,000 gpd treatment plant at the
same site utilizing a CAS secondary treatment process (Figure 2-1). The
treated wastewater would be discharged directly to the St. Croix River. To
implement this alternative all existing wastewater treatment process units
would have to be demolished. During the construction period, interim treat-
ment facilities would be required. The existing final tank would be uti-
lized for primary settling and disinfection prior to discharge. The raw
wastewater would be screened, and ferric chloride would be added prior to
settling to enhance treatment efficiency. Settled solids would be pumped and
disposed of off-site. Some temporary piping and manhole structures would be
required to re-route wastewater directly to the final tank. A one-time cost
is included in the cost estimates for interim treatment.
2-41
-------
o
c
o
ptl
0)
00
rt
CO
e
o
H
4J
CO
4-1
to
00
c
PH
PL, T3
H <1>
60 i-t
C r-j
"(H "^
11 ^^
CO Cfl
H J3
X (1)
W P4
T
pag
pag
0)
rH
0)
4-1
S-l
O
CU
CO
O
cn
-------
The treatment processes would include: preliminary treatment consisting
of screening and grit removal; biological treatment using an extended aera-
tion activated sludge process; final clarification; chlorination; and aero-
bic digestion of sludge. Because of the proximity of the WWTP site to the
community area, most of the unit processes would be covered or enclosed for
aesthetics and to avoid potential nuisance conditions. The digested sludge
will be hauled by tank truck for spreading on agricultural land. The sche-
matic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 2-4.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $988,000 and
an estimated annual O&H cost of $36,000. The estimated salvage value after
20 years of use is $198,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$1,348,000.
2.4.5. Alternative 4 Rotating Biological Contactor System for Taylors
Falls
This treatment system alternative for Taylors Falls would involve
demolition of the existing WWTP and construction of a new 140,000 gpd plant
at the same site utilizing an RBC secondary treatment process (Figure 2-1).
The treated wastewater would be discharged directly to the St. Croix River.
Like Alternative 3, all the existing unit processes would have to be demo-
lished and interim treatment facilities would be provided during construc-
tion.
The treatment processes would include: preliminary treatment consisting
of screening and grit removal; primary clarification; secondary biological
treatment using an RBC process; final clarification; chlorination; and
anaerobic digestion of sludge. Because of the proximity of the WWTP site to
the downtown area, most of the unit processes would be enclosed for aesthe-
tical purposes and to avoid the creation of potential nuisance conditions.
The digested sludge would be hauled by tank truck for application on agri-
cultural land. The schematic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in
Figure 2-5.
2-43
-------
e
o
cfl
c
rl
J-l
U
C
§
oo
co
cfl
C
S-i
0)
l-i
O
H-l
T)
(U
CO
o
ex
o
CO
0)
to
CO
0)
o
o
(-1
ex
0)
S
4J
td
cu
c
td
M
bO
cd
H
4J
cd
VJ
0)
U
CO
co
cd
3
c?
Pi
CN
0)
(-1
3
M)
H
fn
2-4A
-------
(3
-
3
H
l-i
.fl
U
Handling
Solids
^
Land Application
(fl
c
M
(U
(U
cn
o
a
o
to
a)
CO
co
-------
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $985,000 and
an estimated annual O&M cost of $27,000. The estimated salvage values after
20 years of use is $264,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$1,233,000.
2.4.6. Alternative 5 Stabilization Pond System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for the Taylors Falls area consists of a new stabili-
zation pond treatment facility at a site in the northwest quarter of Section
26 of Shafer Township (Figure 2-1). Implementation of this alternative
would require approximately 30 to 40 acres of land. The treated wastewater
would be discharged to the St. Croix River on a controlled basis. The
facility would be designed to discharge treated effluent twice a year. This
alternative offers a considerable degree of flexibility, but selecting the
optimum time of the year for discharge by monitoring the receiving stream
and the quality of the effluent is critical to the success of this method.
The existing WWTP would be abandoned in this alternative. The waste-
water would be conveyed to the proposed site using four pumping stations and
approximately 2.5 miles of new force main located along County Road 82,
Folson, Walnut, and Mulberry Streets, and Military Road (Figure 2-1). The
effluent from the new treatment facility would be pumped through 2.5 miles
of force main and would be discharged to the St. Croix River. The effluent
line would be placed adjacent to the raw wastewater line between the St.
Croix River and the treatment ponds. Use of the effluent line as a siphon
should be given consideration during the Step 2 design phase of this pro-
ject. This could reduce energy consumption and prolong the service life of
the effluent pumping station. Provisions for disinfection would be included
in conjunction with the design of the effluent line. Chlorine could be
metered into the final control structure, which would allow sufficient
contact time within the line before discharge.
The treatment processes include: biological treatment using stabiliza-
tion ponds and chlorination. The stabilization ponds would be sized for 180
2-46
-------
days of wastewater detention time. This alternative does not require sepa-
rate sludge processing facilities. The sludge would collect in the bottom
of the pond and would undergo anaerobic digestion. Inert solids which would
not decompose biologically would remain in the pond and would require clean-
out and removal once every 10 to 20 years. The schematic flow diagram for
this alternative is shown in Figure 2-6.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,164,000
and an estimated annual O&M cost of $18,000. The estimated salvage value
after 20 years of use is $572,000. The total present worth is estimated to
be $1,218,000. The cost for the demolition of existing facilities is not
included in these figures.
2.4.7. Alternative 6 Land Disposal System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for the Taylors Falls system is similar to Alternative
5 except that the treated wastewater from the ponds would be discharged on
land. The treatment facility and the land application site would be located
in the northwest quarter of Section 26 of Shafer Township (Figure 2-1).
Approximately 110 acres of land would be required for this alternative. The
treatment processes include: biological treatment, using stablization ponds;
chlorination for disinfection; and irrigation. The stabilization pond
system would be sized to provide for 210 days of both detention and storage
of wastewater. The treated wastewater from the storage pond would be pumped
and applied on land using spray irrigation equipment. To avoid the poten-
tial for raising the level of the groundwater, an underdrainage system would
be provided. The renovated water would be collected as drainage and pumped
through a discharge force main to the St. Croix River. The schematic flow
diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 2-7.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,584,000
and an estimated annual O&M cost of $21,000. The estimated salvage value
after 20 years of use is $996,000. The total present worth is estimated to
be $1,569,000.
2-47
-------
C
M
OJ
l-i
O
a
0)
to
o
ex
o
M
a
CO
ai
w
w
-------
tfl
c
M
O
U-l
-------
2.4.8. Alternative 7 Regional Conventional WWTP at St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of upgrading and expanding the existing St.
Croix Falls WWTP to treat wastewater from both the St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls service areas. The existing Taylors Falls WWTP would be
abandoned and an additional 0.25 acres of land would be needed at the St.
Croix Falls WWTP site. A pumping station and force main constructed from
the Taylors Falls WWTP, attached to the US Highway 8 bridge, through the
Wisconsin Interstate State Park, to the St. Croix Falls WWTP would divert
the wastewater from Taylors Falls to the regional WWTP treatment facility on
the St. Croix Falls side of the river (Figure 2-1).
The treatment processes for this regional WWTP would include: prelimi-
nary treatment consisting of screening and grit removal; primary clarifica-
tion; secondary biological treatment using an RBC system; final clarifica-
tion; chlorination; and anaerobic digestion of sludge. The digested sludge
would be hauled by tank truck and spread on agricultural land. The effluent
from the WWTP would be discharged directly to the St. Croix River. The
schematic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 2-8.
This alternative has an estimated initial cost of $2,113,000, and an
estimated annual O&M cost of $62,000. The estimated salvage value after 20
years of service is $636,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$2,657,000. The cost for the demolition of existing facilities at the
Taylors Falls WWTP is not included in the cost analysis for this alterna-
tive.
2.4.9. Alternative 8 Regional Stabilization Pond System near Taylors
Falls
This alternative consists of a new regional stabilization pond treat-
ment facility to be constructed at a site at the northwest quarter of Sec-
tion 26 of Shafer Township (Figure 2-1), to treat wastewater from both the
St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls service areas. Approximately 90 acres of
land would be needed for this alternative. The treated wastewater would be
discharged to the St. Croix River and, as described for Alternative 5, the
2-50
-------
I
c
o
H
4J
cd
C
H
M
O
CJ
0)
00
cd
O r*
i| ^
*^ O
60
So *9
*O "
3
rH
^-
c
o
. J
rl
4-1
cd
CJ
H
I-l
p.
a.
<
T3
a
cd
0)
H
4-1
cd
c
T3
0)
CO
o
o.
o
CO
-------
discharge would be controlled. The facility would be designed to discharge
during two periods of the year.
The existing St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs would be aban-
doned. A pumping station would be constructed at the St. Croix Falls WWTP. A
force main from the WWTP, south through the Wisconsin Interstate State Park
to US Highway 8, crossing the St. Croix River attached to the highway
bridge, extending to the existing Taylors Falls plant site would be con-
structed. This line would divert the wastewater from the St. Croix Falls
service area to the regional plant. The combined system wastewater col-
lected at the existing Taylors Falls plant site would be transported to the
new stabilization pond system with the assistance of four pumping stations
and approximately 2.5 miles of force main via the same route as discussed in
Alternative 5 (Figure 2-1). The effluent from the stabilization pond system
would be pumped through 2.5 miles of force main and would discharge to the
St. Croix River.
The treatment processes include: biological treatment using stabili-
zation ponds and chlorination for disinfection. The stabilization ponds
would be sized for 180 days of wastewater detention. The sludge would
collect in the bottom of the pond and would undergo anaerobic digestion.
Inert solids that are not biologically decomposed would remain in the pond
and may require cleanout and removal once every 10 to 20 years. The schema-
tic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 2-9.
This alternative has an estimated initial cost of $2,660,000 and an
estimated annual O&M cost of $31,000. The estimated salvage value after 20
years of use is $1,390,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$2,652,000. The costs for the demolition of the existing Taylors Falls and
St. Croix Falls WWTPs have not been included in these estimates.
2.4.10. Alternative 9 Regional Land Disposal System near Taylors Falls
This alternative is similar to Alternative 8 except that the treated
wastewater would be discharged on land and not to the River. The regional
treatment facility and the land application site would be located in Section
2-52
-------
oo
H
4J
c
01
1-1
o
M-l
o
0)
CO
o
a
o
M
ex
CO
0)
CO
co
OJ
u
o
h
ex
4-1
e
0)
s
4-1
CD
0)
3
V-i
oc
tfl
CM
-------
26 of Shafer Township (Figure 2-1). Approximately 280 acres of land would
be needed for this alternative. The existing St. Croix Falls and Taylor
Falls WWTPs would be abandoned and the wastewater would be diverted to the
new regional plant by pumping stations and force mains as described for
Alternative 8.
The treatment processes include biological treatment using stabiliza-
tion ponds and chlorination. The stabilization pond system would be sized
for 210 days to provide for both detention and storage of wastewater. The
treated wastewater from the storage pond will be pumped and applied on land
using spray irrigation equipment. To avoid the potential for raising the
level of the groundwater, an underdrainage system would be provided. The
renovated drainage water would be collected and pumped through a discharge
force main to the St. Croix River. The schematic flow diagram for this
alternative is shown in Figure 2-10.
This alternative has an estimated initial cost of $3,651,000, and an
estimated annual O&M cost of $23,000. The estimated salvage value after 20
years of use is $2,175,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$3,375,000. The costs for the demolition of the existing Taylors Falls and
St. Croix Falls WWTPs are not included in the cost analysis for this alter-
native.
2.5. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives
2.5.1. Flexibility
Flexibility in wastewater treatment refers to the ease with which an
existing system can be upgraded or modified to accommodate future growth and
changing effluent limitations. The system alternatives considered for St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls include the existing centralized collection
sewer systems, new treatment facilities, and effluent disposal options.
Because most of the components are common to a majority of the alternatives,
the following evaluation is generally applicable to most of the alternatives
unless stated otherwise in the discussion.
2-54
-------
CO
co
1
o
H
4-1
(fl 03
N TJ
--( C
iH O
H FM
,0
cd
c
<
I
u
- -rl
' 4J
cd
. oo
: -H
jj
M
. :-<
cr?
t j
><4
a
CO
0)
(X)
cd ^
c
(U
co
o
a.
o
CO
a>
ca
co
-------
For gravity sewer systems, flexibility to handle future increases in
flows greater than the original design flow generally is minimal. The
interceptor sewers usually are designed to accommodate flows in excess of
those expected during a 20-year planning period. Increasing the capacity of
collector sewers is an expensive process. Also, the layout of the system
depends on the location of the treatment facility. The expansion of a sewer
system generally is easy through the addition of new sewers, but is expen-
sive, especially when new large-diameter interceptor sewers are required.
The ability to expand a conventional WWTP depends largely on the pro-
cesses being used, layout of the facilities, and availability of additional
land for expansion. The expansion or upgrading of most of the treatment
processes considered for the proposed systems would be relatively easy.
With proper design of process components of the treatment plant, and proper
planning of the facility layout, the cost and effort required for expansion
may be relatively small. Most conventional treatment processes also have
good operational flexibility because operators can, to some extent, vary
treatment parameters.
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that the majority of
the alternatives considered in this report generally have similar flexibili-
ty for future growth and/or planning. The primary exception is the site of
the existing Taylors Falls WWTP, which is fairly steep-sloped and of minimal
area, which significantly constrains future expansion of the facilities.
2.5.2. Reliability
Reliability refers to the ability of a system or system components to
operate without failure at its designed level of efficiency. It is par-
ticularly important to have dependable operation in situations where adverse
environmental or economic impacts may result from failure of the system.
A gravity sewer is highly reliable when designed properly. Such sys-
tems require little maintenance, consume no energy, and have no mechanical
components to malfunction. Gravity sewer problems can include clogged pipes
leading to sewer backups; infiltration/inflow, increasing the volume of flow
2-56
-------
beyond the design level; and broken or misaligned pipes. Major contributors
to these problems are improperly jointed pipes and damage to manholes,
especially where they are not located in paved roads. Where large sewers
are used to achieve lower pipe slopes, problems with solids deposition can
mean that frequent flushing with large volumes of water will be necessary.
Pumping stations and force mains increase operation and maintenance re-
quirements and decrease system reliability. Backup pumps must be installed
to provide service in case one pump fails. A backup power source usually is
provided, such as dual power lines or stationary or portable emergency
generators. Force mains generally are reliable; excessive solids deposition
and bursting pipes rarely occur.
Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Waste-
water Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administration 1970)
require that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and
designed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times.
The facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily
during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure,
and maintenance shutdowns.
The wastewater control system design for the study area will consider
the following types of factors to insure system reliability:
Duplicate sources of electric power
Standby power for essential plant elements
Multiple units and equipment to provide maximum flexibility
in operation
Replacement parts readily available
Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency storage of
overflow and adequate pump-back facilities
Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit
rerouting of flows under emergency conditions
Provision for emergency storage or disposal of sludge
Dual chlorination units
2-57
-------
Automatic controls to regulate and record chlorine residuals
Automatic alarm systems to warn of high water, power fail-
ure, or equipment malfunction
No treatment plant bypasses or upstream bypasses
Design of interceptor sewers to permit emergency storage
without causing backups
Enforcement of pretreatment regulations to avoid industrial
waste-induced treatment upsets
Floodproofing of treatment plant
Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual to have a section on
emergency operation procedures
Use of qualified plant operators.
Through the incorporation of these types of factors (and all appropri-
ate standards set forth in the Wisconsin and Minnesota Administrative Codes)
in the design and operation of the wastewater control system for the St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls service areas, the system will be virtually
"fail-safe." This is necessary to insure that effluent standards would be
met during the entire design life of the system.
2.6. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Recommended Action
The selection of the most cost-effective, environmentally acceptable,
and implementable alternative(s) through the EIS process involved the con-
sideration of technical feasibility, reliability, costs, environmental
effects, public desirability, and the ability to comply with the applicable
effluent discharge standards for the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. The
potential for forming an interstate sanitary district for the regional
alternatives also was considered in the selection process.
2.6.1. Comparison of Alternatives
Project costs were categorized into capital expenses, operating and
maintenance expenses, and salvage values for the equipment and structures
for each alternative. A summary of the estimated costs of project alterna-
tives are displayed in Table 2-7. The system alternatives are grouped into
2-58
-------
en
OJ
>
H
4-1
3
v-j
, O
H X
a] 4-.
i c
3 *H
[/) ^
r*-
0)
rH
3
H
+J
C3
0) r-l ID
60 CO iH 4J
tO 3 co co
l-i (3 > 0
> < a
< 0-
ta
rH
10
£
iS
^J
CO
o
o
S
g
J3 1)
j3 M
4-> Ofl
M ?
!2 ""'
en
CU 4-1
co e
(U (U
£ i
o
tO
0.
o
at
>
rH
CO
4-1
iH
O
CO
O
+J
rH CO
3 0
§ S
2 3
o
0)
60
CO 4->
> CO
rH O
CO O
en
4j
e
00
GO
C
H
4-»
tn
i-t CO
X r-l
W r-t
n3
jp
c o
CO U
0,0
60 eo
B
iH 4J
I?"
W CU
II
(
rH
r^
en
o
SO
a-
_T
0
oo
CM
o
en
rH
I
1
O
_J
oo
rH
0
O
O
-a-
o
o
o
^
m
i
o
CO
o
o
00
to
4-» rH
tO rH
>t eo
rH i«!
to O
CO -H
as
eo
iH
O 4-1
eo
C l-i
.
CM
in
00
CM
O
CO
en
rn"
0
CO
en
o
o
in
o
CM
en
o
00
00
o
en
o
co
^
o
0
1
1
o
o
r^
CO to
60 rH
T3 rH
3 to
rH [14
en
tn
-0 H
cu o
cfl >,
> to
£ H
< 0
M-I
4J
U e
to cu
O, 4->
B to
o en
.
en
in
^
-H
O
en
CM
rH*
0
en
00
CM
o
f^.
^
o
CM
en
o
in
00
Os
O
CM
O
so
CM
O
0
1
1
o
00
CO
r^
rJ
O
CJ
to
4J 10
C -H
O -H
CJ CO
rH
to to
O rJ
H O
M)rH
O >s
rH CO
0 H
H
CO H
O
e
H S
4J 0)
tO 4-1
4-1 CO
Q >s
c2 en
4
s
O CO
H
o
C u
to o
m
sO
U
CM r^ so o
en CM rH tn
in m CM
cT
00
Os
o o o
i-^ CM in 2
m in r- t;
so so en J
CM CM en ^
60
a
0 0 0 U
,-t in ^H £P
m e^j
.3
x~s W
°. ° °. 0
O rH OS °
so m ,
0 0 ,2 V4 *J |
0 H to 0
m o o , *- iH CM
-H in os ^ tfl c
c2 S '^ CU
CU 13 £
W 4-1 tO
1 m o r-i 60 J
1 en CM C" s^s a >
-H p
H cu *-^
4-1 !-* C rH
H -t-l 2
3 W e e
T-l P V^
O O O o 4-J Q) C
« n) CTJ nJ
O O m PI-I J-j
GT\ CN 00 rjj o &-?
\O O in nj Jm M_I m
^- C1J
' M
r-»-l ^ Cfl
f ^
o-o -o
-- - CN U) Si
.0 3 S
01 ^ 00 r-4 i-l £fl
CO t-H YL O> O O* ij
rH tfl rH rH lij T!
rH CrHrHtO CD +-1(0
rH tO OrH eOfci -° T3 CO S
c04-!Cn "HtO to OCUOi.
CC wCti otfl CU(-4JOci
Otux to exu ^1-13 £
rISi-l NtO COO CO CufljT
4-14JO -HUl iHi-l "SO
CtOU rHO Q !» tOCO-H.,
cjtao -HrH to u J^X-OH 4jco cjS
CH- toco Cl rtJ
-------
three categories independent treatment facilities for St. Croix Falls,
independent treatment facilities for Taylors Falls, and regional treatment
facilities for both communities.
Of Alternatives 1 and 2, which propose independent treatment systems
for the St. Croix Falls service area, the lowest cost alternative of the
two, in terms of total capital cost, total present worth, and annual cost,
is Alternative 1. Of Alternatives 3 through 6, which propose new treatment
systems for only the Taylors Falls service area, the total present worth
cost for Alternatives 3 and 6 is higher than the total present worth cost
for Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternatives 4 and 5 are within $15,000, or less
than 2%, of each other in terms of total present worth. Of Alternatives 7
through 9, which would serve both communities, Alternatives 7 and 8 are
within $5,000, or less than 1%, of each other in terms of total present
worth. Alternative 9 is 27% more costly than the other two.
In summary, expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP at St. Croix
Falls (Alternative 1) appears to be the most cost-effective individual
system for the City of St. Croix Falls. Construction of a new RBC secondary
WWTP at the site of the existing plant at Taylors Falls (Alternative 4) or
treatment by stabilization ponds with return of the treated effluent on a
periodic basis to the St. Croix River (Alternative 5) appear to be the most
cost-effective individual system alternatives for Taylors Falls. Of the
regionalization alternatives, expanding the St. Croix Falls WWTP to serve as
a regional treatment plant at St. Croix Falls (Alternative 7) and the re-
gional stabilization pond system west of Taylors Falls (Alternative 8)
appear to be equally cost-effective. Alternative 8, having the apparent
least present worth cost of the regional systems ($2,652,000) is only mar-
ginally more expensive, in terms of present worth, than the combined least
cost of individual systems for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls (Alterna-
tives 1 and 5 $1,414,000 + $1,218,000 = $2,632,000).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Construction of any of the nine alternatives will produce primarily
short-term impacts to the local environment (Section 4.1.). Construction of
alternatives utilizing only the existing WWTP sites (Alternatives 1, 3, and
2-60
-------
4) would have the least potential for disruption and environmental impacts.
The stabilization pond and land treatment alternatives (Alternatives 2, 5,
6, 8, and 9) would result in impacts along the force main and/or effluent
discharge routes and the stablization pond and/or land disposal sites. The
regional alternatives (Alternatives 7, 8, and 9) would result in additional
impacts along the force main route through the Wisconsin Interstate State
Park and across the US Highway 8 bridge. Alternative 8 and 9 also would
involve the conversion of a "significant" amount of "prime" agricultural
land (more than 40 acres) from crop production.
Implementation of any of the independent treatment alternatives or
regional alternatives by the communities would bring them into compliance
with the effluent discharge standards of the respective States. Operation
of any of the treatment alternatives would produce few significant long-term
impacts (Section 4.2).
The operation of an expanded and rehabilitated St. Croix Falls WWTP
(Alternative 1) with proper maintenance, alternate power supply, and dupli-
cate unit processes would ensure a reliable treatment system that would
improve water quality and create few long-term adverse environmental im-
pacts. The rapid infiltration land disposal system for St. Croix Falls
(Alternative 2) would have the potential for contaminating groundwater in
the area and for raising the level of the groundwater. Because of the
limited size of the site area for a new CAS or RBC secondary system for
Taylors Falls (Alternatives 3 and 4) it may be difficult to construct dupli-
cate unit processes to provide for greater reliability in the treatment of
wastewater. The stabilization pond and effluent spray irrigation systems
for Taylors Falls (Alternatives 5 and 6) offer greater flexibility for
future expansion of the treatment system than the CAS or RBC treatment
system (Alternatives 3 and 4), because they are not limited by the restric-
tive size of the site. However, Alternatives 5 and 6 potentially could
result in raw sewage spills at the pumping stations because of a malfunction
or power failure. Proper maintenance of the pumps and a backup power source
would minimize or eliminate the potential for such an impact. The regional
alternatives (Alternatives 7, 8, and 9) would present another potentially
problematic system component with the force main supported over the St.
2-61
-------
Croix River by the US Highway 8 bridge. The force main would be subject to
exposure, temperature extremes, and bridge flexure that could cause leaks or
joint failures, resulting in a direct discharge of untreated sewage to the
St. Croix River.
IMPLEMENTATION
One of the potential institutional frameworks necessary to implement a
regional alternative is the formation of an interstate sanitary district. A
review of Wisconsin and Minnesota State laws, undertaken to determine if
provisions for such a district exist, indicated that existing statutes in
both Wisconsin (Wisconsin Revised Statutes 66.30) and Minnesota (Minnesota
Statutes 471.59) provide the legal authority to enable the formation of an
interstate sanitary district by the Cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls (WAPORA 1979). The district generally would be organized with an
elected or appointed board that would be representative of the proposed
service area. The sanitary district would have authority to issue bonds
and to levy and collect appropriate user fees and service charges. Debt
undertaken for capital improvements would be financed through bonds issued
by the district or by the individual member communities. However, the
ability to construct a regional treatment system with Federal funds serious-
ly would be jeopardized because of the difference in funding priorities for
treatment facilities for the two States.
Finally, the two communities have expressed no desire to join in a
regional system. The City of St. Croix Falls has gone on record preferring
the expansion and rehabilitation of their existing treatment plant and the
City of Taylors Falls has recommended the construction of a new stabiliza-
tion pond wastewater treatment system.
2.6.2. Recommended Action
In consideration of these factors and others described in this EIS,
USEPA recommends that the City of St. Croix Falls upgrade and expand its
existing WWTP (Alternative 1) and that the City of Taylors Falls construct a
new stabilization pond treatment system (Alternative 5) to replace its
2-62
-------
existing WWTP. These two alternatives represent cost-effective, environ-
mentally acceptable, and implementable solutions to meet the communities'
wastewater treatment needs and to protect the quality of the St. Croix
National Scenic and Recreational Riverway.
2-63
-------
3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1. Natural Environment
3.1.1. Atmosphere
3.1.1.1. Climate
The climate of the project area is classified as moist continental
(Strahler and Strahler 1978). The weather is affected by northern dry, cool
air masses and warm, moist air masses from the Gulf of Mexico. The seasonal
weather variations include a cool, rainy spring; a warm, humid summer; a dry
autumn; and a severely cold winter.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and the project area share
the same climate and approximately the same topography. As a result, the
temperature, wind, and precipitation characteristics are similar. Clima-
tological data for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area is presented in WAPORA
(1979).
Generally, there are wide variations in temperature throughout the
year. January usually is the coldest month with an average temperature of
12.2°F (-11.0°C), while July is the warmest, with temperatures averaging
71.9°F (22.2°C).
Rainfall is plentiful on an annual basis, but summer rainfall is inade-
quate for optimal agricultural purposes. During the 5 months between May
through September, the average monthly rainfall is approximately 3.36
inches. This 5-month period (totalling 17.0 inches of rainfall) accounts
for approximately 65% of the annual precipitation. The maximum monthly
rainfall was 9.31 inches (August 1977) and the minimum monthly rainfall was
less than 0.01 inches (December 1943).
Winter snowfall can be heavy. The greatest monthly snowfall was 40.0
inches (March 1951) and the maximum snowfall in 24 hours was 16.2 inches
(November 1940).
3-1
-------
The prevailing winds are from the northwest during the winter and
spring months of November through April. From May through October the winds
are predominantly from the south, southeast. Wind speeds average approxi-
mately 10.5 miles per hour.
3.1.1.2. Air Quality
The St. Croix Falls-Taylors Falls project area is located in the USEPA
West Central Wisconsin-Minnesota Interstate Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR). Air quality standards applicable to the project area include the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the Wisconsin Ambient Air
Quality Standards (WAAQS), and the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards
(MAAQS). These standards are presented in WAPORA (1979).
The closest air monitoring station to the project area is at River
Falls, Wisconsin, approximately 36 miles south of St. Croix Falls. Sampling
was performed at River Falls for total suspended particulates (TSP) from
1971 through 1979 and for sulfur dioxide (S02) during 1975 and 1976. Data
collected at this station are presented in WAPORA (1979). Although this
monitoring station is not located within the project area, the air quality
of the project should be similar and area is believed to be good (By tele-
phone, Mr. Doug Evans, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Mr.
Greg Foley, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to WAPORA, Inc., 3 June
1980). Concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (0-j) , sulfur dioxide
(S09), total suspended particulates (TSP), and nitrogen oxides (NO ) in the
£* X
St. Croix Falls-Taylors Falls area are in attainment with the ambient air
quality standards of their respective States (By telephone, Mr. Henry
Onsgard, USEPA, to WAPORA, Inc., 23 September 1980).
The project area like most of the US, presently is designated as a
"Class II" Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) area, defined as by
the Clean Air Act. There are no PSD Class I ("pristine") or Candidate Class
I areas in the St. Croix Falls-Taylors Falls region (By telephone, Mr.
Ronald Van Meersbergen, USEPA, to WAPORA, Inc., 24 September 1980). There-
3-2
-------
fore, normal development activities will not be restricted in the project
area by existing State and Federal regulations to protect air quality.
3.1.1.3. Noise and Odor
NOISE
Excessive noise may disturb people who live near the source. There are
no known major noise sources in the project area other than typical automo-
bile and truck traffic. No data are available on ambient noise levels in
the project area.
ODOR
There are no significant odor problems in the Taylors Falls area. No
odor complaints have been received by MPCA from residents of the Taylors
Falls area (By telephone, Mr. Jim Bestick, MPCA, to WAPORA, Inc., 9 June
1980).
There is an odor problem in the area immediately adjacent to the exist-
ing St. Croix Falls wastewater treatment plant. The odor problem is caused
by the improper operation of the plant's anaerobic digestor. Methane gas
produced by the digester is not being burned off, but is released to the
atmosphere (By telephone, Mr. Charles Olson, WDNR, to WAPORA, Inc., 9 June
1980). The odor problem is most noticeable at the treatment plant and the
adjacent fish hatchery.
3.1.2. Physiography, Topography, and Geology
3.1.2.1. Physiography and Topography
The project area is characterized by a terraced landscape, which re-
sulted from glacial deposition over an irregular bedrock surface. The
eastern part of the project area is characterized by rolling to hummocky
morainal highlands (Figure 3-1). Elevations in this region range from
3-3
-------
Figure 3-1. Topography of the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
project area.
3-4
-------
approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level (msl) to over 1,200 feet above
msl. The bedrock surface greatly influences the topography in the central
part of the project area. Numerous outcrops of basalt occur throughout this
area in uplands, on outwash plains, and along watercourses. The region west
of Taylors Falls generally consists of nearly level to level wetland.
However, two steep bluffs over 140 feet in height exist immediately west of
the St. Croix River. The high elevations in these areas probably are pro-
duced by the bedrock surface.
The St. Croix River flows southward through the central part of the
project area. Tributaries to the St. Croix River include Lawrence Creek,
Close Slough, Dry Creek, and numerous minor and intermittent streams. Other
bodies of surface water in the project area include Colby Lake, Folsom Lake,
Wyckstrom Lake, Lake 0* the Dalles, Rice Lake, and Peaslee Lake. These
lakes are characteristic kettle lakes, and their water levels are maintained
primarily through groundwater flow.
3.1.2.2. Geology
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
The bedrock geology of the project area is characterized by Cambrian
rocks formed from sediments that were deposited in a near-shore environment
over an uneven surface of Precambrian basalt (Liesch 1970). Because subse-
quent erosion has removed much of the sedimentary rocks, the occurrence of
Cambrian rocks primarily is restricted to erosional depressions in the
basalt. Well records for the project area indicate that the thickness of
the Cambrian strata ranges from 0 feet to 230 feet. The character of the
bedrock geology is illustrated in Appendix C, Figure C-l.
SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
The surficial geology of the project area is characterized by glacial
deposits of the Wisconsin stage of glaciation. The glacial drift is absent
in many places throughout the central part of the area, but attains thick-
nesses of over 100 feet in the western and eastern regions (Appendix C,
3-5
-------
Figure C-2).
The character of the glacial deposits in the project area is depicted
in Appendix C, Figure C-3. The region to the west of the St. Croix River is
characterized by undifferentiated gray drift consisting predominantly of
silty till (Lindholm and others 1974). Well logs indicate that the deposits
primarily consist of unsorted mixtures of sand, clay, gravel, and boulders,
with local occurrences of stratified sands and gravels. These deposits are
commonly overlain by recent deposits of muck and peat. Nearly level regions
throughout the remainder of the area constitute outwash plains. Sediments
consisting of stratified sands and gravels were deposited by glacial melt
waters (SCS 1978; Liesch 1970). These outwash deposits are overlain locally
by recent deposits of muck and peat.
Areas of undulating topography in the central and eastern parts of the
project area constitute end moraines. These formations were deposited by ice
and associated meltwater at the front of a temporarily stagnant glacier.
Sediments in these areas consist of glacial till (unsorted mixtures of clay,
silt, sand, gravel, and boulders) and stratified deposits of sand and gravel.
3.1.3. Soils
3.1.3.1. Soils of the Project Area
The soils of the project area generally are coarse textured and well
drained on the Wisconsin side, and medium textured and poorly drained on the
Minnesota side. The predominant soil association present in the Wisconsin
section of the project area is the Onamia-Cromwell-Menahga. The principal
soil associations in the Minnesota section of the project area are the
Hayden-Bluffton and Nessel-Bluffton. The general soil associations within
the project area are presented in Figure 3-2. These soil associations are
described in detail in Appendix C, Exhibit C-l.
The majority of land in the Minnesota portion of the project area is
defined as prime agricultural land according to the classification system
established by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
3-6
-------
GUSHING
AMERY-SANTIAGO
BURKHARDT-DAKOTA
ONAMI A- CROMWELL- MENAHGA
HAYDEN-BLUFFTON
NESSEL-BLUFFTON
SHALLOW TO BEDROCK
Figure 3-2. Soil Associations in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, project area.
3-7
-------
(USUA-SCS). Land within the project area defined as prime agricultural is
presented in Appendix C, Figure C-4.
3.1.3.2. Suitability of Soils for Land Treatment of Wastewater
Soil survey information, such as depth to bedrock, slope, depth to
water, and water table contours provides useful data for assessing the
suitability of soils for land treatment of wastewater. Examination of these
data, as illustrated in Appendix C (Figures C-5, C-6, and C-7), in conjunc-
tion with an analysis of the soil maps reveals potentially suitable areas
(Figure 3-3).
TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER BY RAPID INFILTRATION
Treatment by rapid infiltration of wastewater requires a relatively
small area of highly permeable soil material and a depth to groundwater
greater than 10 feet (USEPA and others 1977). An application area of only
18 acres would be required to treat the projected year 2000 combined com-
munity design flow of 0.50 mgd (based on an estimated application rate of 10
inches per week during 9 months). Areas with slopes of up to 20% can be
considered for use as application areas if site topography modification is
incorporated into the system design. Both 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODc) and suspended solids (SS) in the wastewater can be removed to a high
degree (up to 99%). However, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) removal gener-
ally is poor (30% to 80%, and 50% to 90%, respectively, based on Sanks and
Asano 1976).
Geotechnical investigations are required to determine suitability of a
site for rapid infiltration of wastewater. Lenses of finely textured ma-
terial can limit the vertical percolation of applied wastewater. This can
result in mounding of the water table, sidehill seepage, and a reduction in
the potential infiltration capacity. Recovery of the infiltrated water may
be necessary in certain cases for monitoring the groundwater quality or to
prevent mounding of the water table.
3-8
-------
I I IRRIGATION (25 i
r'.'.;.\j IRRIGATION (I 25 mch»»/»»)
j J RAPID INFILTRATION
^.j IRRIGATION (25mch«s/»«k) of RAPID INFILTRATION
fHH NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Figure 3-3. Areas potentially suitable for land application of treated wastewater
in the St. Croik Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project
area.
3-9
-------
Storage of wastewater during the winter should not be necessary con-
sidering climate conditions, but may be required to assure system reliabil-
ity. Storage may be accomplished in properly designed infiltration beds or
in a lagoon. Such a lagoon would require a lining to prevent seepage.
Natural clay generally is the most cost-effective lining for a storage
lagoon, especially when available on the site.
TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER BY LAND IRRIGATION
Treatment of wastewater by the land irrigation process requires a
considerable area of active cropland soils that have a moderately rapid
permeability. Excellent removals of all except highly soluble salts can be
expected (BOD5 and suspended solids, 99%; phosphorus, 95% to 99%; and nitro-
gen 70% to 90%). Based on an application rate of 2.5 inches per week, an
annual application period of 26 weeks, and a flow of 0.50 mgd, an irrigation
area of 110 acres would be required. If irrigation were to be limited to
compensation for deficiencies of soil moisture, considerably more land area
would be required.
The principal soil characteristic required for an acceptable applica-
tion site is a permeability that will allow a reasonable drain tile spacing
and still dewater the site. Under these conditions, farm equipment can be
operated on the site within one day after the site has been irrigated,
without traction or compaction problems. In addition, it is essential that
the application site does not have a slope that will erode as a result of
effluent applications. The acceptable slope varies according to the exist-
ing plant cover and the rate of infiltration. For example, cropland irriga-
tion would be limited by slopes exceeding 6%, whereas forest irrigation
would be feasible on slopes of up to 20% (Powers 1978).
Artificial drainage would be required on all sites except those where
the water table is naturally low. Artificial drainage can be advantageous
because it allows control of the applied effluent. The outlet point can be
designed to minimize any excess seepage.
3-10
-------
During the winter it would be necessary to store the effluent. The
storage pond should be located on naturally fine-textured material to mini-
mize seepage. The soil in the area west of Taylors Falls generally is loam
till, with a moderate permeability and the area south of St. Croix Falls has
similar soils. A pond constructed in this soil type would require the use
of an artificial sealant.
The overland flow wastewater treatment alternative requires about half
the land area needed for the irrigation alternative. Removals of BOD^ (30%)
and nitrogen (60% to 90%) are excellent but phosphorus (60% to 80%) and
suspended solid (80%) removals are relatively poor. Additional treatment
may be required to attain tertiary effluent limitations. Slopes should
range from 2% to 4% to keep the travel distance to a minimum for a specified
duration. Particle filtration accounts for the bulk of the treatment ef-
fect. Internal drainage of the soil should be minimal to minimize leaching
of pollutants through the soil. The soils in the project area range from
moderately permeable to very rapidly permeable; it is recommended that areas
for overland flow have slowly permeable soils. It may be possible to find
sufficient land area suitable for an irrigation-overland flow system within
the project area. Storage for approximately 6 months would be required.
3.1.4. Surface Water
The St. Croix River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River. The
River rises near Solon Springs, Wisconsin (elevation 1,016 feet msl), and
continues 164 miles southwesterly and then southerly to join the Mississippi
River at Prescott, Wisconsin (elevation 775 feet msl). The elevational
change is 341 feet between the source of the River and the mouth, or an
average gradient of 2.9 feet per mile. The upper 25-mile segment of the
River is entirely within the State of Wisconsin, while the lower 139-mile
segment forms the boundary between the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
The drainage area for the St. Croix River is 7,650 square miles, of which
4,828 square miles are within Wisconsin and 2,822 square miles are within
Minnesota.
The locations of the lakes and streams in the project area are shown in
Figure 3-1. Colby Lake, which is in Section 23, directly north of the
3-11
-------
wastewater treatment site, in Shafer Township on the Taylors Falls side of
the River, has a surface area of 105 acres and a maximum depth of 4 feet.
Colby Lake discharges intermittently to Dry Creek, which is tributary to the
St. Croix River upstream from Taylors Falls.
Lawrence Creek is an intermittent stream which drains the area to the
west and south of the wastewater treatment site in Section 26 of Shafer
Township. According to a stream survey report by the Minnesota Division of
Game and Fish (Haugstad 1968), the Creek has a total length of approximately
6.4 miles, a maximum depth of 4 feet, and a width of up to 300 feet where
beaver dams create ponding. The report indicated that Lawrence Creek is an
excellent trout stream.
3.1.4.1. Hydrology
The flow of the St. Croix River is measured on a continuous basis by
the US Geological Survey (USGS) at St. Croix Falls in Polk County, 1,800
feet downstream from the Northern States Power Co. (NSP) hydroelectric
facility. Flows have been recorded since January 1902. The drainage area
upstream from the St. Croix Falls gaging station is approximately 5,930
square miles. Gage records are adequate for characterizing river flow
variations in the project area. However, the operation of the NSP plant
temporarily may affect the flow rate of the River downstream from the NSP
Dam. A summary of flow records is presented in Table 3-1. A monthly sum-
mary of flow for the water year 1976 is present in Table 3-2. The monthly
records illustrate the typical seasonal variations in flow, which correspond
to low flows in late summer and autumn and to high flows during the spring.
The 7-day, 10-year low flow for the St. Croix River at St. Croix Falls
is 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs; USGS 1977). The 7-day, 2-year low flow
at St. Croix Falls is 1,700 cfs.
Damaging floods occur infrequently in the St. Croix River Basin (Young
and Hindall 1973). Flood magnitude generally is related directly to the
size of the drainage area and is a result of rapid runoff from precipitation
and snowmelt. Most floods in the basin occur either during the early spring
3-12
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of flow data for the St. Croix River at St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin, for the period 1902-1977 (USGS 1978).
Average discharge for period of record
Extremes for period of record
Maximum discharge
Minimum discharge
Extremes for the water year 1976-1977
Maximum discharge
Minimum discharge
Flow (cfs)
4,172
54,900
75
15,600
896
Data
1902-1977
8 May 1950
17 July 1910
26 Sept. 1977
13 Nov. 1976
Table 3-2. Monthly flow data for the gaging station at St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, for water year 1976-1977 (USGS 1978).
Month
October
Novembe r
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Mean (cfs)
1,624
1,569
1,492
1,488
1,456
3,252
3,803
2,600
2,686
2,585
2,049
7,784
Maximum (cfs)
2,390
2,220
1,800
1,710
1,810
5,500
5,240
3,210
4,910
5,560
5,730
15,400
Minimum (cfs)
1,310
896
1,160
1,210
1,150
1,260
2,540
1,760
1,560
1,520
1,230
3,270
Yearly average:
2,699
3-13
-------
or during the summer. The most damaging flood occurred during April 1965,
near Stillwater, Minnesota. Backwater from the Mississippi River contri-
buted significantly to the flooding (Young and Hindall 1973).
3.1.4.2. Uses
Recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, and boating are the
primary uses of the St. Croix River, which is designated and managed as a
National Scenic and Recreational Riverway (Section 3.2.6.). Other uses
include withdrawal of water for irrigation and stock watering. A survey of
use conducted in 1968 estimated that 3.1 mgd was used for irrigation of
private farm lands and 0.8 mgd for stock watering (Young and Hindall 1973).
The St. Croix River currently is not used for public water supply by either
St. Croix Falls or Taylors Falls.
3.1.4.3. Quality
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
St. Croix River
According to the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Rules of the Department
of Natural Resources, under the section entitled Environmental Protection,
the St. Croix River downstream of the northern boundary of Polk County is
required to meet the standards for recreational use, fish and aquatic life,
and public water supply. The most stringent of these standards are listed
in Appendix D, Table D-l. Concentrations of other parameters are limited by
the standards on the basis of information regarding their toxicities.
References used in limiting other substances include Quality Criteria for
Water (USEPA 1976b).
The Minnesota water quality regulations divide the St. Croix River into
two reaches, one above and one below the NSP Dam located at Taylors Falls.
Existing discharges from the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls wastewater
treatment plants (WWTP) and from most of the project area are located down-
stream of the Dam. The most stringent water quality standards for the St.
Croix River downstream from the Dam are summarized in Appendix D, Table D-2.
3-14
-------
The State of Minnesota has proposed that scenic riverways be reclassi-
fied as Class A waters. This reclassification would alter substantially the
Minnesota standards listed in Appendix D, Table D-2.
Lawrence Creek
Lawrence Creek is classified by the State of Minnesota as a Class A
fisheries and recreation stream. This creek also is classified as Class B
for domestic consumption and industrial consumption. The water quality
standards for Lawrence Creek are somewhat more stringent than the Minnesota
standards for the St. Croix River (Appendix D), with respect to the follow-
ing parameters:
Parameter Limit
Fecal coliform 10 MPN/100 ml
Turbidity 10 NTU
Dissolved oxygen Not less than 7 mg/1
from 10 October through
31 May and not less than 6 mg/1
at other times
Temperature No material increase
Ammonia as nitrogen 0.2 mg/1
Chlorides 5.0 mg/1
Chromium 0.02 mg/1
Dry Creek
Dry Creek is the outlet of Colby Lake and is tributary to the St. Croix
River. It is classified as Class B for fisheries and recreation. The water
quality standards for Dry Creek are listed in Appendix D, Table D-3.
Colby Lake
Colby Lake, located northwest of Taylors Falls, has not been specific-
ally classified by the State of Minnesota. The most stringent water quality
standards for this lake and other Minnesota waters not specifically classi-
fied (such as Wyckstrom Lake) are listed in Appendix D, Table D-4.
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
Water quality is monitored for the St. Croix River by USGS at St. Croix
Falls and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) at Taylors Falls.
3-15
-------
The closest station downstream from the project area for which recent data
are available is the USGS station at Stillwater, Minnesota. Stillwater is
located approximately 29 miles downstream from St. Croix Falls. Water
quality data for Taylors Falls, St. Croix Falls, and Stillwater are pre-
sented in Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5, respectively.
The physical and chemical water quality data for Stillwater, in
general, appear to be similar to the data for St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls. The Stillwater Station receives river water that includes pollutant
loadings from the St. Croix Falls WWTP, the Taylors Falls WWTP, the Dresser
WWTP, the Osceola WWTP, industrial cooling water, the Madsen gravel pit, and
non-point source runoff. The similarity of water quality data for upstream
(St. Croix Falls, Taylors Falls) and downstream (Stillwater) stations can be
attributed to a combination of the dilution that occurs and the effects of
assimilative and physical processes.
Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the St. Croix River are dependent
upon pollutant loadings and physical, chemical, and biochemical activities
occurring in the River. Mean DO levels increased slightly downstream from
the project area to Stillwater. The minimum DO value during 1976 and 1977
was recorded at Taylors Falls (6.8 mg/1 during June 1976). Water quality
violations for dissolved oxygen were not noted.
Fecal Coliform
Fecal coliform levels increased slightly from the project area to
Stillwater, but this increase may not be statistically significant. Fecal
coliform values have been in violation of the water quality standards. The
MPCA (1975b) has indicated that water from the River may not be suitable for
drinking unless treatment beyond chlorination (such as sedimentation and
coagulation) is provided, but that "it is expected that the designated uses
of the St. Croix, such as swimming and maintenance of warm and cool water
game fish, would generally be possible."
3-16
-------
CO
rH
CO
iJ
o
cfl
H
t-i
CU
rl
Pi
O
rl
U
4->
C/3
COCO
4-" .0
rl CO
rH r~-
cfl ON
3 rH
cr
)J CM
0) Cd
CO 3
co
I
CO
CO
H
!
d
H
S
o co
CU
M
(1)
CO
VH
cfl
Pu
O
O
! o
OO
CM
O
CM
cu
M
S
CO
g.
§
H
CM
00
O
vD
CM
CM
CM
33
0,
O
d
o
o
00 CO ^ '
* *
rH CM rO
ro c^J u"i
{^ O'O LO
OO U"N. CM
vO O -H
CO ON -rl
"o -H
CO LO &
CO Q M
rl O 3
n oa H
CM
O
O
u-i
O
O
*-O
rH
O
O
H
Z
CM
O
CM
0
, I
O
0
o
o
co
rH
3
CU
$
)-l
H
d
CO
cfl
o
CM
co
CO
O
CM
V
O
O
o
1 1
rH
CM
60
g
O
U-I
rl
rH
O
0
r-l
Cfl
CJ
CU
i
o
d
CO
co
'[j
j_i
cu
rd
o
CO
CO
r-l
d
3
^
rH
60
0
v--*
l^
cu
it
+^
TH
rH
^
cu
a.
co
2
cfl
^
60
, 1 ^,^^
rH P
H '-J
Q ^*^
d en
rl 4J
H
d d
CU 3
r^ *
fwJ ^^ "^.
rn y^*s r^*>
60 CO 4->
^x O -H
CU U CO J3 T3
u o -rl -d O CO
4J d M -*i
rH d CO O CJ
i-l CU 4J -H Cfl
-------
cd
r-
r-4
M
o
M-l
C
rl
CO
(3
o
o
CO
rl
^
co
rH
r-l
CO
S
o
M
U
4-1
rf\
\jj
4J
ed
JH
CU
H
cd
H
O
» ,
M
0
4J
C/J
cu
£
JH
o
M-l
^
^j
M
g
cd
-j
CO
E>sCO
4-1
H ^
rH t-~
cfl r-~
^ O^
a4 i
JH c/3
CU 0
4-1 C/2
cO O
12 ^-'
t
CO
co
rH
§
H
TJ
J-l
CO
C
cd
C/3
0
JH
cu
0
J
p.
O
rl
cd
>
O
M
TO
cu
S
pl
I
C-
d
rl
3^
a
%
C3
H
X
cd
Is
CO
cu
1-1
p.
6
cO
j
cu
4-1
Q
cO
rH
CO
PH
^o « in
r-n r~ CM
o o o
O r-~ O
m en O
vO 00 vO
CM
^" CO ^^
CM CM CM
a
co
VJ 73
4-1 4-1
cO »H
CU -rl
CX JS
0 CM ON
CO
m
r»! rH O
V ~*
CM
rH 0 O
I ^O O
rH O
CM
rH CJ W
O rH rH
yj Cy ^
co o o
rl CU CU
^\ prj prj
O
I
~*
^
0
^
m
m
en
CO
i i
^>
CM
CO
T)
H
r-H
O
CO
CU
rH
o
CO
CO
rl
O
p^.
i 1
0
1 1
CM
O
,_-!
O
0
^
r-~
o
^j-
CM
CU
4-1
H
rl ^
4-1 G
rl CU
C 00
O
4-1
CU -rl
4-1 C
(0
)-( CO
4J CO
tz
en
CM
o
en
in
O
oo
rH
O
CM
rH
,^f
CM
C
CU
bO
O
Jj
^
H
r-t
£2
^
T3
rH
CU
i~>
^
C» <
CM CO O CM CO
o H o oo * m o
CM CM CM CM
CO
rj
C VH 4H CO
CU O < T3
bO J2 1 -rl
o a, rH xi
JH tfl rH O
4J O >s -H
ri x ^3 -a
d co ex a,
4-1 on
r-l Cfl rH >J O
cO M cd O ,<^
4-1 4-1 4-1 rH JH
O -rl O J= C«
H 3 H U U
"S
4-1
o
C!
CJ
CO
rl
5
JH
CU
4_)
o
CO
CO
cu
'a
3
rH
bO
V '
JH
cu
4-1
rl
rH
JH
CJ
a.
0
cd
b.0
rl
rH
rH
rl
0
C
rl
C
CO
^
H
bO
/**\
0) U tfl
JH o -t-i
'{3
CO CU 3
CU T3
3 cd t3
rH JH rl
cO &0 rt
> -H T3
4-1 d
rH C CO
rH CU 4->
-N O
113 i 1
H -^-
<-) CO
^^ cu
H
CO C
4J 0
rl rH
d o
3 0
^» d
4-1 !-(
rl
^Tj ^J
H Cd
J2 CU
rH 0
3
4-1 O
H
d JH
O 4J
CO CU
*S. 0
0 O
cd a)
-3 O
^
-------
oo
O
)-i
CJ
4-1
CO
i-l
O
e
CO
I-l CO
0) O
4-> CO
ta 3
I
0)
tfl
H
M-l
O
r-l
0)
g
£
a
cfl
1
CT> O^ O ^
vO -31
oo r m o i i
r- (
e
3
e
rl
d
H
s
a
3
0
H
X
CO
0)
r-i
ex
cO
CO
O \£> o m I I
II
O !* -a" r~-
o co o m i i
I I
-^" OO vO CO
CM r-l
r-~ I co r~ r-i r- 1
*o
>r^
o
d 0
Q) T> O
60 a o
f*. C O
CO X O 4-1
O> O M-l CX
»-i CJ HO)
)_l
0)
4-1
i
cO
»-i
cfl
0-i
3 >. t3 ,-1 M
4-1 4-1 0) O 4->
cO -H > O CO
l-i *O i-t
0) -1-4 O r-l >-l
& J3 CO cO CO
§,0 M CO CJ O
33 3 iH CU O»
H O, H Q ta Pt<
00
i
O
-tf'
CM
r t
O
vO
i i
CO
co
o
H
i-H
O
CO
^
0)
r-H
o
co
CO
H
Q
cu
4-1
H
4-1
H
C
+
CU
CO
4->
H
25
CM
O
O
CM
0
O
»^-
0
CO
'c'
0)
60
O
V4
4>J
H
C
co
CO
CM m
«
0 0
-* <}
0 0
o m
ro m
o o
ro (O
C
0)
60
0 C
)-< 0>
4-> 60
H 0
C H
4-1
i-4 -H
f! r^
cO
"d ^-i
r-4 CO
01 4->
r-l O
k^ r i
IJM r~»
CO '"^
CM CM CM
CM
^-1 r-l
CM O ^
p*^
^-t
*^* f^**
CM O CO
r-l
co i co
O)
0)
CJ
d
cO
4_>
o
3 0>
d T-I
0 X
cJ o
r-i
CJ Tj
Q) -H
4-> 4-1 d
CO -r-l 0
I-l O rC
4-> 0) I-l
H O, cO
a co o
9"
H
CO
4-1
H
d
3
r*1
4-1
,--> -H i-l
CJ CO T3 S
o 4-1 -H
> ' T-l & O
C rJ 0
O 3 3 -H
cfl TJ CO
1-1 vj d oi
60 ct) o iH
H T3 CO C
4J Cl ^1 O
C3 cd cj r-l
0) 4J CO O
CJ CO '-J CJ
Cfl ^3 CJ TJ
^ ^
CO
O
^s
CO
o
r^
g
V-i
CJ
i-(
a
0)
3-19
-------
Heavy Metals
Concentrations of heavy metals in the St. Croix River were monitored at
St. Croix Falls and at Stillwater by USGS. The values for heavy metals are
recorded by location in Appendix D, Table D-5.
The mean iron concentration at Stillwater was 0.2 mg/1 higher than the
concentration at St. Croix Falls. Apparent violations of water quality
standards for iron and manganese were noted both at St. Croix Falls and at
Stillwater. No major point sources of iron and/or manganese are known.
Non-point sources include most soils and groundwater. No other significant
variations in the heavy metal concentrations were observed.
Pesticides, Herbicides, and Other Toxic Substances
During 1976, the St. Croix River was sampled at St. Croix Falls for the
following pesticides and toxic substances:
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Chlordane
Polychlorinated napthalenes Endrin
Aldrin Ethion
Dieldrin Heptachlor
DDD
DDE Lindane
DDT Diazinon
Malathion
Methyl parathion
Methyl trithion
Parathion
Heptachlor epoxide Toxaphene
Trithion
None of these substances was found to be present in the River (USGS 1978).
Other Water Quality Parameters
The levels of other parameters, including nitrogen, dissolved solids,
turbidity, and pH, do not indicate a significant difference between the
water quality of the St. Croix River at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
and the water quality of the River at Stillwater. No water quality viola-
tions for these parameters were recorded recently.
3-20
-------
WATER QUALITY SURVEY
Two water quality surveys of the St. Croix River were conducted by
WAPORA during May and August 1979, to evaluate the impact of discharges from
the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs. The effluent from the WWTPs at
Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls were sampled three times during each of
the 2-day survey periods. The St. Croix River upstream and downstream from
the outfalls also was sampled at the same frequency. All sampling stations
are shown in Figure 3-4.
A summary of the survey data for the St. Croix Falls WWTP outfall and
side of the River, monitored at four locations, is presented in Table 3-6.
Similar data for the Taylors Falls outfall and side of the River, monitored
at three locations, are presented in Table 3-7. The average flow of the
River during the May 1979 survey was 9,175 cfs and was 2,485 cfs during the
August 1979 survey (USGS 1980). The flow during the August survey was
approximately twice the 7-day, 10-year low-flow condition and represented
the response of the River during low flow.
The dissolved oxygen and suspended solids concentrations upstream and
downstream from the treatment plants were approximately the same. Increases
in BOD,, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, and total phosphorus
were recorded at the monitoring station immediately downstream of the dis-
charge point of treatment plant effluents. However, the concentrations
decrease rapidly to background levels at the subsequent monitoring station.
A sharp rise in bacterial levels, fecal coliform, and fecal strep also
occurred in the immediate vicinity of the WWTP discharges; however, the
bacteria levels also rapidly decreased downstream. Profiles of the water
quality constituents monitored during the surveys are presented in Appendix
D, Figures D-l through D-6. These profiles reflect that the discharges of
WWTP effluent are not impacting the quality of the River significantly
during either high or low flow conditions. The data also indicate that the
concentrations of suspended solids and BOD- are much higher than expected
from properly operating WWTP plants with secondary treatment processes.
3-21
-------
May 1979 Water Quality Survey
Taylors Falls
QSTP
St. Croix Falls
STP
August 1979 Water Quality Survey
Taylor Falls
QSTP
St. Croix Falls
STP
Figure 3-4. Water quality sampling sites.
3-22
-------
I-l
cu
4J
CO
S
cu
CO
CO
^1
cfl
H
0
M
o
.
4-1
CO
cu
4=
4J
CJ
to
e
I-l
cu
4=
4-1
CO
CO
co
co
cfl
o
4-1
^1
cu
.5
Pd ^
H °
o o
M
o
CO
4-1
CO
01
42
4-1
14-1
o
>-.
cu
s
3
CO
^
4-1
H
r |
cO CU
3 60
CT1 I-l
CO
CU 0
4J CO
Cfl »H
IZ T3
*
1
ro
cu
rH
43
cfl
H
vO
a
o
PI
tO
4_1
w
CO
a
iH
4J
tfl
4-1
cn
CM
C
H
+J
cfl
4J
CO
^
rH
tfl
IH
4J
(^
O-i
3
^
i-H
a
4-1
CO
4-1
CO
.3- r-» ro -H
ON U"> r- r- CM O O u"> O O
rH O CM O O O O ON O O
1-4 rH
00 OO CM
CO rH O f"^ CM CO O i-H 00 O
CMOCMOOO OOOOO
i I i i
OO <
CMCMrooroo rH ON vO r-
CN O CM rH O O O ON rH O
rH rH
mrop-r~.r-.ON m co vO r-
o o> in -* d o r CM co co in co co
CMONCMOOO OONOO
i
^^
CO
o
r- 4
/-x ^
ro v-'
a o
o-aoo4J
cu rH i-ix:cuo4J
r to ^ .acflcuacxt^oco
O\ r4 r-H tfl -H 4.) a
rH Q) O rC9 a tfl CO t 1 CU I 1 rH
ex co IOH o i-i to to ex to to
>,a COQ 0) S 4J v^ ^ i-t o 3 cu cu
r-
a
O -* 'H
4-> r- 0
ffl *"H » 1
4J
CO
CO
a o CM
H r~ O
4J rH rH
CO
4-1
CO
CM
i-t r-- o
4-1 rH rH
Cfl
4-1
CO
rH
l-H
X cfl
H M-l
O 4-1 CO O
u CD in oo
rH
4-1 EH
CO 3
3
i i
C vO 00
H r- o
4-1 rH
CO
4-J
CO
^ a
o cu
o 60
^ X
ON cu o
r r4
ON 3 t)
,-H +->
4-1 rJ rH
CO CU O
3 ex co
M B co
3 CU -iH
3 O T3 !S >-.
< T3 -C tfl 4-1
CM ON ' rH ooooor- co co&oucx
rHOOO OOOrocM CUPCUHJ60O
-H 4-1 CU 4-1 -H X
Q) 4-J CU CO 33 CU
S cu S t3
6 co i i
O 0 M-l a ~~-
O O O O 60
^v ro ro in MH B
ro a 0
o >i r*> >% o a
1 rH rH rH -H ^ -rl
'-N x cu cu cu 4-> a
rO-^ 4->4J4-ICJtO-i
CU i-H HSBtOtO
a 60 CU CO X O «H -H -rt 1 4J
CUO4J SCO^-^O XXXTJCOCO
601-4't-l^xO'd O OoO'Hcfl4J
o4-inar4-Hao uMMecuB
rJ-HwCUOrHCo CXCXCX CU
4-ia-H60raoo4-i excxcx4->4-i3
H eOCXCOM-ICX C0t0n)c0t04-i
a co >-i co -H cu T-I
cfl + 4JO'T3rHU i CM ro vO r~- 4-1
rH -H 43 CU O 4-1 CO
x co cu e ex T3 oco aaaaaa
to T-I 4-i a oooooo
TjetflCOrHCUrHrH CO'H-H-H-H-iHO
lArH QV-lCfltOeXCfltfl U 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-> 4.1
QCUS4-i^'4-icoOcJ HtflcfltflcfltflrH
Q-r-jg.,-) O3CUCU O4-l4-14-
-------
Table 3-7. Water quality survey of the St. Croix River to assess the impact of
the Taylors Falls wastewater discharge.
Taylors Falls
Station 4 WWTP Outfall Station 5 Station 6
May 1979
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen
BOD5
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate + nitrite
(as nitrogen)
Total phosphorous
Suspended solids
3
Fecal coliform (xlO )
3
Fecal streptococci (xlO )
August 1979
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen
BOD
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate + nitrite
(as nitrogen)
Total phosphorous
Suspended solids
Fecal coliform (xlO3)
Fecal streptococci (xlO )
12.5
11.0
2.4
0.7
0.1
0.05
0.06
7.9
0.02
0.01
17.3
10.1
1.1
0.9
0.05
0.1
0.05
6.2
0.2
0.8
8.0
8.3
78.0
15.6
12.8
0.8
2.95
21.3
636.7
180.0
13.6
8.1
122.7
19.9
16.8
3.3
3.4
37.3
204.0
10.6
12.1
11.0
3.0
0.7
0.2
0.05
0.07
8.9
0.6
0.2
17.2
10.2
3.1
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.08
10.0
1.4
4.6
11.9
10.5
2.7
0.7
0.2
0.04
0.07
9.5
0.03
0.01
17.5
10.0
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.06
7.1
0.5
0.5
NOTES
Station 4 approximately 30 meters upstream from Taylors Falls WWTP.
Station 5 approximately 75 meters downstream from Taylors Falls WWTP.
Station 6 Downstream from Taylors Falls WWTP at Dock.
Station 6 at mid-section of US Highway 8 bridge.
All constituents are in mg/1 except temperature (°C) and fecal coliform and
streptococci (MPN/lOOml).
3-24
-------
A dye-dispersion study was conducted by WAPORA during August 1979 to
determine the transport of wastewater effluent in the River. Dye was added
to the WWTP outfalls and the concentration of dye in the River was monitored
at sampling stations downstream from the WWTP outfalls. It was observed that
the dye released from the outfalls of both the Taylors Falls and St. Croix
Falls WWTPs was dispersed rapidly downstream because of the highly turbulent
condition of the River in the vicinity of the discharge points. The rapid
dispersion of dye in the River indicates that the effluent discharged from
the WWTPs at Taylor Falls and St. Croix Falls rapidly mix and are dissipated
through transport downstream.
3.1.4.4. Existing Discharges
The significant existing surface water discharges located within the
project area include those from the St. Croix Falls WWTP, the Taylors Falls
WWTP, and non-point sources. The St. Croix Falls Fish Hatchery and Indus-
trial Tool and Plastics, Inc., also discharge to the St. Croix River.
Because of the small volume discharged and the low pollutant loadings, these
discharges are not considered significant (WDNR 1972c).
St. Croix Falls WWTP
The effluent quality and flow from the St. Croix Falls WWTP are de-
scribed in detail in Section 2.1. The 1978 mean effluent concentrations of
BOD and suspended solids were 69 rag/1 and 34 mg/1, respectively. The
geometric mean concentration of fecal coliform recorded from March through
December 1978 was 390 counts per 100 ml. Based upon a mean wastewater flow
rate of 211,490 gpd, measured from February through December 1975, the St.
Croix Falls WWTP contributes an average of 122 pounds of BOD- and 60 pounds
of suspended solids per day to the St. Croix River. Long-term flow rates
after 1975 are not available for the St. Croix Falls WWTP.
Taylors Falls WWTP
The effluent quality and flow from the Taylors Falls WWTP are described
in detail in Section 2.1. The 1978 mean effluent BOD,, and suspended solids
3-25
-------
concentrations were 66 mg/1 and 33 mg/1, respectively. The fecal coliform
concentrations were measured as less than 20 counts per 100 ml for a 9-month
period during 1978, and as "too numerous to count" for a 3-month period
during the same year. The only recent waste water flow data were recorded
from 6 November through 25 November 1978 and averaged 90,170 gpd. Based
upon this flow rate, the Taylors Falls WWTP contributed 50 pounds of BOD
and 25 pounds of suspended solids per day to the St. Croix River.
St. Croix Falls Fish Hatchery
The St. Croix Falls Fish Hatchery is located adjacent to the St. Croix
Falls WWTP. The hatchery uses up to 3 mgd of spring water for the produc-
tion of 40,000 pounds of trout annually (Anonymous 1978a), and discharges
directly to the St. Croix River. Based upon two samples taken by WDNR
during 1971, the mean effluent concentration for BODc was 2 mg/1 and the
count for fecal coliform was less than 10 per 100 ml. No data on flow or
suspended solids are available.
Industrial Tool and Plastics, Inc.
Industrial Tool and Plastics, Inc., discharges cooling water to the St.
Croix River by means of a storm sewer. The cooling water flow during 1970
was 54,560 gpd and the discharge was sampled in 1971. The following con-
centrations were recorded: BOD,-, less than 1 mg/1; temperature, 12°C; pH,
7.7 units; and phenol, 0.008 mg/1. The discharge enters the St. Croix River
approximately 0.4 miles downstream of the St. Croix Falls WWTP.
Non-point Discharges
Non-point source discharges into surface waters may include surface
runoff, groundwater discharge, and atmospheric contributions. Surface run-
off loadings consist of sediment, wildlife wastes, feedlot wastes, plant
residues, agricultural nutrients, herbicides and pesticides, and soil nutri-
ents and organic matter. The MPCA (1975) has classified the Minnesota
section of the project area as part of a region that exhibits an "average"
non-point source pollution potential.
3-26
-------
Groundwater discharge and atmospheric loadings on surface waters are
dependent on local hydrology, groundwater quality, air quality, and the
quantity of precipitation. Problems commonly associated with groundwater
include high conceatratioas of sulfates, chlorides, nitrates, and sodium
ions, and excessive hardness associated with high concentrations of calcium
and magnesium ions (Todd 1967). Common pollutants from atmospheric sources
include compounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur (MPCA 1975).
3.1.5. Groundwater
3.1.5.1. Resources
Groundwater within the project area occurs in sand and gravel deposits
of glacial drift in Cambrian sandstone, and in fractures of Precambrian
basalt. Domestic wells in the project area generally utilize sand and
gravel aquifers in the glacial drift. However, high-capacity municipal
wells derive water from Cambrian sandstone. The groundwater in Precambrian
rocks is not used for water supply within the project area.
The depth of the water table within the project ar<*.a is shown in Ap-
pendix C, Figure C-5. The map was developed from hydrologic investigation
atlases (Young and Hindall 1973; Lindholm and others 1974) and topographic
information. The interpretation is generalized and represents piezometric
levels within surficial deposits.
A review of geologic and soils data indicated that surficial sediments
generally are highly permeable. Only a small number of drainage features
are shown on topographic maps. This suggests that surficial aquifers are
readily recharged by precipitation. The configuration of the water table
(Appendix C, Figure C-6) indicates that the groundwater is discharged to the
St. Croix River.
Groundwater is used for municipal and rural water supply, stock water-
ing, irrigation, and industrial processes. The quantities of groundwater
used within the St. Croix River basin for 1968 are listed in Table 3-8.
3-27
-------
Table 3-8. Uses of groundwater withdrawn from the St. Croix River Basin
(Young and Hindall 1973).
Public Supply (mgd) Private Supply
Use Municipal Other (mgd)
Domestic 1.6 0.1 5.3
Industrial and commercial 2.5 0.0 2.1
Irrigation 0.1 0.0 0.2
Stock 0.0 0.0 3.3
Other 1.4 0.1 0.0
Total 5.5 0.1 10.9
3.1.5.2. Quality
Groundwater in the project area typically has high concentrations of
calcium and magnesium carbonate and a low concentration of total dissolved
solids. Water quality generally is good except for hardness. Water quality
data for sand and gravel aquifers are scarce. One analysis of a well pro-
ducing from a sand and gravel aquifer indicated that groundwater from gla-
cial drift aquifers may be characterized by high levels of alkalinity,
hardness, and total dissolved solids, and low pH relative to groundwater
from the Cambrian sandstones.
Indicators of contamination from surface sources include concentrations
of nitrates and fecal coliform counts. Bacterial contamination is not known
to be a problem within the project area. Nitrate concentrations indicate
that there is some contamination from surface sources (possibly agricultural
operations and/or natural decomposition of organic material). However, all
concentrations analyzed were well below recommended standards for drinking
water (10 mg/1 of nitrates as nitrogen, or approximately 44 mg/1 of nitrate).
Groundwater from fractured basalt may be highly mineralized, possibly
due to solution of minerals in joints and fractures over long periods of
time. Water quality analyses for wells in or near the project area are
presented in WAPORA (1979).
3-28
-------
3.1.6. Terrestrial Biota
3.1.6.1. Vegetation and Landscape
The St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area
lies within the Hemlock-White Pine-Northern Hardwoods Region described by
Braun (1950). The predominant trees in this region are sugar maple, bass-
wood, yellow birch, and American beech in the decidous forest communities
and white pine and red spruce in the coniferous forest communities. The use
of the term "hemlock" to describe the region is somewhat misleading, because
hemlock is absent in the Ilinnesota part of the region.
The forested lands are located primarily along the St. Croix River and
to the north and east of the City of St. Croix Falls. The area to the west
of the City of Taylors Falls is primarily agricultural. A large marsh
surrounds Colby Lake, located to the northwest of Taylors Falls.
The Wisconsin and Minnesota Interstate State Parks are located to the
south of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, respectively. The Wisconsin
Interstate State Park contains a wide variety of habitats and numerous
species of plants. Both Interstate State Parks contain rock outcrops in the
Dalles area with unusual glacial potholes.
A landcover map was prepared for the project area based on aerial
photographs and field verification (Figure 3-5). Seventeen landscape types
were identified, fourteen with vegetation and three (developed, cemetary,
and water) with little or no vegetation. A brief review of the existing
land use/cover of the project area and detailed descriptions of the proposed
wastewater treatment sites and force main routes are presented in this
section. A detailed description of each landscape type is presented in
WAPORA (1979).
Developed Lands
The Cities of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
are situated opposite each other, on the east and west banks of the St.
3-29
-------
FOREST TYPES
DRIEST SITES
L''Ty| PINE FOREST
\ '.Z 'I OAK-PINE FOREST
' CEDAR-OAK-ELM FOREST
OAK-ELM FOREST
INTERMEDIATE SITES
;5 | UPLAND OAK FOREST
'£'] BUR OAK-ELM FOREST
WETTEST SITES
>'- ] ELM-COTTONWOOD FOREST
>.';i SHRUB MARSH
HERBACEOUS VEGETATION
DRIEST SITES'
f V-H OLDFIELDS
WETTEST SITES
\, IP/] MARSH
MANAGED LANDSCAPE TYPES
^^ AGRICULTURAL-ROW CROPS
|%^j AGRICULTURAL-HAY FIELD
[yV-.y'.j PINE PLANTATION
[-,V| PASTURE
fc-Sjj DEVELOPED
| C | CEMETERY
SITES WITHOUT TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION
I w I WATER
Figure 3-5. Land cover in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
project area.
3-30
-------
Croix River, respectively. St. Croix Falls is the larger of the two com-
munities, both of which contain many trees in the residential areas. A
description of the land use within each City is given in Section 3.2.4.
Agricultural and Pasture Lands
Most of the agricultural lands in the project area are located to the
west of the City of Taylors Falls. Several large areas of cultivated land
also are present to the northeast and southeast of the City of St. Croix
Falls, but the majority of the land on the Wisconsin side of the St. Croix
River is forested. The principal crops grown in the project area are corn
and hay. Lands used as pastures are scattered throughout the area, and some
woodlots also are used for grazing purposes. Other landscape types present
in agricultural areas include oldfields and advanced oldfields, which have
been invaded by shrubs and trees. Several large pine plantations also are
present to the south of St. Croix Falls, and smaller plantings are present
on individual farms in the project area.
Forested Lands
Seven types of forests are present in the project area. Nearly pure
stands of white pine and red pine occur on the rock outcrops in the Dalles
region. Oak-pine forest borders this community on the upland sites along
the River, and elm-cottonwood forest is present in the floodplain downstrean
(south) of the Dalles. A large area of cedar-oak-elm forest is present in
the southernmost part of the project area on the Wisconsin side of the
River. One area of oak-elm forest is present along the southern border of
the cedar-oak-elm community, and a second area of this cover type is located
in Section 26 of Shafer Township on the Minnesota side of the river. The
most common forest cover type on the Minnesota side of the project area is
upland oak forest. Bur oak-elm forest is the most common forest type in the
Minnesota section.
Wetlands
Few wetlands are present within the project area. The Lake 0* the
Dalles in the Wisconsin Interstate State Park and Colby Lake and Wyckstrom
3-31
-------
Lake to the northwest of Taylors Falls are the largest bodies of water close
to the two communities and to the proposed sites for the treatment facili-
ties. Folsom Lake, Rice Lake, and Peaslee Lake are located in the far
southern part of the Wisconsin section of the project area. A small pond is
located on the west side of Blanding Woods Road in St. Croix Falls. The
most extensive marsh in the project area borders Colby Lake and extends as a
shrub marsh around Wyckstrom Lake to the south. Some marshy areas also are
located around springs in the southern part of the Wisconsin Interstate
State Park, and low, marshy areas are present in some parts of Section 26 of
Shafer Township and in other areas southwest of Wyckstrom Lake.
Existing St. Croix Falls WWTP Site
The existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls is located on land owned by WDNR,
adjacent to the State Fish Hatchery on the northern boundary of the Wiscon-
sin Interstate State Park. The site contains little vegetation, but is
bordered by bur oak-elm forest on the south. The predominant species in
this cover type are bur oak, American elm, and paper birch. Basswood, green
ash, and some pine also are present.
Existing Taylors Falls WWTP Site
The existing WWTP at Taylors Falls is located in a developed area just
north of the US Highway 8 bridge. The site is surrounded by a thicket of
lowland deciduous forest vegetation, primarily trees such as maple and ash
and numerous shrubs.
St. Croix Falls Rapid Infiltration Site
Approximately half of the proposed land treatment site, located in the
northeast quareter of Section 29 in St. Croix Falls Township, is covered
with upland oak forest, which includes white oak, black oak, sugar maple,
paper birch, basswood, and aspen. The other half of the site is covered
with oldfield vegetation. The site is bordered by oldfield and forested
areas, except for the St. Croix Falls Cemetery on the southwestern edge and
the railroad tracks along the western boundary. The remains of a concrete
3-32
-------
house foundation and an old silo are present in the south-central part of
the site, and a dirt road extends from the southeast corner of the cemetery
to the central part of the site. It is anticipated that the storage and
rapid infiltration basins proposed in Alternative 2 would be located in one
of the oldfield areas, and that approximately 30 acres of land would be
required.
Force Main Route to St. Croix Falls Rapid Infiltration Site
The force main route to be constructed in Alternative 2 (Figure 2-1)
would pass primarily through tree-lined residential areas in St. Croix
Falls. The line would extend north along River Road from the existing WWTP,
east through an area north of Kentucky Street, north along Washington
Street, and then east for 0.75 miles along Louisiana Avenue approximately to
the section line between Section 29 and Section 30 of St. Croix Falls Town-
ship. At this point, Louisiana Avenue turns northeast and the proposed
force main route would continue eastward approximately 0.75 miles along the
section line between Sections 20 and 29 to the rapid infiltration site.
Most of this section of the route would pass through forested areas, and
some oldfields. The proposed line then would turn southward and pass
through the forested northern section of the site to the oldfield area. No
land would need to be acquired for the pumping station, which would be
located at the site of the existing WWTP.
Taylors Falls Stabilization Pond and Land Application Site
Approximately the northern two-thirds of the land in the northwest
quarter of Section 26 of Shafer Township is used for cultivation of corn and
hay. Most of the remaining area is covered with oak-elm forest. Two areas
of oldfield vegetation, and two small areas planted with pines are located
within the forested section. Host of the sparsely wooded and open areas in
the northern and western parts of the section have been grazed.
A low, swampy area with marsh grasses and trees is present in the
southeastern part of the proposed site. This swampy area extends into the
northeastern quarter of the site and apparently contains standing water
3-33
-------
throughout the year. A second area with marsh vegetatioa is present in the
south-central part of the treatment site. These areas may have constituted
part of the drainage basin for Wyckstrom Lake in the past, and still may be
hydrologically connected. The proposed force main/effluent route and the
stabilization ponds in Alternatives 5, 6, 8, and 9 initially were antici-
pated to be located in this area (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers
1980), and thus detailed site investigation should be performed to determine
the most suitable locations for these facilities if any of these alterna-
tives is selected.
Approximately 40 acres of forested land would be required for the
stabilization ponds for treatment of wastewater from Taylors Falls in Alter-
native 5, and 90 acres for the regional stabilization pond system proposed
in Alternative 8. At least 110 acres would be needed for the effluent spray
irrigation system for Taylors Falls proposed in Alternative 6, and 280 acres
(or 120 acres more than are contained in the quarter-section site) would be
required for the regional pond and the effluent spray irrigation system
(Alternative 8).
Force Main Route to Taylors Falls Stabilization Pond and Land Application
Sites
The route of the force main from the site of the existing Taylors Falls
WWTP to the proposed treatment site in Shafer Township would run west
through residential areas along County Road 82, make a short loop north
along Folsm Street, west on Walnut Street, and south on Mulberrry Street,
and then extend sbuthewest through a sparsely wooded area to Military Road.
The line then would continue due west approximately 1.0 mile along Military
Road, which is bordered by cultivated areas and oldfields (with one small
tract of bur oak-elm forest), to the midline of Section 26. At this point
the force main would extend north along the center line to the stabilization
pond/land treatment site. This leg of the route would pass within 200 feet
of a residence at the junction of the section line and Military Road. The
line would extend primarily along the borders of cultivated fields. How-
ever, an examination of aerial photos has indicated the possible presence of
3-34
-------
a low, wet area along the northern third of this route. A site investi-
gation should be performed to determine the soil and vegetation conditions
in this region and the extent of the wet area. The amount of land required
along the route for the four pumping stations proposed in Alternatives 5, 6,
8, and 9 would be minimal. One station would be located at the site of the
existing WWTP, two stations would be located in the residential area of
Taylors Falls, and one would be located at the junction of the midline of
Section 26 and Military Road.
Force Main Route between St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls for Regional
Alternatives
The force main route for transfer of raw wastewater from Taylors Falls
to the St. Croix Falls WWTP in Alternative 7, or from St. Croix Falls to
Taylors Falls in Alternatives 8 and 9, would extend approximately 0.3 miles
along existing roadways in the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, through a
short stretch of forest, and across the US Highway 8 bridge (Figure 2-1).
The route through the park is lined primarily with bur-oak-elm forest. This
section of the Park contains a campground and picnic areas.
3.1.6.2. Wildlife
The term "wildlife" includes all land-dwelling vertebrate animals-
amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Many species of wildlife inhabit
the project area because of the diversity in the habitats present. Many
other species pass through the area using the migration corridor formed by
the St. Croix River Valley. These wildlife habitats in the area range from
the forested uplands and bottomlands and open water areas along the St.
Croix River, to the open fields and wetlands west of Taylors Falls, and the
St. Croix River. Some species native to both the northern US and the
southern US are present, such as the northern flying squirrel and the
southern flying squirrel. The River serves as a barrier between eastern and
western forms of a species in several instances. The most complete species
lists for the project area are those for the Minnesota and Wisconsin Inter-
state State Parks (Minnesota DNR 1978; Porter 1975). Due to the small size
of the Minnesota Interstate State Park (273 acres) and the limited amount of
3-35
-------
information available for the considerably larger (730 acres) Wisconsin
Interstate State Park, the species lists for these areas do not include all
the animals that may inhabit the project area, especially the amphibians and
reptiles. The information from these lists was supplemented with informa-
tion from similar lists for other areas, such as Afton State Park, 37 miles
downstream along the River (Knudson n.d.a. and n.d.b.); from studies such as
the User and Resource Conditions Report by faculty and students from the
University of Wisconsin in Madison (University of Wisconsin 1978); and from
the published literature on biota of Minnesota (Breckenridge 1944; Green and
Janssen 1975; Gromme 1974; Gunderson and Beer 1953; and Jackson 1961), and
is presented in WAPORA (1979).
3.1.7. Aquatic Biota
Quantitative sampling of algae was conducted on the St. Croix River
near St. Croix Falls from October 1976 through September 1977 (USGS 1977).
Blue-green algae were predominant throughout much of the sampling period.
Other abundant groups included green algae and diatoms. The algae were
collected by whole water grab samples, identified to genus, and counted to
determine the number of cells per milliliter of water. The results of the
study indicated that the phytoplankton populations varied throughout the
year. No studies of the macroinvertebrate fauna in the project area have
been done according to the available literature.
The fish populations of the St. Croix River, unlike those of many
streams and rivers in the Midwest, have not been studied on a regular basis.
The first and only comprehensive study (Kuehn and others 1961) divided the
St. Croix River into sections and described the physical and biological
characteristics of each segment. The study included all but the lower 22
miles of the River, which is impounded and known as Lake St. Croix. The
physical characteristics described include: width, gradient per mile, range
in depth, volume of flow, and bottom type (gravel, sand, boulders, etc.).
The fisheries survey covered 105 miles of the River and included in-
formation on the species composition of each river segment, the relative
abundance of fish (except minnows), descriptions of habitats, and habitats
3-36
-------
associated with various fish species. Fifty species were captured during
the survey. The predominant fish were redhorse (several species), suckers,
yellow perch, walleye, and smallmouth bass. A limited amount of data also
were presented on the spawning activities of some of the species, including
the smallmouth bass, a common fish in the St. Croix River (WAPORA 1979).
Additional species were noted by Kranz and others (1978) in the vicin-
ity of the Allen S. King Generating Plant on Lake St. Croix, located to the
south of the project area. The most recent sampling was conducted by WDNR
biologists during autumn 1978. They collected the blue sucker, a species
that is considered to be threatened in Wisconsin. It is possible that these
species may be present in the project area.
Lawrence Creek, a small tributary of the St. Croix River in Chisago
County, Minnesota, is recognized as one of the outstanding brook trout
streams in Minnesota. Although the stream has 5.1 miles of intermittent
flow, a 1968 survey by Minnesota DNR personnel showed that the lower reach
of this stream supported 360 pounds of brook trout per acre, a density 9 to
14 times that generally are considered indicative of a good trout stream
(Haugstad 1968). Burbot was the only other fish collected in the survey.
Colby Lake, a 105-acre shallow lake with a maximum depth of 4 feet, is
located two miles northwest of Taylors Falls. Colby Lake is semipermanent
and has an outlet (normally dry) to the St. Croix River. The Lake does not
support a large fish population due to its shallow nature. The MDNR does
not have any information on the fish population of Colby Lake.
Little information is available on the mussel populations of the St.
Croix River. The report by Kuehn and others (1961) mentioned "fingernail
clams and large clams," but no generic names were given. Fuller (1978)
sampled the St. Croix River near Hudson in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. Two
individuals of the Higgin's eye pearly mussel, including a gravid female,
were collected. A total of 546 individuals representing 33 species were
collected from an extensive mussel bed near Hudson. This species is listed
as endangered by USFWS (1978a). Although Hudson is 35 miles downstream from
St. Croix Falls, the mussel populations in the project area could contain
3-37
-------
some of these species. However, no data are available that apply specific-
ally to the project area (WAPORA 1979). Fuller (1978) also made what ap-
pears to be the first collection of the Asiatic clam from the St. Croix
River at Hudson. This species, which "uproots" native mussels, resulting in
their death, now is widespread in many rivers throughout the US.
3.1.8. Endangered and Threatened Species
3.1.8.1. Federal Designation
Two species on the Federal list of endangered and threatened species
have ranges that include the project area. These species are the peregrine
falcon (Falco peregrinus), listed as endangered throughout its range (50 CFR
17.11-17.13 and updates), and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
listed as threatened in the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin.
At present, the peregrine falcon does not breed in either Minnesota or
Wisconsin. Both the American and arctic subspecies of the peregrine falcon
may migrate through the project area, but neither has been sited in recent
years. There are recent breeding records for the bald eagle in both Chisago
County, Minnesota and Polk County, Wisconsin. The closest active nest for
this species is located at Harris, Minnesota, approximately 18 miles north-
west of Taylors Falls. Bald eagles have been observed during the winter in
other state parks near the project area (By telephone, Mr. Floyd Knudson,
Carlos Avery Game Farm, Forest Lake MN, to WAPORA, Inc., 11 December 1978).
No federally endangered or threatened species of amphibians, reptiles,
mammals, or plants are known to have ranges that include the project area.
3.1.8.2. State Designation
WISCONSIN
In 1972 the Wisconsin legislature passed the Wisconsin Endangered
Species Act of 1971 which was amended by Chapter 370 of the Wisconsin Laws
of 1977 (Wisconsin Statutes, Section 29.415). The list of species protected
3-38
-------
under this legislation is given in the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chap-
ter NR27, which was updated 1 October 1979. The most recent list of endan-
gered and threatened species was issued in 1979 (WDNR 1979). Plants also
are included in this list. Endangered or threatened species that may be
present in the project area are listed in Table 3-9. An additional 15
species with watch status in the State of Wisconsin that may be in the
project area are listed in Table 3-10.
MINNESOTA
There is no official list of endangered or threatened species for the
State of Minnesota. The State follows the Federal list. One publication by
MDNR describes the species of animals considered to be endangered or threat-
ened and those species having priority status within the State. However,
these designations have no legal standing (Moyle 1980). The State of Minne-
sota set up a Heritage Trust Program during 1979, and a list of the species
of plants that may be proposed for designation in the above categories is in
preparation.
The 12 species indicated as endangered or threatened (unofficial) that
may be present in the project area are listed in Table 3-9. An additional
two species with priority species designation in Minnesota that may be
present in the project area are listed in Table 3-10 (Moyle 1980). Such
species are considered to be uncommon or local in these states and to re-
quire particular management because of their unusual or unique features,
public interest, or the vulnerability of their habitat.
Minnesota also has a wildflower protection law. Species protected
under this law cannot be sold or purchased; nor can they be picked or other-
wise removed from public or private lands without both written permission
from the property manager or owner and a permit from the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Agriculture (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 17, Section 17.23). The
species of plants that are given protection under this law are listed in
Table 3-11. It is not known if any of these species are present in the
Minnesota section of the project area.
3-39
-------
Table 3-9. Endangered and threatened species that may be present in the St.
Croix Falls, Wisconsin - Taylor Falls, Minnesota project area
(Moyle 1980; WDNR 1979).a
Scientific Name
Rana palustris
Clemmys insculpta
Endo idea blandingi
Phalacrocorax auritus
Casmerodius albus
Accipiter cooperii
Buteo lineatus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pandion haliaetus
Falco peregrinus
Sterna hirundo
Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Common Name
Pickerel frog
Wood turtle
Blanding's turtle
Double-crested cormorant
Great egret
Cooper's hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Bald eagle
Osprey
Peregrine falcon
Common tern
Mountain cranberry
KEY:E - Endangered in State
FE - Endangered in US
FT - Threatened in US
P - Priority species
T - Threatened in State
aThe species listed have legal endangered or threatened status within Wisconsin;
their comparable unofficial designation for these species in Minnesota also is
shown.
Wi sc ons in Minnesota
T
E
T P
E
T
T P
P «...
FT, E
E
FE, E
E
E
FT, T
FE, E, R
P
3-40
-------
Table 3-10. Species in the project area with watch status in Wisconsin and
with priority species designation in Minnesota (Moyle 1980; WDNR
1979).
Common Name
Common loon
Great blue heron
Black-crowned night heron
Common merganser
Red-breasted merganser
Marsh hawk
Common flicker
Eastern bluebird
Dickcissel
Vesper sparrow
Field sparrow
Short-tail shrew
Gray fox
Bobcat
White-tail jackrabbit
Scientific Name
Gavia immer
Ardea herodias
Nycticorax nycticorax
Mergus merganser
Mergus serrator
Circus cyaneus
Colaptes auratus
Sialia sialis
Spiza americana
Poocetes gramineus
Spiza pucilia
Blarina brevicauda
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Lynx rufus
Lepus townsendi
Wisconsin Minneso ta
W
w
W
w
w
W P
w
W P
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
KEY: W - Watch status.
P - Priority status.
3-41
-------
Table 3-11. Species of plants that are protected under the Minnesota Wild-
flower Protection Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 17, Section
17.23).
Gent ians
Lilies
Lotus lily
Orchids
Trailing arbutus
Trilliums
All species of the genus Gentian
All species of the genus Lilium
Nelumbo lutea
All members of the family Orchidaceae
Epigaea repens
All species of the genus Trillium
3.2. Man-made Environment
3.2.1. Economics
3.2.1.1. Income
The 1980 estimated median family incomes for the two Counties in the
project area are shown in Table 3-12, relative to the estimated median
incomes for their respective States. The median family income of Polk
County is only 5% lower than the median family income for the State of
Wisconsin. The median family income of Chisago County is 16% higher than
the median family income for the State of Minnesota. There are no data
available for the Cities of Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls.
Table 3-12. Estimated 1980 median family income (By telephone, Mr. Mac-
Donald, HUD, to WAPORA, Inc., 30 September 1980).
Area
Wisconsin
Polk County
Minnesota
Chisago County
Estimated Median Family Income
$19,685
$18,625
$19,847
$23,625
3-42
-------
The per capita personal incomes for the proposed service area are
presented in Table 3-13. Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (USBEA;
1980a, 1980b), reveal an increasing trend in the per capita incomes of
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Polk County, and Chisago County from 1973 to 1978.
Census data (1979a; 1979b) for the Cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls, also indicate an increase in the per capita incomes of these areas
from 1969 to 1975.
Table 3-13. Per capita personal income in thousands of dollars (US Bureau
of Economic Analysis 1980a, 1980b).
Percentage
Year Change
Area
Wisconsin
Polk County
1969
to
1969 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1975
4,754 5,183 5,616 6,087 6,776 7,532
3,923 4,249 4,427 4,798 5,377 6,014
1973
to
1978
37
35
St. Croix Falls
Minnesota
Chisago County
Taylors Falls
3,041 4,920 38
5,113 5,424 5,795 6,214 7,086 7,904
3,933 4,070 4,479 4,955 5,686 6,027
3,254 4,869 49
35
35
3.2.1.2. Employment
Total employment in Chisago County, Minnesota, increased by 38.3% from
1971 to 1976, and by 13.1% in Polk County, Wisconsin, during the same period
(Table 3-14). These County-level increases were significantly higher than
the State-wide increases of 14.8% and 10.4% for Minnesota and Wisconsin,
respectively (USBEA 1978). The service, wholesale trade, and retail trade
sectors experienced the greatest growth in employment in Chisago County. In
Polk County, the greatest increases in employment occurred in the wholesale
trade, service, finance, and government sectors.
3-43
-------
The growth of employment in Chisago and Polk Counties reflects the de-
centralization of commercial and industrial business from the Minneapolis-
St. Paul area. The growth of local employment in Chisago County and Polk
County is a factor for potential growth in the population of the proposed
service area.
3.2.2. Demographics
3.2.2.1. Historical Population Trends
The early growth of the Cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls was
associated with their role as lumber milling and agricultural centers. The
collapse of lumber traffic on the St. Croix River in the late 19th and early
20th centuries, resulted in a severe decline in population. The population
of Taylors Falls continued to decline slightly from 570 in 1920 to 520 in
1950, while the population of St. Croix Falls increased moderately from 825
to 1,065 (Table 3-15). The combined population of the two cities increased
from 1,395 to 1,585 for the same 30-year period. However, the populations
of the three townships adjacent to the two cities, continued to decline.
From 1950 to the present, the population has continued to increase in
the St. Croix Falls-Taylors Falls area because of increased employment op-
portunities (Section 3.2.1.2.). The combined population of the two-city area
increased 39%, from 1950 to 1977, and the declining population trends in
Chisago County, Polk County, and the three townships in the proposed service
area have reversed. Population growth has been especially rapid in Chisago
County since 1970. The 31.7% population growth in Chisago County from 1970
to 1977 made it the third most rapidly growing county in Minnesota.
The populations of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls grew less rapidly
than the populations of their respective counties from 1970 to 1977 (Table
3-15). This is the result of the growth in Chisago County being concen-
trated in the Western portion of the County, closer to the Minneapolis-St.
Paul area and the greater desire of persons to live in the country (Zuiches
and Fuguitt 1972). The availability of undeveloped land in these counties
appears to be a major factor contributing to their rapid growth.
3-44
-------
^
oo
ON
<
a
ca
03
3.
vO
r^
ON
rH
s
Cfl
i «
r-.
ON
X
M
O
dp
, o i
4-J
e
3
o o r*~ -H vo
r-- O O CN CO
O CO O\ * »
00 4J -H r^ * oo m ^ -t
H t- O ON CM r-
ON f
-H m i <
43 O
cu 4-» vo oo CN cn r--
c3 ON <± o <( m
co f-- -i -H I
co
0 Q vf CN CN
0) co r-~ oo CN -H i
C «-> ON
(3 0 -( ->
O
0. O -^ 00 vO
B -H CM ro CN O
s - " " "
rO O
g r-i o-, cn CM m -^ vo cn CM
4-> rH CM cn CM rH
J>i C -i
rH OJ
0 S
ft" >>
O
d f i m o !n -J
S i1"- r"* vo -H
03 CJN «,*.»»
rH O Cn CN rH
43 | 0
QJ 1 4-> \o -^ vO oo in
C|«-< ON o o \0 m
cd r*. -H r-H | |
U I1*
c
C vo r cn o CM
O ec r^ o CM --« --i
O <- ON *
w e -^ CM
H 0)
3 H
O
rH
O. m m m r-^
g -H oo cn < CM
W r^ oo CM i <-*
ON *
r-4 i 1
CO
0 E
+-* cd
0) M-i
-H S |
M CU Cfl O
O 0 ta Z
bfl i_4 tj
M H
tfl O
O H
r--
t^
in
cn
f.
oo
CM
r-t
cn
cn
r*-
i t
m
CM
~"*
O
CX3
cn
m
CO
^
CO
^-
""1
p"-
o
CNI
^_i
in
CO
,__t
^
^«
vO
«
i i
g<
rH
CO
01
d
cfl *H
U-t }-l
d
i
m sJ-
1 1 ro vD
1 1 0
C cO i-i
(X4 CO
cn
oo
CM
vO
>
O CO
O
CU 4J
1? ^
CO O
U rl
o
4-1 a,
e cu
O rl
o
M 4-1
CU O
43^
-------
a
a
M
cti
^j
0
O
o
o.
*
r-l
CS
to
O
i-H
$
t
CO
r-l
r-l
CO
to
T)
o
o
en
4>
C
rl
CO
0
e
CD
4J
e
o
H
CO
r-l
^
a
a
o
H
M
O
+J
(0
H
33
in
r-H
A
iH
rQ
CO
H
0 rv.
ON *J o\
-H F-H
O O
DO CTi » -h
M
e
CO
s: o o
C^ 4J O
QJ 1 r-t
00
4->
CO 0
O C^ *J O
f^ f 1 rH
01
a.
o o
ON 2 ON
H rH
O O
O^ 4-J C^
4 i-l
S;
rH
o
0
ON
1
O
O
<
e
o
+J X)
flj O
r-l in
a 2
o
O-i
o
-H
rt
o
CT>
CO
0
2
CO
0)
r-.
^j.
00
-<
^
-^
in
4
in
o^
oo
<£>
r~
_,
*-(
00
r-
CM
^c
»
CO
r-l
-4"
f
**
T**
r-*
^H
m
ON
CO*
in
in
*
rO
CO
1
00
CO
rO
vO
O
O
n
CO
CM
!»»
0
CN^
ro
CNI
0
o
n
rl
m
fN
r 1
GO
VO
'
O
^
^
|
CM
OO
ON
"J
m
in
ON
*
CM
f^
^
r^
yD
vD
CM
O
OO
CM
4-1
fl
I
__"«fj
r-(
O
o cMin "st r^ ^>^^
o mco <3-rH moo
-i CM m txi
rs-^r m 4
-* 1 11!
t
oo ^co o-in r-ON-t
in »j co ooo (k #, 0
i in en CM
r^ CM
ON
CO
CM COvD OON 00 CO *
*. * *> «.
t ^O 1^- Ol
0 ^
CO
*
CO
ON f^"0 2°^ xocoin
CM \or*. oo- \o ~
1 CM CM t
CO -^
*
CM
r*»- r-«. \o O ^ CM oo ON
o cor-- CM « i m^om
^^ CM en H
^
CM"
CM CMin COON ' COON
in in ^o in co ^J in r^»
ro co *
"^O « *
in
CM
in in ^-* tn in O r*^ in
CSJ r-4 -H CM,r-lW
+JO ->O W-HOH C
HJ-I4JOW ,
T)
QJ
4_l
3
a
f
o
o
-
CO
ON
^-^p
CJ
0
0)
Ql
"
Q
W
*^
r*
,- \
ON
Ct
0
rt
S
r^« *3
ON to
O M
rj o ja 4J ,_J
CM CM CM B) O
co tn r*. kj
I-H T i « cnr*. OJQ
H ON «
3 ^ r? '^ "^ i
ON ON ON ^ ,£
r < i ( i-H ^ (ft
U-l CO r-l
01 CO CO O V4 M
333 00 (0
SO) CO |J O tn
a c e B
41 1) Q) Q)
1
»H
3
CO
U
oo
3-46
-------
3.2.2.2. Population Projections
Previous projections for the year 2000 population (1980-2000 is the
wastewater facilities planning period) have ranged from 1,681 to 3,217 for
St. Croix Falls and from 626 to 1,623 for Taylors Falls. The wide range of
values in these projections results from the use of different base years for
data compilation and from different projection methodologies. Because of
the wide range in these existing projections, a new series of population
projections have been developed that are based on a thorough consideration
of applicable methodologies, most recent population data, and available
judgemental inputs.
An analysis of historical population trends (Section 3.2.2.1.) indi-
cated that the populations of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls have grown
at remarkably constant rates from 1950 to 1977. The average rate of in-
crease for this period was 1.4% per year for St. Croix Falls and 0.7% per
year for Taylors Falls. The rates of population growth for Polk County and
Chisago County accelerated during the 1950 to 1977 period, with the result
that St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls have represented a generally declin-
ing share of their respective county populations during this period. These
trends indicate that a rate-based population projection is superior to a
proportional share method of projection for the proposed service areas. In
a rate-based projection, the rate of population increase is assumed to
remain constant, while in a proportional share projection an area is assumed
to maintain a constant proportion of the population of the larger area of
which it is a part.
An investigation of specific local factors that might significantly
influence the projected population of the service areas also was undertaken.
Most important among these local factors are proposed major public and
private developments and local attitudes toward the desirability of growth.
No known governmental installations or large private developments have been
proposed within the service areas. Several large residential developments
have been proposed for areas along the St. Croix River within a few miles of
the service areas (NFS 1975a). The two proposed developments closest to the
service areas are a 322-acre condominium development three miles south of
3-47
-------
St. Croix Falls and a 500-acre single family housing development five miles
south of Taylors Falls. The construction of developments of this size would
have a tremendous impact on population projections if the developments were
located within the service areas. However, such developments are unlikely
within the service areas because of the lack of large undeveloped areas with
suitable site characteristics. Interviews with local officials have indi-
cated that neither St. Croix Falls nor Taylors Falls are actively promoting
large-scale developments, though the City Plan for St. Croix Falls (Max
Anderson and Associates 1971b) does envision moderate growth by the year
2000.
Based on consistent growth trends, the availability of land for addi-
tional growth, and the absence of major development plans within the pro-
posed service areas, population projections for these areas were produced.
The projections assume a continuation of the 1950 to 1977 historical growth
rates. Projected populations for St. Croix Falls, Taylors Falls, and the
combined service areas for 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 are presented
in Table 3-16. The projections given in this table assume 1977 populations
of 1,576 for St. Croix Falls and 640 for Taylors Falls (Section 3.2.2.1.).
These projections also assume a continuation of the 1.4% per year growth
rate for St. Croix Falls and the 0.7% per year growth rate for Taylors Falls
that occurred during the 1950 to 1977 period.
Table 3-16. Population projections for St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1980 to 2000 (WAPORA 1979).
Year St. Croix Falls Taylors Falls Service Areas
1980 1,643 655 2,298
1985 1,761 682 2,443
1990 1,888 710 2,598
1995 2,024 739 2,763
2000 2,170 769 2,939
3-48
-------
The estimate for the population of St. Croix Falls in the year 2000 is
2,170. This is near the lower end of the range of 1,921 to 3,217 included
in the "208" Small Area Projections in the Areawide Wastewater Management
Plan. It also is within the anticipated population range for St. Croix
Falls presented in the Master Plan for St. Croix Falls (Max Anderson and
Associates 1971b). The projection is considerably lower than the population
estimate for St. Croix Falls for the year 2000 prepared by the West Central
Wisconsin Regional Development Commission. The Commission's projection of
2,900 is based on a proportional share method that appears to overestimate
potential growth in the case of St. Croix Falls.
The population projection of 769 for Taylors Falls in the year 2000 is
within the range projected by the East Central Regional Development Commis-
sion (626 to 1,623) for that year, but is well below the projection of the
Chisago County Zoning and Building Department (1,310) for the year 1990 (the
year 2000 projection was not available for comparison). The projection of
the Department, while in line with county-wide growth trends, does not
reflect recent population growth within Taylors Falls itself. This popula-
tion projection for the year 2000 is only 1% lower than the preliminary
projection developed by Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers for the
Taylors Falls Facilities Plan. The estimate for the combined St. Croix
Falls-Taylors Falls service area for the year 2000 is 2,939, a 33% increase
over the 1977 population.
3.2.3. Public Finance
3.2.3.1. Financial Status of the City of St. Croix Falls
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
In 1979, the City of St. Croix Falls collected revenues totaling
$1,012,855 while its total expenditures were $986,034 (City of St. Croix
Falls 1980). The year-end fund balance was $296,414, which included the
1979 surplus and funds retained from 1978.
The City obtains revenues from three basic sources:
General operation
3-49
-------
Enterprises
Capital projects.
The revenues obtained from general operations account for 59% of the total
revenues and are classified mostly as general revenues. These revenues
include monies from taxes; intergovernmental transfers, contracts and sales;
regulation and compliance; services to private parties; and use of money and
property. They are used primarily for the day-to-day operating expenses of
the City. Expenditures for general operations are classified into 13 cate-
gories, of which the largest are non-departmental and general (24%), subsi-
dies (22%), transportation (20%), and public safety (19%).
Revenues from enterprises such as sewer and water utilities account for
12% of total revenues and are classified either as general revenues or
interfund transfers. Expenditures on enterprises constitute slightly over
11% of total expenditures. Revenues from capital projects are obtained
mostly by borrowing. They account for 32% of total revenues. Expenditures
for capital projects account for almost 30% of all expenditures.
The City of St. Croix Falls is not responsible for administration of
the school system. School operations are the responsibility of the School
District, and therefore, school revenues and expenditures are not included
in the City audit.
ASSESSED VALUATION AND PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS
In 1979, St. Croix Falls property taxes were levied at a rate of $42.10
per $1,000 of assessed valuation. This included taxes levied by Polk County
($5.92/$l,000 valuation), the City of St. Croix Falls ($13.15/$1,000 valua-
tion), the School District ($20.31/$1,000 valuation), the Vocational School
($2.32/$l,000 valuation), and for State Forests ($0.40/$1,000 valuation; by
telephone, Mr. Elroy Spangenberg, Polk County Clerk, to WAPORA, Inc., 29
October 1980).
Equalized assessed value is the full or market value of a property.
The total equalized assessed valuation in St. Croix Falls was $27,496,760 in
1979. The assessed value against which taxes are levied is 49.4% of the
3-50
-------
equalized value, or, in St. Croix Falls, $13,579,095. Taxes on a specific
property cannot be estimated solely on the basis of assessed valuation and
tax rates, however, because of the availability of various tax credits.
LOCAL INDEBTEDNESS
The City of St. Croix Falls appears to be financially sound, but is
approaching its recommended capacity for incurring debt. As of 31 December
1979, the outstanding debt of the City, payable from tax levies, was
$806,565 (City of St. Croix 1980). This debt was in the form of general
obligation bonds. The total outstanding debt for Polk County was
$1,360,000, of which $47,546 (3.5%) is apportioned to the City. The total
outstanding debt for the School District was $786,877, of which $188,730
(24%) is apportioned to the City (By telephone, Ms. Maureen Carlson, St.
Croix Falls School District, to WAPORA, Inc., 29 October 1980). Thus, the
total debt supported by the residents of St. Croix Falls is $1,042,841.
This represents a per capita debt of approximately $635. In addition, the
School District recently passed a referendum authorizing the construction of
a new $4,880,000 school. The bond sale will be during November 1980. The
share of the debt that must be supported by the City is approximately
$1,170,451. This will more than double the amount of debt now supported by
St. Croix Falls residents and bring the total per capita debt to $1,347.
Whether a city safely can incur additional debt supported by its "full
faith and credit" (general obligation bonds) is estimated by applying two
common debt measures (Table 3-17). The present debt of $1,347 per capita in
St. Croix Falls is in excess of the standard upper limit for middle income
communities. As discussed in Section 3.2.1.1., the per capita income for
St. Croix Falls is estimated to be slightly above average. Thus, this
indicator suggests that St. Croix Falls is near its full debt capacity.
Two other commonly applied measures are debt to market value of pro-
perty and debt service to revenue ratios. As indicated in Table 3-17 ratios
for the City of St. Croix Falls presently are below the recommended upper
limits for these indicators.
3-51
-------
^
m
r*N.
&\
rH
CU
M
O
XI
rH
H
SB
TJ
ca
cfl
o
a
2
o
n
14H
s
4J
CX
cfl
TJ
cd
CO
OJ
^
CO
cd
o)
0
4J
CU
TJ
rH
CO
CX
H
CJ
H
d
1
g
|
Q
u
*
CO
cu
rH
n)
H
X
CO
rH
1
cd
Pn
05
rl
o
rH
CO
H
CO O
P"** S^S
-H m o
fd O O S
4-1 0 C O 4-1
H O -rl O CU
ex a c j«j
o
rl
cd
&
4-J
"S
Q
cfl d CU -H ri
CJ -H iH cd
Wi S T> 60
CU O -H i-l O
cx HJ a 1^1 4-*
4-< 4J
43 Xi
CU CU
Q Q
CO
rH
cfl
^J
r-l
crt
E
^
4-J
V4
cu
CX
o
IH
ex
<4H
0
d
O
H
cfl
£?
.4
r 1
&*5
o
OM
4-1
cu
60
3
rH
Cfl
rH 4-1
Cfl O
0 4->
O
rH CO
CU 4-1
x: d
4J 0)
E
4H C
0 rl
>
in o
CM 60
"^co
c
cu
cu
u
O 4-"
4-1 CU
60
CU TJ
0 3
«H X
& H
CU O
CO **^
4-1
CU
Q
60
H
rH
O
1
^n
rl
CJ
c
cu
60
C
H
4_)
^
(U
*
4-1
^0
.
CO
(-1
c
*rH
en
"H
^o
cu
TJ
60
.s
4-1
co
H
cu
i t
iH
Cfl
-
XI
cu
d
CJ
H
yj
CO
. 1
rl
"
rH
O
0
o
CO
t .
O
^**
c
3
0
O
CU
3
J
a
C
H
i 1
O
a
en
cu
S
n
CO
cu
60
IH
cd
o
cu
o
H
£
a)
co
^
Cfl
^-|
Cfl
Cfl
a
o
60
d
H
"d
cu
ex
CO
CO
3
cfl
4->
j«i
j_l
cd
8
MH
O
CO
TJ
_«
cd
o
CO
C
co
cu
15
4-1
Cl)
CO
H
rj
O
H
s
rj
O
H
4-1
Cfl
i
cfl
d
CO
CO
CO
co
CO
o
4->
O
cfl
IH
CO
M
0
*"d
-------
USER FEES
Residents of St. Croix Falls are assessed user fees for wastewater
collection and treatment. Rates are established by the City Council and are
subject to periodic evaluation. Presently, sewer rates are 150% of the
water rate schedule (Appendix E, Exhibit E-l). Based on daily per capita
generation of 94 gallons (12.6 cubic feet) of wastewater, and assuming that
there are three persons per family, the average family in St. Croix Falls
presently pays $129 per year for sewer service (Appendix E, Exhibit E-2).
3.2.3.2. Financial Status of the City of Taylors Falls
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
In 1979, the City of Taylors Falls collected revenues totaling $214,287
and had expenditures of $240,346 (City of Taylors Falls 1980). City reve-
nues and expenditures are categorized into seven basic fund types:
General fund
Utility fund
Library fund
Fireman's relief fund
1961 Waterworks Improvement Fund
1978 Sewer Survey Project
1977 Waterworks Improvement Fund
General fund revenues account for approximately 57% of the total reve-
nues. These are obtained primarily from intergovernmental revenues and
property taxes. General fund expenditures totaled $119,781, or approxi-
mately 50% of the total expenditures of the City. General fund expenditures
were for categorical items, such as the support of the Mayor and City Coun-
cil, legal services, finance, general government, buildings, public safety
(fire and police protection), highways, and other functions.
The utility fund, in which sewer and water services are categorized,
accounts for 15% of total revenues. These are obtained primarily from user
3-53
-------
charges. Utility fund expenditures represented slightly over 10% of the
total expenditures.
The Waterworks Improvement Fund accounted for 21% of the total revenues
and 33% of its total expenditures of the community. The 1978 Sewer Survey
Project accounted for 5% of total revenues and expenditures while revenues
and expenditures in the Library Fund category accounted for 1% of the muni-
cipal totals. There were no expenditures in the Fireman's Relief Fund or
the 1961 Waterworks Improvement Fund.
No revenues or expenditures for schools are included in the municipal
budget because there is a separate school district. Taylors Falls Indepen-
dent School District #140 administers local school programs.
ASSESSED VALUATION AND PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS
In 1979, Taylors Falls property taxes were assessed at a rate of
$125.00 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. This included taxes levied by
Chisago County ($43.21/$1,000 valuation), the City of Taylors Falls
($23.34/$l,000 valuation), Taylors Falls Independent School District #140
($58.44/$l,000 valuation), and the Regional Development Commission
($0.0I/$1,000 valuation; by telephone, Mr. Dennis Freed, Chisago County
Auditor, to WAPORA, Inc., 30 October 1980).
Property taxes levied by Chisago County and Independent School District
#140 on property owners in Taylors Falls are based on the same tax rate that
is levied against non-City residents of the County and School District. The
assessed valuation of Taylors Falls is $2,385,233, and taxes on specific
properties are based on their assessed valuation. In Taylors Falls, there
is no standardized relationship between full or market value of property and
its assessed value. Because there are many tax credits available to pro-
perty owners, it is difficult to determine an average ratio between assessed
and full value.
3-54
-------
LOCAL INDEBTEDNESS
The City of Taylors Falls appears to be financially sound. As of 31
December 1979, the outstanding debt of the City, payable from user fees from
the municipal water service, was $310,000 (City of Taylors Falls 1980). The
total outstanding debt for Chisago County was $2,125,000, all of which has
been obtained through the issuance of revenue bonds. The amount of County
debt supported by Taylors Falls residents cannot be determined because the
necessary data are not available. The outstanding debt for the School
District was $373,746. In addition, $226,000 of new debt was issued in
1980. Thus, the total debt of the School District was $599,746. Debt
service is included in the total millage rate, and data concerning the
percentage of the millage rate attributable to debt service are not avail-
able. Thus, the amount of school debt service supported by Taylors Falls
residents cannot be determined.
It appears that the City of Taylors Falls has the ability to incur
additional debt. As indicated in Table 3-17, the City does not exceed the
recommended upper limits of commonly used debt measures.
USER FEES
Residents of Taylors Falls are assessed user fees for wastewater col-
lection and treatment. Rates are established by the City Council and are
revised periodically. The present rate schedule is presented in Appendix E,
Exhibit E-3. Given that the average person generates 65 gallons of waste-
water per day, and assuming that there are three persons per family, the
average family in Taylors Falls currently pays $79 per year for sewer ser-
vice (Appendix E, Exhibit E-4).
3.2.4. Land Use
3.2.4.1. Land Use Trends
EXISTING LAND USE
The project area is largely rural in character with over 90% of the
total land area undeveloped (Table 3-18). Approximately 34% of the project
3-55
-------
area is devoted to agriculture. This includes land used for row crops, hay
fields, pine plantations, and pasturelands (Figure 3-6). A discussion of
prime agricultural land is provided in Section 3.1.3.
Natural areas are found in over 28% of the project area. Much of this
land is covered with pine, oak-pine, oak-elm, or elm-cottonwood forests.
Scattered areas of low-lying marshland and oldfield also are found, pri-
marily northwest of Taylors Falls.
Table 3-18. Existing land use in the St. Croix Falls - Taylors Falls area.
Land Use Acreage % of Project Area
Agriculture 2,558 33.9
Natural 2,145 28.4
Recreation and parkland 702 9.3
Incorporated lands
Vacant 1,798
Developed 352
7,555
Recreation areas and parklands account for another 9% of the land in
the project area. These lands are incorporated into the Minnesota Inter-
state State Park, south of Taylors Falls, and the Wisconsin Interstate State
Park, south of St. Croix Falls.
The remaining 28% of the project area is located within the incorporate
limits of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls. However, nearly 24% of this
land is classified as vacant with no identifiable use. Thus, only 52 acres
(4.6% of the project area) have been developed for residential, commercial,
industrial, or public use.
In the developed portions of both communities, residential areas com-
prise the largest percentage of urbanized land (Table 3-19). Residential
areas are located in the northern and western portions of Taylors Falls and
3-56
-------
INCORPORATED AREA
AGRICULTURAL LAND
te$M NATURAL LAND
[; ;"J
Figure 3-6. Existing land uses in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, project area, 1979.
3-57
-------
in the northern and eastern portions of St. Groix Falls (Figures 3-7 and
3-8). Most of the housing units are single-family homes. However, there
are small areas of multi-family housing in both communities.
Commercial users are concentrated along the main streets of Taylors
Falls and St. Croix Falls in the central business district (CBD). Commer-
cial land uses account for approximately 10% of the total area in both
communities.
Table 3-19. Existing developed land uses in Taylors Falls, Minnesota, and
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin.
Taylors Falls
Developed
Land Use
Residential
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
Public and institutional
Acreage
% Developed
Land
St. Croix Falls
% Developed
Acreage Land
84
1
11
3
9
108
77.8
0.9
10.2
2.8
8.3
100.0
146
6
22
26
44
244
60.0
2.4
9.0
10.6
18.0
100.0
Approximately 3% of the developed land in Taylors Falls is used for
industrial purposes. All industrial land is located at the northern edge of
town near the St. Croix River. St. Croix Falls has developed an industrial
park at the southeastern edge of the City. The industrial park currently
includes 26 acres (10.6% of the developed land), 18 of which were recently
added to the original 8 acres to allow sufficient room for expansion (By
telephone, Mr. Ron Mahaffey, St. Croix Falls Public Works Director, to
WAPORA, Inc., 10 June 1980).
3-58
-------
[ 7] RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
[':'V:| RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY
|tf;l|[j| COMMERCIAL
MM PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
11 INDUSTRIAL
E%j£j INTERSTATE PARK
[ J VACANT LAND
iiw
Figure 3-7. Existing land uses in Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1979.
3-59
-------
f 2.1 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
[ j RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY
jjjIfiB'j COMMERCIAL
HH PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
|^| INDUSTRIAL
ggj] INTERSTATE PARK
| | VACANT LAND
Figure 3-8. Existing land uses In St. Crolx Falls, Wisconsin, 1979.
3-60
-------
Public and institutional uses occupy 18% of the developed land in St.
Croix Falls and approximately 8% of the developed land in Taylors Falls.
The land is used to house a variety of public facilities including schools,
a hospital, a public power company, and water supply facilities.
FUTURE LAND USE
Population growth will be a major factor governing the future growth of
the proposed service area and, thus, the future land use patterns. Develop-
ment controls and transportation networks also will have an impact on re-
gional land use.
Much of the future development will be in the residential sector.
Single-family housing will continue to comprise the largest percentage of
urbanized land in the proposed service area. Between 1977 and 2000, Taylors
Falls will need 39 additional single-family units and 5 multi-family homes
to accommodate the expected 20% population growth (Table 3-20). The 21
acres of land required for this new housing will increase the total area
devoted to residential uses by 23%.
Projections for St. Croix Falls indicate that the community's popula-
tion will increase 38% between 1977 and 2000. As a result, there will be a
need for approximately 181 single-family units and 18 multi-family units
(Table 3-21). Approximately 97 acres of land will be needed for these new
housing units. Thus, land used by the residential sector will increase by
approximately 63% over existing residential areas. However, the projected
levels of growth for both communities will occur only if the problems which
limited new housing construction during the 1970s are resolved (Section
3.2.4.3.).
Currently, there are no plans for major industrial or commercial ex-
pansion in the proposed service area. If this trend continues, the commer-
cial and industrial sectors will remain small and will not require large
amounts of land. Public and institutional lands are not expected to in-
crease significantly during the planning period.
3-61
-------
o
o
o
CM
ON
O
CO
0)
d
d
cfl
&*
CO
VJ
o
cfl
H
CU
60
cd
CU
VJ
o
cd
CO
co
VJ
8
o
cu
i~>
o
VJ
O-i
o
CM
I
rQ
Cfl
H
CU
60
cfl
0
^C
1
cfl
O
iH
H
"d
«!
-J
4-1
O
H
3
CO
l 1
H
d
rH
Cfl
d
O
*iH
jj_)
iH
^
3
rH
O
H
CO
0)
CU M
^ CJ
[ i
cfl ao
rH C
3 -H
a co
3 3
W
i rH
rH "g
S 4H
1 0
cu >-»
rH rH
f\f\ IrH
OJJ T^
c e
T-l Cfl
CO 14H
1 >!
H rH
rH 'g
3 Cfl
1
0) >N
rH rH
»*ft _ i
ou n
H cfl
C/3 *4J
Cfl
£3
O
H
4J
cfl
rH
CH
O
CU
H
cfl
0)
O CO ^O
ON ON ON ON ON O O
1 r-4 < r-l l t CM H
CO
cd
4-1
M
^
ft
j_^
O
^
CO
o
VJ
CU
0,
CO
c
o
CO
u
0)
a
oo
ON
CN
>.
^
CU
60
Cfl
O
O
H
*~^
cfl
rH
Cu
a
0)
r£j
M
60
C
H
H
£>
H
13
K>
^>
13
T,
cfl
j 1
rl
i
cd
C/J
- ]
M
c
3
CM
. rH
CM Cfl
£!
CO O
rl
a ^
O ;H
4J T3
O cfl
CU
cn 1-1
cfl
O 4-*
0) O
W H
CO rD
r?
H
CO
J>«i
i-H
-H
S
14-1
iH
rH
3
e
£
CO
cu
^J
1
3
O
1 1
0)
o
rH
3
^
O
, 1
T3
C
cfl
rH
H
cd
MH
1
cu
rH
60
d
iH
10
0)
,0
TJ
i-H
3
i
en
4->
H
d
3
cfl
d
o
rl
4_)
H
13
cfl
IH
O
&-S
O
ON
4-1
Cfl
4-1
T3
0)
g
-J
CO
CO
Cfl
VJ
cu
1
CU
rH
o
"§
4-1
CO
0)
VJ
cfl
01
d
to
£
o
4-1
13
O)
a
3
O
VJ
0)
VJ
cd
CO
0)
cd
g3
H
4J
CO
W
!5"
^.
ON
i 1
d
0
rl
4-1
Cfl
VJ
O
Vj
o
u
,c
0
cfl
CU
CO
0)
cu
4-1
cfl
CO
w
rH
Cfl
CU
PA
^
*^
r~
ON
^ ]
d
o
4-)
cfl
O
VJ
o
o
s
M
cfl
01
co
0)
fc
01
4-*
cfl
*-*
to
w
rH
Cfl
(1)
^
CO
,__)
§
CU
H
CO
13
d
cfl
CO
4J
0)
0)
VJ
4-1
en
60
d
H
3
i 1
O
tH
0)
VJ
o
cfl
CO
CO
o
VJ
60
.
0)
ex
CO
4-1
H
d
3
CM
C
o
13
0)
CO
cfl
M
O
-3-
p*^
ON
d
o
H
4-1
Cfl
VJ
O
&
O
o
VJ
cfl
Ol
CO
pi
0)
cfl
4-1
pz3
rH
cfl
0)
pvj
^ '
Q)
VJ
O
Cfl
CO
CO
O
Vj
60
VJ
CU
a.
co
4J
H
d
3
CO
CO
d
0
*"U
CJ
CO
ctf
PQ
*o
3-62
-------
o
o
o
CM
O
r*"»
f--*.
a\
i i
-
H
CO
o
o
CO
g
*
CO
rH
rH
tfl
PH
O
M
O
4-*
co
c
-H
CJ
5P
cu
j-i
o
CO
rH
tfl
iH
4-J
£
0)
3
CO
cu
M
2
0
cU
o1
}_4
QJ
CM
1
co
CU
X)
ca
H
0)
00
to
cu
M
rH
cfl
c
o
rl
4_1
H
T3
3
^
CO
4-1
O
H
^o
co
4-1
rl
e
°
rH
CO
C
o
H
4-1
T-l
T)
Tj
^
i-H
tC
4->
O
H
co
0)
CU M
t* c.)
1 i
fl3 W
1^ c3
3 -H
6 OS
;3 S
O O
£u
TJ
1 >.
iH rH
M *H
rH 0
3 cd
CJ
rH rH
60 -H
rl CO
00 14H
1 r^l
H rH
3-i1
3 tfl
* "-1
1
Q) >~,
rH rH
exO-H
cj B
rl tfl
C/3 MH
O
rl
4_)
CO
a
o
P-i
M
tO
CU
>
O \o oo in m m
fM CM rH CM * 00
*-O vO 00 ^^ CM ""^
rH rH rH CM CM CM
vo CM CM in m o
I «
1 O rH i t rH rH \O
O o in m in in
1 O 00 ON O CM o
1 1 rH i-H CM CM ON
O O 0 O O O
1
I CM -* d- OO
rH
vO ro rH CO *^" O
r^ -^* ^c oo CM r*^
in VO 1^* OO O rH
rH ^H rH rH CM fxj
CO
,f
r-- o m o m o to
r^ oo oo ON ON o 4->
ON ON ON C7N ON O O
rH rH r-l rH rH CM H
CO 00
JO (3
S -H
CO
. i **
HJ
. ts
_J >r^
o §
X! ,rt
OJ *j
co "-1
3 +j
o d
* i n"
SK'S
^ 4V |
rl (3
CO CO
c c cu
O CU r-l
CO T3 O
Q) > "§
cu o
rH 4->
m co
ON CU CO
XI rJ
CM CO
13 CU
>>rH (3
10 P Q)
QJ vi
00 vo *^
r< D^
S o o
2 r-l 4->
x<
^J
- C CU
g tfl -o
H ^
tj rH* 0
IO ,j «.
3 cO CU
Cu<*-l M
a; «
rH CO
CU txO CU
Xj C 4J
co S
00 iH
C CU 4J
rl XI Cfl
rl T3
> rH
H 3
Tj O '-N
IS ^"
r*N ^"
J3 CO CTs
4-> 1
0) d C
43 3 O
trt ^
_j i-H 4-*
3 tfl C8
JH O O
S£B<
0 -H 0
... T3 U
" "2
g "S
'1 J Lj
3 O tfl
rH CU
rH S~? CO
CM to o CU
g ON PiJ
CO 0
rj +J CU
C ^ tfl 4J
O 'rl ^ tfl
'4-1 T3 ^ 05
CJ tfl »rj ClJ
CU CU
C/3 rH S rH
tfl 3 tfl
CU 4-1 CO CU
CU O CO Oj
en H tfl ^
CO XI
^
r**
ON
1-1
£4
o
rl
4J
tfl
O
Cu
n
o
o
g
rtl
CO
cu
P5
cu
4-1
tfl
^
CO
w
r-l
Cfl
m
TJ
Prf
^^*
Cfl
K>*
rH
Cfl
CU
T3
H
CO
rrl
0
CO
CO
4-1
CU
cu
M
4-)
CO
rift
(3
^
3
o
iH
cu
rJ
CJ
tfl
CO
CO
o
60
M
CU
CU
CO
H
C
3
CM
C
o
*rj
0)
CO
pq
0
?
ON
i
C3
O
H
4->
CO
v>
o
ex
M
O
CJ
S
M
tO
CU
CO
cu
erf
cu
cfl
4->
CO
w
rH
tfl
CU
<^/
CU
t-l
o
CO
CO
CO
0
60
(-1
cu
cu
co
4->
H
C
3
en
ro
C
o
Tj
CU
0)
tfl
pq
T3
3-63
-------
3.2.4.2. Development Controls
Development control of the study area is under the jurisdiction of
Chisago County, Taylors Falls, Polk County, and St. Croix Falls. Chisago
County, Minnesota, has a comprehensive development plan, a zoning ordinance,
a floodplain zoning ordinance, and building codes. The comprehensive de-
velopment plan includes land use policies, land use trends, and environ-
mentally sensitive areas.
Polk County, Wisconsin, has a comprehensive land use ordinance, a
shoreland protection zoning ordinance, a floodplain zoning ordinance, and
building codes. In Wisconsin, zoning regulations must be adopted by the
individual townships and incorporated areas; townships are not under the
jurisdiction of the county without adoption of the county regulations.
Presently none of the project area in Wisconsin is under county jurisdiction
for zoning.
Both St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls have development codes. St.
Croix Falls has zoning, housing, building, plumbing, electrical, and fire
prevention codes. Taylors Falls has building codes; codes for mobile homes
and parks; camping, picnic, recreational, transient parking facility, and
subdivision regulations; and on-lot sewage disposal system regulations.
3.2.4.3. Housing Characteristics
Dwellings in the project area may be characterized by size, age, struc-
tural condition, and value. Dwelling sizes in the proposed project service
area generally are very similar to County and State averages. One exception
is the high proportion of large houses (seven or more rooms) in Taylors
Falls (WAPORA 1979).
Dwellings within the project area generally are quite old. Approxi-
mately 63.3% of the dwellings in 1970 were built before 1940. The propor-
tion of pre-1940 dwellings in St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls exceeded
Wisconsin and Minnesota State averages. Only 6.3% of the dwellings in the
3-64
-------
proposed service areas in 1970 had been built within the previous five
years. Little additional housing construction has occurred since 1970. A
variety of factors may be responsible for the limited amount of residential
construction in the proposed service areas. These include:
Higher costs for land
Limited availability of suitable building sites
Lack of streets, sewers, and other necessary infrastructure.
Much of the residential construction that has occurred is located in
Polk County, Wisconsin. More than three times as many housing permits have
been issued in Polk County than have been issued for Chisago County, Minne-
sota (Table 3-22). However, this new housing appears to be recration-
related, and residency generally is seasonal. Approximately 70% of the
buildings have been constructed along the shorelines of small lakes in Polk
County (By interview, Mr. Cliff Bryons, Polk County Zoning Administration,
with WAPORA, Inc., 8 March 1979).
Housing values within the proposed service areas generally are somewhat
lower than Statewide average housing values for Wisconsin and Minnesota.
This reflects the rural nature of the area. Almost all of the dwellings in
the study area have complete plumbing facilities including a flush toilet
and hot and cold running water.
3.2.4.4. Transportation
From the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, highway access to the study area
includes State Route 61 and 35 to State Route 8 and State Route 95 to State
Route 8. Traffic loads on Route 95 and Route 61 have increased substanti-
ally at the Washington County-Chisago County line (Table 3-23). Both Route
95 and Route 61 have relatively low traffic volumes relative to Route 8 and
Route 35.
3-65
-------
Table 3-22. Housing starts in Chisago County and Polk County (1970 to 1978
data by interview, Mr. Jerry Peterson, Chisago County Zoning
Administrator, with WAPORA, Inc., 7 March 1979; 1979 data from
US Census Bureau 1980).
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Total
Chisago County
133
139
116
103
98
139
186
230
142
1,286
Polk County
260
283
449
485
623
513
630
250
336
152
3,981
Table 3-23. Traffic volumes between Chisago County and Washington County
Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Transportation 1977).
Year
1972
1974
1977
Percent
1972 to
Interstate 95a
1,260
1,360
1,565
increase
1977 24%
State
Highway 8a
6,300
6,685
6,750
7%
State
Highway 61a
1,900
2,450
2,950
55%
State
Highway 35a
10,860
10,965
12,430
14%
a
Number of cars passing stationary points.
3-66
-------
The tncrease in traffic volume on- Route 61 may have been caused by the
opening of a large shopping mall in Forest Lake, Minnesota. There was a
relatively small increase in traffic volume on State Route 8 from Washington
County to Chisago County. However, traffic loads on Route 8 and Route 35
were relatively high in 1972.
3.2.4.5. Recreation
All the recreation activity centers around the St. Croix River and the
two State Parks adjacent to it. The River provides a variety of water-
related activities, while each park offers camping and day-use areas.
Attendance at the Minnesota Interstate State Park averages about 99% of
capacity from 1 May through 25 October. The family campground normally has
about 17,665 visitors each season while the group campground has 2,924
visitors each season. The annual number of recreational visitors has re-
mained stable over the past 10 years because of the limited space of only 46
campsites. However, the campground has been modernized to provide facili-
ties for recreational vehicles and campers (By interview, Mr. Duane Ellert-
son, Minnesota Interstate State Park, with WAPORA, Inc., 8 March 1979).
The State of Minnesota recently purchased 42 acres and plans to acquire
an additional 58 acres. Plans include the construction of a new entrance on
the eastern side of the park and additional hiking trails. The campgrounds
will not be expanded however (By interview, Mr. Duane Ellertson, Minnesota
Interstate State Park, with WAPORA, Inc., 8 March 1979).
Over 414,000 people visited the Wisconsin Interstate Park in 1978
(Table 3-24). The park has approximately 90 camping units and approximately
30 acres of day-use area. Plans have been proposed to vacate the part of
Route 5 that is on the eastern boundary of the Park and to establish a new
entryway with a visitor center on the northeastern edge of the Park (By
interview, Manager, Wisconsin Interstate State Park, with WAPORA, Inc.,
3-67
-------
Table 3-24. Recreational visitation in the Wisconsin Interstate State Park
(By letter, Mr. B. McGaver, Park Superintendent, to WAPORA
Inc., 11 January 1979).
1976
Recreational visitors 364,155
Family camper days 30,616
Outdoor group camper days 3,115
1977 1978
358,050 414,650 (16%)
25,688 30,327
3,140 2,501
8 March 1979). No further acquisition of land is anticipated. The St.
Croix River is a designated National Wild and Scenic Riverway upstream of
the project area and a designated National Scenic and Recreational River
downstream of the project area. The scenic riverway is discussed in Section
3.2.6.
3.2.5. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources
3.2.5.1. Archaeological Sites
An inventory of known prehistoric and historic cultural resources
within the project area was conducted by WAPORA. A search of the Wisconsin
Archaeological Codification Files of the State Historical Society of Wis-
consin, Historic Preservation Division, indicated a total of five known
archaeological sites in the Wisconsin portion of the project area. These
sites include an extensive mound complex, a prehistoric bison kill, two
Chippewa campsites, and a Chippewa-Sioux and Fox battle site. The battle
site has potential for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
(By letter, Mr. Albert P. Seidenkranz, US National Park Service, St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway, to WAPORA, Inc., 18 January 1979).
Existing information on cultural resources is not sufficient to de-
scribe existing conditions in the Wisconsin portion of the project area,
3-68
-------
according to the representative of the State Historical Society of Wiscon-
sin. Mr. Richard Dexter, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Historic
Preservation Division, has indicated a need for detailed cultural resource
inventories in the Wisconsin section of the project area, concentrating on
archaeological surveys (By interview, Mr. Richard Dexter, State Historical
Society of Wisconsin, with WAPORA, Inc., 14 December 1978; by letter Mr.
Richard Dexter, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, with WAPORA, Inc., 23
October 1979).
There are no known sites of archaeological significance within the
Minnesota section of the project area (By letter, Mr. Russel W. Fridley,
SHPO, to Mr. Gene Wojcik, USEPA, 6 September 1978; Ms. Susan Queripel,
Minnesota Historical Society, to WAPORA, Inc., 30 January 1979; and Mr.
Russel W. Fridley, SHPO, to WAPORA, Inc., 26 October 1979). An archae-
ological survey of several 40-acre parcels of land in the vicinity of the
proposed land treatment sites in or near the project area failed to locate
any archaeological sites (By letter, Mr. Russel W. Fridley, SHPO, to WAPORA,
Inc., 26 October 1979).
The Minnesota Interstate State Park and the Wisconsin Interstate State
Park are potential sources of undocumented prehistoric and historic archae-
ological sites. According to Pond (1937):
Interstate Park and the shores of the St. Croix were important
Indian country before the coming of the White man. The river was
a recognized thoroughfare for travel between the Great Lakes and
the Mississippi but the steep rapids (Falls) made a portage
necessary at what is now St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls. This
region seems to have been about the boundary between the terri-
tories of the Sioux and Chippewa tribes and the scene of impor-
tant battles between these tribes in historic times.
The prehistoric and historic archaeological resources of the project area
are discussed in detail in WAPORA (1979).
3.2.5.2. Historical Sites and Cultural Resources
The Angel's Hill Historic District, the Taylors Falls Public Library,
and the Munch-Roos House all are listed on the National Register of Historic
3-69
-------
Places. The Angel's Hill Historic District consists of 34 structures,
primarily houses, and are predominantly a New England variation of Greek
Revival. A 1979 survey in Chisago County for standing structures of his-
torical significance did not identify any other significant structures in
the vicinity of the project area.
The Wisconsin Inventory of Historic Places lists seven sites in the
Wisconsin portion of the project area, all located in St. Croix Falls.
Information from the Polk County Historical Society concerning other his-
torical or architectural sites in the Wisconsin section of the project area
indicated 18 additional sites of local significance in the St. Croix Falls
area (By letter, Mr. Frank J. Werner, Polk County Historical Society, to
WAPORA, Inc., 23 April 1979). The historic,cultural, and architectural
resources of the project area are discussed in detail in WAPORA (1979).
3.2.6. National Wild and Scenic Riverway
The St. Croix River has been designated a National Wild and Scenic
Riverway in the reaches upstream of the study area and a National Scenic and
Recreational Riverway downstream of the study area.
The National Park Service (NPS; 1975a) has described the St. Croix
River from north of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, to the mouth as follows:
Below the former (Nevers) dam site, the wild character reappers
for a few miles, but shortly the river slows and widens into the
St. Croix Falls Flowage. This 10-mile long lake partially fills a
half-mile-wide valley. The lake is impounded by a 60-foot hydro-
electric dam at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin/Taylors Falls, Minne-
sota.
At Taylors Falls the river flows through a narrow, metamorphic
rock gorge, the Dalles, which has been protected by inclusion in
the Interstate parks of Minnesota and Wisconsin. From below the
Dalles to the Soo Railroad swing bridge a mile below the Chisago
County line, the river flows through a heavily wooded, steep-sided
valley with occasional sandstone and limestone bluffs... Islands,
sloughs and backwater areas make the river scene ideal for the
river user to explore.
[Once past the study area]... the character of the Lower St. Croix
Rvier begins to change. The river becomes wider and gradually be-
gins to lose its intimate island and slough environment. From
3-70
-------
Stillwater [Minnesota], the largest city on the river, to its
mouth at Prescott [Wisconsin], the river is relatively deep and
wide....
Approximately 185,000 people use the recreational and surface water facili-
ties on the Lower St. Croix Riverway each year.
Easements and property bordering the River in the reach from Taylors
Falls downstream to Stillwater was recently acquired by NFS (By telephone,
Mr. Jack Pattie, NPS, Land Acquisitions Officer, to WAPORA, Inc., 10 June
1980). The NPS also is planning a visitors center and canoe take-out along
the river, although the exact location is still undecided. The NPS head-
quarters for the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is located in St. Croix
Falls, just north of the dam site. There are no plans to acquire land in
the project area upstream of Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls. Most of
this land currently is owned by the Northern States Power Company.
3-71
-------
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The potential environmental consequences of the implementation of any
of the nine proposed wastewater treatment system alternatives are described
in the following sections. The "no-action" alternative (Section 2.4.1.) is
not considered because it is not a viable solution to the need to improve
the quality of the wastewater discharges at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and
Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
The effects of various aspects of the construction (Section 4.1.) and
operation (Section 4.2.) of the facilities proposed by the alternatives may
be beneficial or adverse, and may vary in duration and degree of signifi-
cance. Environmental effects are classified either as primary or secondary
impacts. Primary impacts are those effects that would be related directly
to construction and operation activities (i.e., the noise produced by con-
struction equipment). Secondary impacts (Section 4.4.) are indirect or
induced effects (i.e., stimulation of population growth because of the
availability of excess wastewater collection and treatment capacity). Many
of the potentially adverse effects may be reduced or eliminated by various
techniques (Section 4.5.).
4.1. Construction Impacts
The rehabilitation and/or construction of new independent wastewater
treatment facilities for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, or the construc-
tion of a regional wastewater treatment facility to serve both communities,
primarily will produce short-term environmental impacts. These impacts
would be localized in the area affected by construction, which depends on
the wastewater treatment alternative that is selected. The potential physi-
cal, biological, and socioeconomic impacts from the construction of each of
the nine alternatives are presented in comparative fashion in Table 4-1.
The effects are quantified where possible.
Clearing, grading, and construction activities at the proposed treat-
ment plant sites, excavation and backfilling of trenches for force main
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. Potential major primary impacts from the construction of new waste-
water treatment facilities at St. Croix Falls WI and Taylors Falls MN.
Environmental
Component
Air Quality
and Odors
Alternative 1
a) Nuisance fugitive dust would
be generated from rehabili-
tation and expansion of
existing WWTP and may be ob-
dents and commercial estab-
lishment a in St. Croix Falls
recreatlonists in the Wl
Interstate State Park, and
the adjacent Fish Hatchery.
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
. by 2 miles of force main
trenching and backfilling
from the WWTP site, along
site (see Fig. 2-1)
in NE k of Sec 29, St
Croix Falls Twp., for
land application site.
existing WWTP and construction
of new WWTP and may be objec-
commerical establishments in
Alternative 4
Topography,
Geology, and
Soils
tion equipment may be ob-
dents and commercial estab-
lishments in St Croix Falls,
recreationists in the Wl
denti along the 2 mile
a) Noise generated by ron-
the existing WWTP may be
in the downtown St. Croix
L residents and to coi
ial establishments in
State Park.
and construction activities
the existing WUTP site may I
and WI In
Park.
a) No significant Impacts
expected.
NL ',
ix Fal Is
bute to increased t
tty and sedlmentatlo
bid-
Same as Alt. 3a
Groundwater
Floodplains
and wetlands
Terrestrial Biota
a) No significant impacts
expected
a) No impact expected .
) Tenporery disturbance of
vegetation and wildlife
arc* adjacent to existing
WWTP during expansion of
facility.
a) Same as Alt. la .1) S.ime ds Alt. la
d) Same j.5 Alt Id. a) Flooding of tin St. Crulx
phase could result in inunda-
tion of set ling tanks being
being relea ed in the river
vegetation and wildlife in
WWTP during demolition and
-i) Samt as, Aic. la.
i) Same as Alt. 3a.
a) Same as Alt. 3a.
c) Loss ol approximately
30 acr.s of oldfield
struction of infil-
tration site, access
in the ML 4, of Sec. 29,
St. Croix Falls Twp.
4-2
-------
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
a)
b)
a)
be generated: t ive dust would be generated from
from demolition of exist- , tearing, grading, and excavating
ing WWTP 100 acres in NW k of Sec. 26,
main/discharge line trench- ponds and land application site.
ing and backfilling at WWTP
site and along County Road
82, Folsom, Walnut, and
Mulberry Streets, and Military
Road (see Fig. 2-1)
ing stations located along
2-1)
from clearing, grading, and
k of Sec. 26, Shafer Twp.,
for stabilization ponda.
Same as Alt. 3b, plus effects b) Same as Alt. 5b .
to residents along 2.5 miles
along County Road 82, Folsom,
Walnut, and Mulberry Streets
and Military Road (see Pig.
2-1).
sance fugitive dust would sance fugitive dust would be sance fugitive dust would be
trenching and backfilling NW \ of Sec. 26, Shafer Sec. 26,
along approximately 0,5 Twp., for stabilization stablliza
mile force main route ponds and land
ing station to St. Croix force main /and /or discharge force mai
Falls pumping station Falls pum
through the WI Interstate the HI In
State Park.
b) Same as Alt. Ib and Alt. 3b. b) Same as Alt. Ib and Alt. 5b. b) Same as Alb
g 280 acres in
Shafer Twp. , for
tion ponds and
application site
and backfilling
n/and/or discharge
St. Croix Falls
terstate State Park.
. Ib and Alt. 5b.
. la and Alt. "ia
to residents near the 2.5
miles of force main/discharge
line and 4 pumping station
locations and along County
Road 82, Folsom, Walnut, and
Mulberry Streets, and Mllitar-
Rodd.
plus effects from noise
a) Excavating and grading
40-acre stabilization
pond site in NW »s of
Sec. 26, Shafer Twp , wtiu
and soil regime. Dikes
around the pond would be
6 to 8 ft. above Around
a) Same as Alt. 5a
a) Same as Alt. 3a, plus
surface runoff from the
disturbed area on the
40-acre pond stabili-
zation site and turbid
waters pumped from
excavations and 2.5 miles
of force main trenching
could contribute to
Increased turbidity and
sedimentation in drainage-
a) No significant Impacts
expected.
a) Same as Alt. la and Alt
3a, plus surface runoff
and turbid waters pumped
from UWTP uxcavations and
force main trench through
the MI Interstate State
Park could contribute to
increased turbidity and
St. Croix River, Laublng
some short-term degrada-
tion In water qua!ity.
a) Same as Alt. 5a, except
site would be 90-acres.
a) Same as Al t. l.i
,1) Same as Alt, Sa
a) Same as. Alt. 5a
a)
b)
c)
Temporary disturbance of
vegetation and wildlife
along approximately 2.5
at it pumping stations.
Loss of approximately 40
acres of forest vegetation
or agricultural crops at
NW fc of Sec. 26, Shafer
Twp.
Permanent displacement of
wildlife from stabili-
zation pond site Re-
duction in number of
in number of individuals
i)i 'YdKf" species
a) Sane as Alt 5«. a) Same ae Alt. la, plus perma- a) Same as Alt. 5a and Alt. 7b a) Same as Alt. 5a and Alt. 7b.
life habitat at site of new
b) Same as Alt. 5b, plus b) Short-term disruption of b) Loss of 90 acres of forest b) Sane as Alt. 8b, plus addi-
additional vegetation loss vegetation and wildlife vegetation or agricultural tlonal vegetation loss on
irrigation equipment. How- mile of force main route site In NW k of Sec 26, irrigation equipment and
ever, crops can be cultivated from Taylors Falls WWTP Shafer Twp. access road(s). However,
on most of additional 70 acres site to St. Croix Falls crops can be cultivated on
alternative.
c) Same as Alt. 5c . c) Same as Alt. 5c
4-3
-------
Table 4-1. (Continued)
Environment a 1
Component
Aquatic Biota
Alternative 1
a) Short-term degradation ii
water quality near WWTP
a result of
and seditoentatioi
fa<
ng expansion of
lity would resul
in raacroinvertebrate am
plankton communities
Fish would temporarily
Alternative 2
a) Same' as Alt la
Alternative 3
a) Short-term degradation in
water quality near WWTP site
activities would result in
invertebrate and plankton
communities. Fish would
Alternative 4
a) Same as Alt. 3a.
Endangered and a) No signifl
Threatened Species expected.
a) Same as Alt. la.
a) Same as Alt la.
a) Same as Alt. la.
Demographics
of construction labor would
be needed during the period
of local employment will
depend on the hiring prac-
b) Little, if any, additional
(secondary) short-term
employment in other economii
sectors would be generated
in the St. Croix Falls-
fa) Same as Alt Ib.
a) Same as Alt. la, except 13
man-years of labor needed.
b) Same as Alt Ib.
c) Same as Alt Ic
nan-years of labor needed.
b) Same as Alt. Ib.
c) Same as Alt. tc
City of St. Croix Falls
ictioi
able).
$624,000 from WI Grant
5^49,600 from City.
(See Section 4.3) This
social cost in terms of
alternative public ser-
vices obtainable through
share would be:
$708,600 from State
$472,400 from City.
H| the City of Taylors Falls
$741,000 from USEPA Grant
$148,200 from MN Grant
$ 98,800 from City.
shares would be:
$738,800 from USEPA
$147,800 from State
$ 98,500 from City.
a) The existing WWTP site
would be utilized; no
change in existing land
a) 30 acres of agricultural
and wooded land in HE * of
Sec. 29, St. Crolx Falls Tvp.,
would be converted to a land
application site.
a) Same as Alt. la.
b) Force main roi
existing WWTP
Louisiana Stre
land appllcatl
ite, along
4-4
-------
Alternative 5
a) Same as Alt. 3a.
Alternative 6
a) Sane as Alt. 3a.
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
a) Sane as Al,t la and Alt. 3a,
and because of erosion and
sedimentation along approx-
imately 0.5 mile force main
route between St. Crolx
Falls WWTP site and Taylors
Falls WWTP site through the
a) Same as Alt. la.
in-years of labor
a) Same as Alt la, except 28
man-years of labor needed
a) Same as Alt, la, except 34
man-years of labor needed
a) Same as Alt la, except 43
man-years of labor needed
b) Same as Alt. jb.
b) Same as Alt. Ib.
b) Same as Alt. Ib.
>ame as Alt Ic.
Same as Alt. Ja, excep
shares would be.
5873,000 from USEPA
$174,600 from State
$116,400 from City.
. $1,346.000
i $ 142,000
. $ 9b,000
:om USEPA
om State
a) 40 acre* of agricultural
and wooded land In the
NW k of Sec. 26, Shaf.r
Twp., would be converted
to a Btabllitatlon pond
aite.
b)
Force main from existing
WWTP site and along County
Road 82, Folsom, Walnut, am
Mulberry Streets, and Mlllt;
iond
site would be a public
utility right-of-way
(See Fig. 2-1).
c) Land at existing WWTP site
would remain In public use
110 acres of agricultural .
wooded land In the NW ( of
Sec. 26, Shafer Twp., would
be converted to a stabilization
pond end lend application eite.
b) Same as Alt. 5b.
c) Same as Alt. 5c.
based on contribution to
$938,200 from WI
$625,400 from City.
For Taylors Falls, share
would be
$421.100 from USEPA
S 82,400 from MN
* S 54,900 from City.
itlon land would be converted for
lite. the expansion of the existing
WWTP site would be used for
a pumping station.
for St. Croix F,.lls,
SI, 181,000 from UI
$ 787,400 from City
would be
$518,700 from USEPA
$103,700 from MN
$ 69,200 from City.
and wooded land in the NW
would be converted to a
stabilization pond alte.
for St Croix
$1,621,000
$1,080,700
would be-
$806,900 fr
$ 85,400 fr
$ 57,000 fr
wooded land
pond and lai
site.
Falls, share
from WI
from City
om USEPA
otn MN
om City
In Sec. 26 of
id application
c) Right-of-way through the
WI Interstate State Park
would be needed for a
Falls WWTP.
c) Right-of-way throu
WI Interstate Stat
would be needed fo
the St. Croix Falls
pumping station to the
Taylors Falls pumping
c) Same as Alt.
d) Land for 3 additional pump-
ing stations along force
ain would be converted to
public use (exact location
detailed engine*
approximate loci
Fig. 2-1)-
rinj
d) Same as Alt. 3d.
4-5
-------
Table 4-1. (Concluded)
Environmental
Component
Alternative 1
ally may be disrupted or
inconvenienced by construe.-
tlon equipment and delivery
trucks in St. Croix mils
near WWTP site.
Alternative 2
a) Same as Alt. la
Alternative 3
a) Vehicular traffic occ
ment and delivery trucks near
WWTP sice and Rt 8 bridge
Alternative 4
may need to travel through
the WI Interstate State
Park to the existing WWTP
b) Vehicular traffic
a) Same as Alt la
a) Same as Alt
a) Same as Alt. la
expected. ton,
main
appli
of Se
Twp,
has b
posei
arena
nd Louisian
oute or at
atlon site
. 29, St C
owever no f
en complete
le that alg
ological si
Str
he 1
n th
oix
eld
. I
Ific
es c
et force
nd
NE H
'alls
urvey
is
nt
uld be
a) Same as Alt. la.
enei
Lomrcitted irretrievably
rehabilitation of the
Kxistinfc WWTP.
c) Same as Alt. h , ;il is U>r
force main route
tied trretrlevdbly
he demolition of the
Inn WWTP and the
a) 5985,000 of public capital
would be committed irretrie'
dbly.
b) Same as Alt. Ib
c) Same as. Alt. 3c.
tint; WWTP site would
d) bamt' as. Alt 3d.
4-6
-------
Alternative S
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
a)
a)
a)
6)
a)
b)
O
d)
Sane u Alt. 3a, plus vehic-
ular traffic would be dis-
rupted by trenching of the
force nain along County
Road 82, Folsom, Walnut, and
Mulberry Streets, and Military
Road (See Fig. 2-1).
Some aa Alt. la.
S*ae aa Alt. U.
No archaeological.
sites are known to exist
along the County Road 62,
Poison. Walnut, and Mulberry
Streets, and Military Road
force main route or at the
stabilization pond site in
the NW K of Sec. 26, ShaCer
Twp.; however no field
survey has been completed.
It i» possible that signif-
icant archaeological sites
could be damaged or un-
covered along the 2.5 mile
force main route or at Che
AO-acre stabilization pond
Bite.
would be committed Irretriev-
ably.
Sane as Alt. Ib
energy, resources would be
of 4 pumping stations, 2.5
miles of force main, and «i
system.
Same as Alt. 3d, plus 2.5-
mlle force main right-of-way
and 40 acres of land fur a
stabilization pond treatment
system would be committed at
least for the useful life of
the project (50 years).
by construction equipment
traveling through the Wl
trenching the force main
State Park
entering and exiting the
Taylors Falls WWTP site
near the Rt. 8 bridge
on the Rt. 8 bridge
(possibly closing one
lane of traffic for
several weeks between
the hours of 8 am to
5 pm) during construc-
tion of the force main
across the bridge.
Inconvenienced and dis-
th rough the wT Interstate
State Park
a) Save as Alt 1« a) Because the existing
St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls WWTP
sites already have
been developed, no
significant Impacts
are expected at these
locations.
the 110-ac e stabilization main route from the
pond and 1 nd application Taylors Falls WWTV site
site In the NW \ of Sec. 26, to the St. Croix K.ills
Shafer Twp. WWlP nttt- through Lin.
MI Interstate State Park,
however no field survey
has been < iimpletud It
could be damaged or un-
tovered along the force
main rout i- through the
f.irk
ably .ibly
b) Sam* da Alt. Ib h) Sanu* as Alt Ih
livnullll.'n .» tli. WWII' .ni.1
construction of thii pumping
station at Tavl.irs halls,
.ind for const rut t Ion of
force main from the Taylors
Kail1; pump Ing scat ion to tin
St Croix Falls WUTP
d) Same as Alt. 3c, plus 2.5-mlle d) The ex is [inn WWTPs .it Si
force main right-of-way and 110 Lruix MIK ,.mJ Ijvjor-
pond and land treatment system nf-w.iv ho twin tin > WWTPs
would be coramitttd at least for u.n,],| h. mmmliti-d (or it
the useful life <,t [he project U'.isi tin us.liil 1 1 f . »l
a) Same as Alt. 7a, plus a) Same as Alt. 8a.
main along County Road
82 Folsom, Walnut, and
Mulberry Streets and
Military Road (See
Fig. 2-1).
a) Same as Alt 7a. a) Same as Alt. 7a
a) Same aa Alt. 7a a) Sane as Alt. 7a.
sites could be damaged or sites could be damaged or
uncovered In the 90-acre uncovered In the 280-acre
stabilization pond site stabilization pond and land
located in the KU *c of application site located in
Set. 26, Shafer Twp Sec. 26 of Shafer Twp
t) Samt> as Alt 7b
j) $.2,660, 000 of public capital a) SI, 651,000 of public capital
ablv. ably.
b) Samo aa Alt Ib h) Same as Alt Ib.
committed f rrc trivv.ihly
for the demolition of the
l.tyli.rs ^ il s anil St Lr.iix
Ih. -> piimpi S -t.il lont. 2 5
mllci, of I,. LC m,iin, in.) d
st.ibil I/. it 1 n p.nul trc.it-
m, nt ^y si fin
miles nf f,.rce wain right- »! f»rte main rl«hr-of-way and
fur a stabilization pond stabilization pond and land
4-7
-------
emplacement, and construction activities at pumping stations would create a
variety of effects:
Fugitive dust and emissions of hydrocarbons and fumes from
construction equipment
Noise from excavating and other construction equipment
Destruction of vegetation
Disturbance of wildlife
Erosion that potentially would increase sediment loads in the
St. Croix River
Disrupt local traffic flows
Impair aesthetics
Potentially destroy or uncover important archaeological or
historical sites.
The rehabilitation and/or construction of new treatment facilities would
irretrievably commit various quantities of public capital, energy resources,
land, labor, and materials. A number of short-term construction jobs would
be created.
Impacts of significant public concern, as evidenced by specific Execu-
tive Orders concerning their consideration and/or those impacts that require
additional explanation, are described further in the following sections.
The impacts of system construction and operation on local government finance
are described in Section 4.3.
4.1.1. Air Quality and Odors
The air quality of the project area would not be affected significantly
by any of the proposed alternatives. Short-term, adverse impacts could
result from the generation of fugitive dust during the demolition of exist-
ing facilities and the construction of new facilities. Fugitive dusts
include respirable particles less than 30 micrometers (0.0012 inches) in
diameter, which might remain in suspension and be transported by wind more
than 10 miles (20 kilometers) from their source. Particles larger than 30
micrometers tend to settle out within 20 to 30 feet of their source (USEPA
4-8
-------
1976). The very small particles can be inhaled by people and wildlife and
deposited deep in the most sensitive areas of the pulmonary region. Thus
increased fugitive dusts from construction activities can contribute to
acute and chronic respiratory problems.
In addition to particle size, the chemical composition 'of the dust
particles and the prevailing wind speeds determine how fugitive dust emis-
sions will affect air quality (Cowherd, Bohn, and Cuscino, 1979). Wind
speeds must be significant to carry the dust away from its source. Other
factors affecting fugitive dust emissions include source activity, moisture
content of the disturbed surface material, humidity, temperature, and time
of day.
4.1.2. Floodplains and Wetlands
No significant impacts to floodplains or wetlands are expected during
construction of any of the nine alternatives. The southeast area of the
stabilization pond site in Section 26 of Shafer Township (Alternatives 5, 6,
8, and 9) is wet during most of the year. There is adequate area at the
site, however, so that the stabilization ponds can be located on higher
ground to the west of this area. Provisions to prevent runoff or leakage of
wastewater or drainage water to this wetland area also would be required.
Construction of a new conventional WWTP for Taylors Falls (Alternatives
3 and 4) at the site of the existing WWTP would be above the 100-year flood-
plain elevation of the St. Croix River. However, during construction of a
new plant under either of these alternatives, interim wastewater treatment
for Taylors Falls would include the use of the existing settling tanks,
which are located within the River's floodplain. Any significant flooding
during the construction phase would result in the inundation of the settling
tanks. This could cause short-term degradation of river water quality;
however, because of extremely high flow associated with flood conditions,
the partially treated wastewater would be diluted. Bacterial contamination
would be the only significant concern in such case.
4-9
-------
4.1.3. Prime Agricultural Land
The majority of the land in Section 26 of Shafer Township, including
the proposed wastewater treatment site, is defined as prime agricultural
land according to the classification system established by the US Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS). Only a small portion
of the land in Section 29 of St. CroLx Falls Township, virtually none within
the proposed wastewater treatment site, is defined as prime agricultural
land. The irreversible loss of agricultural lands to other land uses is a
growing national concern. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued
a memorandum (CEQ 1976) to all Federal agencies requesting that efforts
should be made to insure that prime and unique farmlands (as designated by
USDA-SCS) are not irreversibly converted to other uses unless other national
interests override the importance or benefits from their protection.
The USEPA has a policy of not allowing the construction of a treatment
plant or the placement of interceptor sewers funded through the Construction
Grants Program in prime agricultural lands unless it is necessary to elimi-
nate existing point discharges and accommodate flows from existing habita-
tion that violate the requirements of the Clean Water Act (USEPA 1979). The
policy of USEPA is to protect prime agricultural land from being adversely
affected by primary and secondary impacts. It is considered to be a signi-
ficant impact if 40 or more acres of prime agricultural land are diverted
from production.
Alternatives 5 and 6 may adversely impact as much as 40 acres of prime
agricultural land. Regional Alternatives 8 and 9 would each impact up to 90
acres of agricultural land. These lands would be taken out of crop produc-
tion for use as stabilization and holding ponds, control facilities, buffer
zones, and access roads. The actual amount of acres of prime agricultural
land taken out of crop production for these treatment alternatives is de-
pendent on the actual location and placement of the treatment sites and
interceptor route within Section 26 of Shafer Township.
4-10
-------
4.1.4. Endangered and Threatened Species
No significant impacts to. species designated as endangered or
threatened are expected during construction of any of the alternatives. The
majority of the species designated as endangered or threatened by the State
of Wisconsin, or given priority status by the State of Minnesota, are typic-
ally present in extensive tracts of forests or wetland habitats. Therefore,
these species are not likely to be present in the primarily agricultural and
old field lands proposed for use in the stabilization pond and land appli-
cation alternatives, or in the developed areas where the existing treatment
plants are located. No species classified as endangered or threatened were
noted in the vicinity of the sites involved in the various wastewater system
alternatives by an Ecologist during a site visit in October 1979 (WAPORA
1979). Sufficient habitat is available in the vicinity of the project area
for relocation of any endangered or threatened animals in the remote case
that any may be present and displaced by implementation of any of the alter-
natives.
4.1.5. Cultural Resources
Construction of the facilities proposed for the various alternatives in
the Taylors Falls portion of the project area (Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
and 9) will not impact any identified archaeological sites. An archaeologi-
cal survey of the project area and its environs indicated that no archae-
ological sites were located in the vicinity. Therefore, no further archae-
ological investigations are necessary in the Taylors Falls portion of the
project area (By letter, Mr. Russell W. Fridley, Office of the Minnesota
State Historic Preservation Officer, to WAPORA, Inc., 26 October 1979).
The proposed force main/discharge route for Alternatives 5, 6, 8, and 9
would be located near the northern border of the Angel's Hill Historic
District in Taylors Falls. If one of these alternatives is selected, care
should be taken that the proposed route is outside the boundaries of the
historic district to minimize impacts to both the architectural components
4-11
-------
of the district and to any associated archaeological remains within the
district.
The St. Croix Falls portion of the project area contains several ar-
chaeological sites and a number of documented historic structures. However,
no systematic archaeological or architectural survey work has been conducted
in those portions of the project area that might be directly affected by
construction of Alternatives 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9. The presence of known
archaeological and architectural sites in the vicinity indicates that the
potential for finding unidentified sites in and near the proposed construc-
tion areas is high. Because there is the potential that unidentified ar-
chaeological and architectural resources may be impacted by the proposed
construction activities, a thorough archaeological and architectural inves-
tigation should be completed during the "Step 2" design phase, prior to the
construction of any of these alternatives.
4.2. Operation Impacts
The operation of rehabilitated and/or new independent wastewater treat-
ment facilities for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, or the operation of a
regional wastewater treatment facility to serve both communities, will
affect the local environment. The long-term significance of such effects,
however, is expected to be minimal.
The potential physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts from the
operation of each of the nine alternatives are presented in comparative
fashion in Table 4-2 (pages 4-14 through 4-19). The effects are quantified
where possible. Impacts of significant public concern and/or those impacts
that require a more detailed explanation are addressed in the following
sections. To avoid the redundancy involved in addressing similar alterna-
tives, the nine alternatives have been grouped for discussion purposes.
Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7 involve conventional treatment plants and are
discussed in Section 4.2.1. Alternatives 5 and 8 involve stabilization pond
treatment systems and are discussed in Section 4.2.2. Alternative 2, 6, and
9 propose land disposal of the treated effluent and are discussed in Section
4-12
-------
4.2.3. The impacts of the alternatives on local government finance and the
users of the system are described in Section 4.3.
4.2.1. Conventional Treatment Plant Alternatives
The operation of expanded and upgraded conventional secondary treatment
facilities, utilizing a rotating biological contactor (RBC) secondary treat-
ment process at St. Croix Falls and a compact activated sludge (CAS) or RBC
secondary treatment process at Taylors Falls (as proposed in Alternatives 1,
3, and 4), each would create similar operational impacts. The regional
conventional treatment plant alternatives (Alternative 7) also would gener-
ate operational impacts similar to those associated with Alternatives 1, 3,
and 4, though of greater magnitude. Additional impacts would be associated
with the conveyance system needed to transport raw wastewater from Taylors
Falls to the regional treatment facility located on the St. Croix Falls side
of the River proposed in Alternative 7. The operational impacts associated
with these treatment facilities, discharge of treated wastewater, sludge
disposal, and wastewater conveyance system are described in the following
subsections.
4.2.1.1. Wastewater Treatment Facilities
AIR QUALITY AND ODORS
The potential emissions from the operation of conventional secondary
wastewater treatment plants include aerosols, hazardous gases, and odors.
If not properly controlled, the emissions could pose a public health risk or
be a nuisance.
Aerosols are defined as solid or liquid particles, ranging in size from
0.01 to 50 micrometers that are suspended in the air. These particles are
produced at wastewater treatment facilities during various treatment pro-
cesses. Some of the constituents of aerosols could be pathogenic and could
cause respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. Concentrations of bac-
teria or viruses in aerosols, however, are generally insignificant (Hickey
and Reist 1975). The vast majority of the microorganisms in aerosols are
4-13
-------
Table 4-2. Potential major primary impacts from the operation of new waatewater
treatment facilities at St. Croix Falls WI and Taylors Falls MN.
Environmental
Component
Air Quality
and Odors
Alternative 1
a) Operation of rehabilitated
WWTP would release low-
level malodorua gases
Sludge pumping and haul-
Ing would produce some
odors.
b) Odors generated by the
release of methane gas
from the existing WWTP
Alternative 2
a) Same as Alt. la
Alternative 3
a) Sane as Alt. la.
b) Same as Alt Ib
Alternative 4
a) Same as Alt. la.
would be noticeable when Che
pd<_ts cxprt Ud
d) Same as Alt. J.i
Topography,
Geology, and
Soils
d) 55 tons ,.f
f out I illicit
tic ipated No si^n if i-
i) Same as Alt. la, excep
Ik tons of sludge per
have
turb
by 0
0,01
loe
any impact on
Idlty, or aquat
i The dtschdr
nl BOD concentr
017 mfc/1 and S
7 mn/1 The ef
scharKln« to R
e to the River may ottur hintd Th
t ion md jor ma I f unc t Ion c.of\i en t rat
by ,iiid SS hy
luenL ifflumt w
il h«i. terlal
Uver
ji«
im hy
00f>
11 b«
c pot
would not
0 005 ms/l
mn/1 The
dlsinfet tfd
ential
Sane as hit. la.
d) No inpatt experted
4-14
-------
Alternative 5
Ponds likely would experi-
ence a spring "turnover"
resulting in anaerobic
conditions and septic
sewage odors that may
persist as long as a
month.
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
a) Operation of the Regional
WWTP would release only
low-level malodorous gases
and vapors because most of
the treatment processes
would be covered. Sludge
pumping and hauling would
produce some odors.
Alternative 8
a) Same as Alt. 5a.
Alternative 9
a) Same as Alt. 5a.
b) Odors at pumping stations
normally would be inter-
mittent, except during
periods of low flow when
they could be more prob-
lematic.
b) Odors generated by the
release of methane gas
from the existing St.
Croix Falls WWTP would
be eliminated.
b) Same as Alt. Sb.
b) Same as Alt. 5b.
the existing
WWTP site.
a) Noise levt>
St Croix
sites, no
Is would remain a) Same as Alt. 7a. a) Same as Alt, 7a.
s Falls and
Falls WUTP
significant
b) Noise levels would increase
at the 3 pumping stations
located along the force
sections of County Road 82
and West St, Walnut and
Chestnut St., and Military
Road and the center line of
Sec. 26 of Shafer Twp. (See
Fig. 2-1).
c) Noise levels
the pond
from the natural I
ground conditions
c) Noise levels at the pond
and land application site
conditions.
i) Same a* Alt. 5c
a) No significant Impacts
expected.
a) Build-up of organic matter,
water constituents would
occur No significant harm-
ful impacts are expected
a) Same as Ale. la, excep
80 CQHS of <,lud(st' per
a) No ilgniflcan
are expected.
a) Same as Alt. ba.
a) Effluent would be discharged
Co River ceMiannually. Moni-
toring of effluent prior to
discharge and aonitoring re-
would ninialz* impacts on
St. Croix River. Growth of
algae in pond and release of
algae-lod*n pond effluent
could be a potential prob-
lem, but can be mitigated.
The effluent would be dig-
infei
if n.
potentia
hazard.
b) Short-ten
raw sewage dis-
and River may occur during
a power failure or major
pumping station malfunction
a) Underdralnage collected at land
treatment site would be relatively
free of contaminants. Discharge
to River would occur on a con-
a) The wastewai
ponds would
to minimize seepage to thi
groundwater. Monitoring
wells would be used to
BOD and SS discharged to
St. Croix River would not
have any impact on DO,
turbidity, or aquatic
biota. The discharge
would increase back-
ground BOD concentration
by 0.022 mg/1 and SS by
0 023 mg/1. The effluenl
would be disinfected
Same as Alt 5a, except area
of ponds Is approximately 3
times larger, so effect woult
be larger.
tl
iddltional pond and i
as are approximate
les larger, so effe
Id he larger
for potable water wells.
4-15
-------
Table 4-2. (Continued)
Environmental
Component
Floodplains and
Wetlands
Biota
Threatened
Species
Demographics
User Coat* and
Municipal
Indebtedntti
/
Land Use
Recreation
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
a) No significant impacts a) Same as Alt la a) Same as Alt. la. a) Same as Alt- la
expected.
expected during normal
Al I
expected.
Al 1
available, it is unl ikely
population growth or eco-
(See Sec 3.2)
tenance costs A typical 1 27, of medUn family income maintenance costs. A rent costs. 0.92 of
nancial impact.
capi al projects, not significant! limit the
additional major capital
projects
a) No significant impacts a) Same as Alt l
-------
Alternative 5
a) Same as Alt. la
Alternative 6
a) Same as Alt. la
Alternative 7
a) Same as Alt. la.
Alternative 8
a) Same as Alt la.
Alternative 9
a) Same as Alt. la
a) Same as Alt. 5a
a) No significant Impacts expected
however, periodic monitoring
should be performed to determln.
a) Same as Alt. la
tloi
substance
or crops
a) No significant impacts
expected during normal
a) Sane as Alt. 6a.
a) Same as Alt. la
a) Same as Alt.
a) Same as Alt la
a) Same as Alt. la
a) Same as Alt. la.
a) Same as Alt la.
a) Same as Alt. la,
a) Same as Alt.
a) Same as Alt. la
a) Same as Alt la.
production
a) Same as Alt. 6a, except
90 acres of prime agri-
cultural land could be
removed from crop
production.
a) Same as Alt. la.
a) Same as Alt la.
a) Same as Alt. la.
a) S.ime as Alt. la.
a) Same as Alt la
of the pumping
a) Same as Alt 5a
existing WWTP site could
cause untreated waste
to be discharged to the
St. Croix River, resulting
degradation and adversely
impacting water recreation
the discharge.
a) Sam,.' as Alt la
a) Same as Alt. 5a.
a) Same as Alt 5a
would result in untreated
wastr being dlsihary>^d to
the St Croix River,
quality degradation and
adversely Impacting water
recreation activities
downstream of the dis-
arge
4-17
b) Same as AH. 7b.
-------
Tabl« 4-2. (Concluded)
Environmental
Coa|Km«tit Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
* 178,000 kwh/yr of 67,000 kw
electricity lectricit
12,100 Lbs/yr of ther reso
chlorine luffing U
eluding labor, 500 gal n estimdt
an estimated 531,000 in (1980 dol L
gn flow) WUTP (at design flow) would WtfTP (at design flow) would
/yr of * 180,000 kwh/yr of 5,000 kwh/yr of
el ctricity lectricity
ces, in- ,500 Ibs/yr of 4,400 Ibs/yr of
r, other ch orine hlorine
$40,000 in in labor, 00 gal of abor, 500 gal. of fuel,
s) es imated S 6,000 in mated S27.000 in O&M
O&H costs per year O&M costs p r year costs per year
(1980 dollars) (1980 dolla a). (1980 dollars).
P bl 1 h 11 f dl ) Ifl i ) S Al 1 AL L
rehabilitated WWTP could bacteria or virus are
4-18
-------
Alternative 5 Alternative 6
a) Operation of the 0.14 mgd a) Operation of the 0 14 mgd
(at design flow) would con- (at design flow) would
sume: consume:
» 155,000 kwh/yr of 240,000 kwh/yr of
electricity electric! y
other resources, includ- * other res urcefl, including
materials, and an esti- and an es imated $21,000
mated $18,000 in O&M in O&M co ts per year
costs per year (1980 dol ars ) .
(1980 dollars).
a) Aerosol from surface area of a) Same as Alt. 5a
would not present significant
fowl; however, little is k-iown
Alternative 7
a) Operation of the 0 54 mgd
would consume8
240,000 kwh/yr of
electricity
* 16,400 Ibs/yr of
hlorine
nd an estimated $62,000
n O&M rusts per vear
1980 dol lars)
a) Same at. Alt. la
Alternative 8
a) Operation of the 0.54 mgd
(at design flow) would
300,000 kwh/yr of
electricity
mated 531,000 in O&M
costs per year
(1980 dollars).
s) Same as Alt 5a.
Alternative 9
a) Operation of the 0.54 mgd
(at design flow) would
360,000 kwh/yr of
other resources, includ-
fuel, materials, and an
estimated $23,000 in O&M
costs per year
(1980 dollars).
a) Same as Alt. 5a .
waterfowl; the potential
health problem is expected
to be insignificant
4-19
-------
destroyed by solar radiation, dessication, and other environmental phe-
nomena. There are no records of disease outbreaks resulting from pathogens
present in aerosols. Therefore, no adverse impacts are expected from aerosol
emissions for any of the alternatives.
Discharges of hazardous gases could have adverse affects on public
health and the environment. Explosive, toxic, noxious, lachrymose (causing
tears), and asphyxiating gases can be produced at wastewater treatment
facilities. These gases include chlorine, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sul-
fide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur, and phosphorus. The know-
ledge of the possibility that such gases can escape from the facilities or
into work areas in dangerous or nuisance concentrations might affect the
operation of the plant and the adjacent land uses. Gaseous emissions,
however, can be controlled by proper design, operation, and maintenance
procedures.
Odor is a property of a substance that affects the sense of smell.
Organic material that contains sulfur or nitrogen may be partially oxidized
anaerobically and result in the emission of byproducts that may be malodor-
i
ous. Common emissions, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, are often
referred to as sewer gases and have odors of rotten eggs and concentrated
urine, respectively. Some organic acids, aldehydes, mercaptans, skatoles,
indoles, and amines also may be odorous, either individually or in combina-
tion with other compounds. Sources of wastewater treatment related odors
include:
Fresh, septic, or incompletely treated wastewater
Screenings, grit, and skimmings containing septic or putres-
cible matter
Oil, grease, fats, and soaps from industry, homes, and
surface runoff
Gaseous emissions from treatment processes, manholes, wet
wells, pumping stations, leaking containers, turbulent flow
areas, and outfall areas
Chlorinated water containing phenols
Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge.
4-20
-------
No odor problems associated with any of the alternatives are expected to
occur if the wastewater treatment facilities and collection systems are
designed, operated, and maintained properly.
NOISE
Noise during the operation of the wastewater treatment facilities would
be generated predominantly by pumps and aeration equipment. The alterna-
tives proposing the use of a compact activated sludge system would generate
more noise than other alternatives, such as the RBC system.
POWER FAILURE AND EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS
As discussed in Section 2.6., the proposed wastewater treatment systems
would be equipped with either an alternate power source or auxiliary power
generator. Therefore, no adverse environmental consequences should occur
because of an extended electrical power failure. Impacts related to the
malfunction of some or any of the treatment units would be minimal if the
facilities are designed (i.e., duplicate units), operated, and maintained
properly.
4.2.1.2. Discharge of Treated Wastewater
The effluent from the St. Croix Falls, Taylors Falls, and regional
conventional treatment plant alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7)
would be discharged on a continuous basis to the St. Croix River through the
existing outfall sewers. The treatment systems proposed by these alterna-
tives would provide secondary treatment and reduce the loadings of BOD,
suspended solids, and other pollutants to the St. Croix River.
BOD AND SUSPENDED SOLID LOADS
Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls (Alterna-
tive 1) to a design flow of 400,000 gpd would contribute an average of 100
Ibs of BOD per day and 100 Ibs of suspended solids per day to the St. Croix
4-21
-------
River when operating at design flow. A new WWTP at Taylors Falls (Alterna-
tives 3 and 4) operating at the design flow of 140,000 gpd would contribute
30 Ibs of BOD and 35 Ibs of suspended solids per day. These loadings repre-
sent a reduction of 18% and 42%, respectively, relative to the BOD loads
discharged to the River by the existing St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
plants. These reductions would be obtained through upgraded treatment
processes, even considering that at design flow, significantly more BOD will
be entering the treatment plant than at present. The suspended solids loads
at design flow would increase by 40% and 66%, respectively, from the ex-
panded/upgraded facilities at Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls, because of
the increase in wastewater flows relative to the present condition and the
proposed effluent limitation for suspended solids.
The combined total BOD load of 130 Ibs per day from expanded/upgraded
facilities at both communities (Alternatives 1 and 3 or 4) or from one
regional facility at St. Croix Falls (Alternative 7), would increase the BOD
concentration of the St. Croix River by approximately 0.022 mg/1 at the
7-day, 10-year low flow condition (1,100 cfs a "worst case" condition).
The insignificant increase in BOD concentration in the River would not have
any discernible impact on the dissolved oxygen levels in the St. Croix
River. The combined community design flow suspended solids load of 135 Ibs
per day also would create an insignificant affect, increasing the suspended
solids concentration of the St. Croix River by about 0.023 mg/1 at the
7-day, 10-year low flow condition.
The treatment facilities proposed in Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7 all
would provide for disinfection of the treated wastewater prior to discharge
to the River. The use of a reliable disinfection system and controls would
eliminate the potential bacterial health hazard associated with wastewater
discharge. The discharge of treated effluent from expanded/upgraded treat-
ment facilities directly to the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway therefore
would not adversely affect recreational opportunities downstream.
4.2.1.3. Sludge Disposal
The conventional WWTPs proposed in Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7 each
would generate sludgethe product of the removal of solids from the waste-
4-22
-------
water. The sludge is proposed to be digested in aerobic or anaerobic sludge
digesters. The digested liquid sludge would be pumped directly from the
digester into a tank truck and hauled to disposal sites.
At present, sludge from the existing St. Croix Falls WWTP is hauled by
tank truck and spread on land at two 80-acre fields located north and north-
east of St. Croix Falls in Section 19 and Section 16 of St. Croix Falls
Township. The fields, owned by Mr. Duane Chinander and Mr. Art Bishop, are
used on an alternating basis throughout the year, depending on weather
conditions and cropping. Grass and grain crops are grown at these sites,
which are used for cattle feed. No adverse environmental impacts from this
practice have been reported. It is proposed that this sludge disposal
practice will continue in the future at these two sites.
At present, dewatered sludge from the existing Taylors Falls treatment
plant is hauled to the Blood Farm, located north of Taylors Falls in Section
14 of Shafer Township, for ultimate disposal. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose
to continue this practice; i.e., digested liquid sludge would be pumped
directly into a tank truck and hauled to the Blood Farm for final disposal.
/
Truck traffic to and from the proposed WWTPs would be associated with
liquid sludge hauling to the sludge sites for diposal. Other infrequent
truck traffic to the treatment facilities can be expected for delivery of
supplies and chemicals such as chlorine. Automobile traffic also can be
expected, but is not considered to have as great an impact as the potential
truck traffic.
The primary traffic will arise from trucking sludge from the proposed
treatment facilities to the sludge disposal sites. The sludge hauling
trucks would probably be small, single-axle, gasoline- or diesel-powered
trucks. Sludge would not necessarily be hauled weekly; the sludge digesters
at the treatment facilities would be designed for several weeks of storage.
Sludge hauling would have minimal impacts on traffic and residential
areas. Aside from noise, emissions, and hazard associated with any trucking
4-23
-------
operation, occasional ephemeral odors from the truck may be noticeable.
Good "housekeeping" at the sludge transfer location would prevent sludge
deposits on the outside of the truck tank and should minimize potential odor
problems.
4.2.1.4. Conveyance System
The regional, conventional WWTP proposed in Alternative 7 includes a
pumping station located at the existing Taylors Falls WWTP site and a force
main to convey the raw wastewater from Taylors Falls to the regional plant
at St. Croix Falls. A force main generally is trouble-free and requires
little maintenance. The pipe rarely leaks because the fluid pressure is
low. Because force mains are buried at a depth just below the frost line,
the main is subject to breakage from unrelated excavations.
To convey the raw wastewater across the St. Croix River, the force main
would be attached to the Route 8 highway bridge. Exposure to temperature
extremes and bridge flexure would subject the force main to stresses that
could cause leaks or joint failures. A direct discharge of untreated sewage
to the St. Croix River would result in short-term degradation of water
quality in the River.
The most significant environmental impacts associated with the convey-
ance line involve the proposed pumping station, to be located at the exist-
ing Taylors Falls WWTP site. During normal operation, the pumping station,
would emit noises and odors. When the pumps are operating a low "hum" would
be heard nearby. The noise would be produced on an intermittent basis.
Certain measures are available for reducing or masking the odors and should
be included as part of the routine operation of the system. During normal
operation of the pumping station, the bar screen must be inspected and
cleaned regularly. Large solids must be removed and disposed in an environ-
mentally acceptable manner.
The environmental consequences of a power outage or a pumping station
malfunction would be a raw sewage spill to the St. Croix River, resulting in
4-24
-------
short-term degradation of water quality. Provisions should be included for
providing alternate power by either obtaining backup service from another
independent distribution system or by installing an auxiliary gasoline- or
diesel-powered emergency generator.
4.2.2. Stabilization Pond Treatment System Alternatives
The operation of the conveyance facilities, the treatment and storage
ponds, and the outfall facilities proposed in Alternatives 5 and 8 would
create environmental effects different from the conventional treatment plant
alternatives. These effects are described in the following subsections,
4.2.2.1. Treatment and Storage Ponds
The location of the treatment and storage ponds proposed in Alterna-
tives 5 and 8 is presented in Section 2.4. The stabilization pond system
would be operated so that the water would be discharged semiannually, during
high river flows, in April and November.
AIR QUALITY AND ODORS
The proposed ponds would have a potential to create odor problems,
particularly in the spring. The ponds would likely experience a "turnover"
in the spring because of the water temperature differential, which would
result in resuspension of solids. The increase in organic loading due to
resuspension would result in anaerobic conditions and septic sewage odors
that may persist for as long as a month.
POWER FAILURE AND EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS
The treatment and storage ponds operate by natural bio-chemical pro-
cesses without any power inputs; thus, the treatment system is immune to
power outages. Also, the treatment system easily can accommodate "slugs" of
unusual wastes without affecting the quality of the discharge. The only
noise associated with the pond system would be from the use of maintenance
equipment.
4-25
-------
GROUNDWATER
The proposed stabilization ponds are not expected to impact the quality
of groundwater. The ponds must be lined with either clay or a plastic mem-
brane in a manner that meets MPCA design criteria (1975) for controlling
leakage. Monitoring wells would be installed to monitor for pond leakage.
4.2.2.2. Discharge of Treated Wastewater
The effluent from the stabilization ponds would be discharged to the
St. Croix River on a semiannual basis. The quality of the pond water would
be tested prior to discharge and approval for discharge would be obtained
from MPCA. The success of this method depends on the selection of the
optimum time for release of the pond effluent, considering the flow in the
St. Croix River and the pond water quality. The MPCA design criteria speci-
fy that the plans for the ponds include a future provision for algae removal
from the effluent. Algae could cause taste and odor problems, increase
turbidity, and contribute additional organic loads to the River.
The MPCA (1975) also requires that facilities for disinfection of the
effluent be installed. Most often, disinfection of stabilization pond
effluent is not required, but may become necessary if sampling of pond
effluents indicates high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
Because of the potential for seepage to groundwater, odors, and aero-
sols, MPCA guidelines state that a pond should be at least 0.25 miles from
the nearest dwelling or 0.5 miles from a city or cluster of residences.
There are no residences within this distance from the proposed pond loca-
tion.
4.2.2.3. Conveyance System
The conveyance systems for the wastewater stabilization pond alterna-
tives are described in Section 2.4.6. for the Taylors Falls stabilization
4-26
-------
pond system (Alternative 5), and in Section 2.4.9. for the regional stabili-
zation pond system (Alternative 8). In both alternatives, four pumping
stations along the force main route in Taylors Falls are proposed to convey
the wastewater the 2.5-mile distance. The four stations are needed to
overcome the 150 foot increase in elevation from the pumping station located
on the existing Taylors Falls WWTP site to the proposed stabilization pond
located in Section 26 of Shafer Township.
The force mains generally are trouble-free and require little mainte-
nance. Leakage is rare because the fluid pressure is low. Because the
force main would be buried at a depth just below the frost line, it may be
subject to accidental breakage from unrelated excavations.
NOISE
The four pumping stations during normal operation would emit a low-
level noise. When the pumps are operating a low "hum" would be heard nearby
and may be considered a nuisance.
AIR QUALITY AND ODORS
Odors at each pumping station normally would be intermittent except
during periods of low flow when odor might be more problematic. Because the
variation in flow between the wet weather and dry weather condition is so
large, the residence time of the sewage in the force main may exceed eight
hours and a considerable amount of hydrogen sulfide may be generated. The
odor would be released as the sewage is discharged into the wet well of the
next pumping station. Certain measures are available for reducing or mask-
ing odor problems, and provisions should be included in the operation plan
for the system.
During normal operation of the pumping stations, the bar screens must
be inspected and cleaned regularly. Large solids must be removed and dis-
posed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.
4-27
-------
POWER FAILURE AND EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS
The environmental consequences of a power outage or a pumping station
malfunction would be a raw sewage overflow from the pumping station at the
present treatment plant site or at another pumping station along the force
main route. The sewage would be discharged directly into the St. Croix
River or into a roadside ditch. Such a spill would cause either short-term
water quality degradation of the St. Croix River or odor, aesthetic, and
potential health hazard impacts in the residential area surrounding the
pumping station where the spill occurred. Spills from pumping station
malfunctions would be difficult to prevent. To guard against system failure
from a power outage, either another major electric distribution system tie
or an auxiliary generator would be necessary.
The regional stabilization pond alternative (Alternative 8) would
present an additional potential hazard. Attaching the force main from St.
Croix Falls to the Route 8 highway bridge over the St. Croix River could be
problematic. Exposure to temperature extremes and bridge flexure would
subject the force main to stresses that could cause leaks or joint failures.
A direct discharge of untreated sewage to the St. Croix River from a rupture
of the pipe would result in short-term degradation of water quality to the
River.
4.2.3. Land Application Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
The operation of the conveyance facilities, the treatment and/or stor-
age ponds, and the application systems proposed in Alternatives 2, 6, and 9
would create environmental effects somewhat different from the other alter-
natives. These effects are described in the following subsections. First,
the alternative proposing rapid infiltration east of St. Croix Falls (Alter-
native 2) will be discussed; followed by the land application alternatives
which incorporate slow-rate, spray irrigation at a site west of Taylors
Falls.
4-28
-------
4.2.3.1. Rapid Infiltration Land Application System for St. Croix Falls
As proposed in Alternative 2, the existing St. Croix Falls treatment
plant would be rehabilitated to produce an effluent with a BODc concentra-
tion of 50 mg/1. The effluent conveyance system would consist of a pumping
station at the treatment plant and a force main to the application site. A
pond capable of storing three-months of flow and the flooding basins would
be located at the effluent disposal site (the northwest 40 acres of the
northeast quarter section of Section 29 in St. Croix Falls Township). No
recovery of the renovated water (the effluent that has percolated through
the soil) was considered necessary by the Facilities Planners in the preli-
minary design of the system. The environmental impacts of the operation of
each of the major components are presented in the following subsections.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
The operational impacts of a rehabilitated wastewater treatment plant
for St. Croix Falls are discussed in Section 4.2.1. The upgraded treatment
plant under this alternative would meet the BODc treatment requirement of 50
mg/1, which is not as stringent as the 30 mg/1 standard required for a
direct river discharge. Thus, new or rehabilitated treatment units would be
designed with less detention time and possibly fewer components.
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
A pumping station would be located at the rehabilitated WWTP for con-
veying the partially treated effluent to the rapid infiltration site. The
pumping station would not handle raw sewage; thus, the environmental impact
of its operation would be minimal. A power failure or malfunction would
mean that the effluent would be discharged to the River for as long as
repairs would require. The quality of this discharge would be better than
the effluent currently discharged from the existing WWTP.
The force main would be approximately two miles long and would lift the
effluent to the top of the bluffs, an increase in elevation of about 350
4-29
-------
feet. The operational impact of the force main would be minimal. Because
the internal pressure in the pipe near the treatment plant would be great,
some potential for pipe bursts would exist.
STORAGE AND INFILTRATION BASINS
A storage basin would be used to retain the effluent for three months
during the winter when frozen ground and operational difficulties would
preclude use of the infiltration basins. The storage basin would be lined
to limit movement of the partially treated effluent to the groundwater.
When the pond ice thaws in the spring, some odors from the storage pond
would be noticeable. Also, if the storage pond is completely dewatered,
some odors may be generated from the organic material accumulated at the
bottom of the pond.
The infiltration basins should not produce odors during normal opera-
tion. No significant quantities of aerosols that may harbor bacteria or
virus are expected to be generated by operation of the basins. The surface
of the infiltration basins may, at some time in the future, need to be
removed and replaced by new material to restore the infiltration capability
of the basin. Disposal of this material would not create an environmental
problem, because toxic substances would not be expected to accumulate in the
material.
Evaluation of the level of treatment provided by long-term operation of
infiltration sites reveals that total organic carbon is almost completely
removed (USEPA 1980). Phosphorus also is almost completely removed, al-
though the phosphorus concentration in the groundwater may be higher than
background concentrations. The USEPA report (1980) also indicates that some
potential for movement of fecal coliforms into the groundwater exists at
such sites, though bacterial counts were not found to be significantly
elevated.
Nitrate potentially can reach excessive concentrations relative to
water quality standards for groundwater. With proper loading and resting
4-30
-------
cycles, good nitrate removals consistently have been obtained (USEPA 1980).
Because the chemical balance of the soils is altered by effluent applica-
tion, the potential for leaching of different elements from the soils ex-
ists. For example, elevated levels of iron have been found in the ground-
water below rapid infiltration sites. Elevated levels of iron in domestic
water supplies results in the staining of plumbing fixtures and unpleasant
tastes. Iron removal is costly for individual water supplies.
The disposition of the infiltrated effluent is difficult to predict.
The lack of site specific information concerning the geology of the area
makes difficult the evaluation of the underground flow away from the site.
In general, the flow path would be toward the west, down gradient toward the
St. Croix River. While springs and high water tables are not evident at the
present time, except in the terrace immediately above the River, the in-
creased flow could cause an undesirable rise in the local water table and
the potential for springs in the area to the west of the. site.
More information concerning this area must be gathered before a reason-
able prediction of effects can be made. A possible impact may be that
inadequate treatment would occur because the depth of unsaturated material
under the site would be too thin due to shallow bedrock.
4.2.3.2. Spray Irrigation Land Application System
The components that constitute the wastewater stabilization pond alter-
natives also are included in the spray irrigation alternatives (Alternatives
6 and 9). The conveyance system would be identical; the treatment and
storage ponds would be similar; and the outfall discharge line also would be
similar. These major components either are discussed in the following
subsections or reference is made to the sections where the specific impacts
are discussed.
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
The environmental impacts of the conveyance system are discussed in
Section 4.2.2.1. The most significant impacts are odors emanating from the
4-31
-------
pumping stations during normal operation and the potential for raw sewage
spills to occur during a power outage or pumping station malfunction.
TREATMENT AND STORAGE PONDS
The treatment portions of the land treatment alternatives would be
similar to other alternatives. The wastewater stabilization ponds would be
similar for both the intermittent discharge alternatives and the land
application alternatives (Alternatives 5, 6, 8, and 9). The operational
impacts of these treatment systems are discussed in Section 4.2.2.2.
The storage component of the land treatment alternatives is similar to
the wastewater stabilization pond alternatives in terms of storage volume,
but would have slightly different operating procedures. The capacity of the
storage systems would be sized for six months of flow. For the land treat-
ment alternatives, the effluent would begin to be irrigated in the late
spring and would continue to be irrigated throughout the summer, until late
autumn. No significant difference is expected between the environmental
effects of storage for the intermittent discharge (Alternatives 5 and 8)
relative to the land treatment alternatives.
SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
The long-term effects of irrigated wastewater on vegetation, soils, and
groundwater are not expected to result in adverse impacts. Generally, the
vegetation grown with effluent irrigation has tended to outproduce adjacent
cropland, because nutrients and water are in ample supply. The vegetation
usually contains a greater percentage of inorganic elements due to luxury
uptake, though the crop rarely is harmful to animals that ingest it. Waste-
water that derives from industrial sources can have elevated contents of
metals which can be toxic to animals when certain crops are grown. Neither
Taylors Falls nor St. Croix Falls have industrial sources of metals that are
considered harmful. The soils irrigated with wastewater generally experi-
ence a noticeable build-up of organic matter, phosphorus, and other waste-
water constituents (USEPA 1979).
4-32
-------
Organic constituents in the irrigated wastewater would be oxidized by
natural biological processes within the top few inches of soil, much like
crop residues decompose (USEPA and others 1977). At the Muskegon, Michigan,
spray irrigation site the BODc of renovated water from the underdrainage
system ranged from 1.2 mg/1 to 2.2 mg/1 (Demirjian 1975). Suspended solids
in the applied water also are removed by the soil through filtration.
Phosphorus would be present in the storage pond effluent in an inor-
ganic form, in addition to that contained in the organic life. Dissolved
inorganic phosphorus applied to soils would be absorbed by soil material
and/or precipitated through reactions with soluble iron, aluminum, or cal-
cium. The extent to which these processes remove phosphorus from the per-
colating water depends on its concentration, soil pH, temperature, time,
total loading, and the concentration of other wastewater constituents that
react directly with orthophosphate, or that affect soil pH and oxidation-
reduction reactions (USEPA and others 1977). Soils generally can accept and
hold large quantities of phosphorus before it begins to leach to the under-
drainage water or groundwater. A slow-rate irrigation site has been operat-
ing at Dickinson, North Dakota, for 17 years. At the present rate of ac-
cumulation of phosphorus in the soil, the soils have sufficient capacity for
another 100 years of irrigation (USEPA 1979). At the proposed rate of
irrigation at Taylors Falls, phosphorus levels in the underdrainage water
are expected to be elevated only slightly above natural, background levels.
Of greater concern than the phosphorus is the potential for pollution
of the groundwater by nitrate. Nitrate is highly soluble and readily
leaches to the groundwater if not utilized by the vegetation or denitrified.
The nitrate level deemed safe for human consumption is 10 mg N/l. Total
nitrogen levels in wastewater stabilization pond effluents usually are
within the 10 mg/1 to 15 mg/1 range. A forage crop may be expected to
uptake about 120 Ib/ac/hr of nitrogen, which would be all the nitrogen from
about 36 inches of effluent. For this reason, excessive levels of nitrates
in the groundwater would not be expected.
The irrigation site is proposed to be underdrained to remove the excess
irrigated water. This collected drainage water is proposed to be conveyed
4-33
-------
to the St. Crolx River by the same route that is proposed for the effluent
line for the wastewater stabilization pond alternatives. This drainage
water is expected to be rather clean and clear. It would contain almost no
organics and very little phosphorus. The quality of the drain tile water at
the Muskegon, Michigan, land treatment site serves as a good example of the
water quality potentially achievable (Table 4-3).
The depth to the existing water table would probably be lowered on part
of the proposed irrigation sites by the installation of underdrains. The
soil mapping sheets for the site indicate the presence of soils with a water
table of less than 60 inches below the surface. Lowering the water table
with underdrains in these soils would improve trafficability and soil tem-
peratures during the spring. Areas where the water table depth is more than
the proposed drain depth would experience a water table rise with irriga-
tion, though the rise is expected to be minimal.
4.3. Public Finance Impacts
4.3.1. User Costs
The cost for construction of any of the nine wastewater treatment
system alternatives will be shared among the Federal, State, and City gov-
ernments. The local construction costs and the entire cost of system opera-
tion and maintenance will be born entirely by the system users. As dis-
cussed in Section 1.1., Federal funding through the National Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program will provide funds to
cover 75% of the eligible planning, design, and construction costs of con-
ventional wastewater treatment facilities. "Innovative/alternative" com-
ponents of the proposed treatment systems, such as land treatment/disposal,
are eligible for 85% Federal funding. The State of Minnesota provides an
additional 15% of the funds for conventional systems, or an additional 9%
when the Federal share is 85%, through a State grant program. Thus, in the
case where the Federal and State shares totaled 90% of the cost, Taylors
Falls would be obligated to contribute only 10% of the eligible planning,
design, and construction costs (or 6% where the Federal and State shares
4-34
-------
Table 4-3. Quality of drain tile water at Muskegon, Michigan, land treat-
ment site (Dernirjian 1975).
Parameter
BOD
DO
Temp
pH
Sp . Cond .
TS
TVS
SS
COD
TOG
NV
N03/N02
4
4
ci-
Na
Ca
Mg
K
Fe
Zn
Mn
Color
Turbidity
Total Coli
Fecal Coli
Fecal Strep
Unit
mg/1
mg/1
°C
s.u.
umhos
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
s.u.
Jackson units
(#/100 ml)
(#/100 ml)
(#/100 ml)
Drain Tiles
2.2
2-9
7
600
5
0.40
2.8
0.05
140
50
40
70
25
2.8
4.0
0.06
0.15
20-150
0. 1-50
10-1,000
0-440
2-700
4-35
-------
total 94%), and 100% of the ineligible costs, such as interest on borrowed
capital during the construction period (prior to when the State and Federal
grant funds would be received).
Wisconsin does not have a program to provide supplemental funds for
communities receiving a Federal grant. Therefore, St. Croix Falls would be
obligated to contribute either 25% of the eligible planning, design, and
construction funds for a conventional wastewater treatment system, or 15% of
the eligible construction costs for an innovative/alternative system, in
addition to 100% of any ineligible costs.
As discussed in Section 1.1., the State of Wisconsin does have a grants
program that can provide 60% of the costs of design and construction of
wastewater facilities for municipalities that are not funded by the Federal
program. Under the Federal Construction Grants Program, the States develop
priority lists for the allocation of the limited funds. Presently, St.
Croix Falls holds priority number 93 for Federal grant funds. According to
WDNR (By telephone, Ms. Anna Rasmussen, Bureau of Water Grants, to WAPORA,
Inc., 7 November 1980), the anticipated amount of Federal funds available to
Wisconsin will only accommodate projects with a priority number of 20 or
less. Therefore, St. Croix Falls will have to rely on a 60% State grant and
finance the remaining 40% with local funds.
Taylors Falls holds priority 250 on the Minnesota Priority List.
According to MPCA (By telephone, Mr. Duane Anderson, Construction Grants
Section, to WAPORA, Inc., 7 November 1980), the City likely will have
several years wait before Federal funds will be available for construction
of new wastewater facilities at Taylors Falls. Because there is no indepen-
dent State fund in Minnesota as in Wisconsin, Taylors Falls either must wait
until Federal grant monies become available or fund the entire construction
cost locally.
ST. CROIX FALLS
The annual user costs for wastewater service for families in St. Croix
Falls have been estimated for each of the proposed alternatives (Table 4-4).
4-36
-------
C
o
0
CU
o
1-4
O
o
o
ti
(fl
1-1
4-1
I-I
CU
0)
4->
CO
M
O
in
0)
cu
1-1
CO
cu
H
II
cfl
cj
G.
S-J
O
en bO
O 3
a o
CU 4->
CO
3 rH
r-l CO
(0 eu
C 4J
(fl (0
T3 I-I
cu cu
4-> 4J
(0 i I
4-> I-I
cn o
W >4-l
s
H
CO
CO
o
o
r-l
CO
4J
o
H
1
4J
CO
>
C
o
H
4J
O
a;
r-l
i 1
O
O
P-,
T2
^
a
o
H
i)
O
CU
]
r-l
0
a
Td
C
cfl
^j
C
cu
B
cfl
cu
1-1
H
cfl
CU
o
P3
cfl
cu
4_>
c
H
IS
*"O
c
(0
c
0
H
4J
CO
CU
cx
0
cu
(J
-H
^
M
Q)
CO
4-1
»Q
CU
Q
Td
C!
CO
s
o
CO
o
r-l
Cfl
H
^
H
O
VJ
O
4->
CO
CO
I-I
^*1
CO
H
[>rf
H
0
v^
u
4-1
C/)
CO
o
r-l
^
Cfl
E-i
rtl
O
I-I
CJ>
4-1
W
rH
i f
frt
»v
to
co
r-l
r-l
Cfl
to
CO
1 I
r-l
CO
to
CO
r-l
r-l
(0
p4
r-l
r-l
Cfl
to
Q
CO
r-l
r-4
(0
to
CU
H
4-1
Cfl
a
}_l
CU
4_)
r-l
-i
a)
a,
0
Vi
0
14-1
CO
r-l
CU
bO
I-I
(0
J2
4_t
C
01
V-i
1-J
3
o
4-4
O
v^
o
.
c
(T)
m
CO
4-*
CtJ
£~
4-*
Cfi
(U
e
3
CO
CO
**^
(0
r-l
CU
^
H
^j
a
cu
cx
CO
cu
£_j
«
CO
1 1
1-1
(fl
to
CO
I-I
o
v^
cfl
H
*o
C!
(fl
*
CO
r-l
Tl
(0
to
a
cu
e
§
CO
cfl
en
H
oo
C
H
C
3
M-l
r-l
cfl
O
o
1 1
£*S
O
-------
Assuming that 40% of the construction cost will have to be derived locally,
the estimated annual user charge for a typical family of three would be $120
for the expansion and upgrading of the existing facility (Alternative 1),
and $138 for the rapid infiltration land treatment system (Alternative 2).
These costs cover the operation and maintenance of the treatment facility
and the debt service on the bonds used to finance the local share of con-
struction. A description of how the user charges were calculated is in-
cluded in Appendix E, Table E-l. To estimate the total user costs, the
existing costs for operation and maintenance of the collection system also
must be added. Current costs for wastewater collection for families of
three are approximately $45 per year (Table 4-4). The total user costs,
therefore, would be $165 for Alternative 1 and $183 for Alternative 2.
Compared to current user costs, this represents increases of 28% and
42% for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. Thus, regardless of which
non-regional alternative is considered, the construction of a new wastewater
facility at St. Croix Falls will significantly increase the local costs of
wastewater service.
If regional alternatives are considered, assuming 40% local financing,
user costs for St. Croix Falls residents would range from $158 for stabili-
zation ponds near Taylors Falls (Alternative 8) to $194 for a regional land
treatment system near Taylors Falls (Alternative 9; Table 4-4). Adding the
current costs of wastewater collection ($45), this represents increases in
user costs from 57% for Alternative 8 to 85% for Alternative 9. Thus, for
residents of St. Croix Falls, regional alternatives are more expensive than
non-regional alternatives.
The economic significance of the impact of the proposed wastewater
alternatives on users of the new system in St. Croix Falls can be evaluated
by relating estimated user charges to various established guidelines. Two
such guidelines for determining economic hardship are if (USEPA 1978c):
More than 2% of median family income will be spent on user
fees
4-38
-------
More than 1% of median family income will be spent on debt
service for the new system.
Because the user fee concept includes the annual 0 & M, the debt service,
and collection system maintenance costs, it is the better indicator of the
two.
Current USEPA guidance concerning funding of wastewater treatment
projects that require treatment more stringent than secondary (PRM #79-7;
USEPA 1979a) indicates that:
A project shall be considered high-cost when the total average annual
cost (debt service, operation and maintenance, and collection costs) to a
domestic user exceeds the following percentage of median household incomes:
1.5% when the median income is under $6,000
2.0% when the median income is $6,000 to $10,000
2.5% when the median income is over $10,000.
System users in Polk County (St. Croix Falls) have a median family
income of $18,625 (Section 3.2.1.1.). As indicated in Table 4-5, a typical
family of four is projected to spend between 1.1% and 1.7% of median family
income on wastewater user fees, depending on which alternative is imple-
mented (for this analysis, user fees for a typical family of four have been
calculated; these are presented in Appendix E; Table E-2). None of the
alternatives surpasses either suggested upper limit for user fees as a
percentage of median family income, indicating that none of the alternatives
would be a "high cost" system that would pose a significant financial burden
on system users. Debt service costs for each alternative, except Alterna-
tive 9, the regional land treatment system near Taylors Falls, are well
below the suggested 1% guideline comparing debt service to median family
income (Table 4-5). Thus, this parameter also indicates that none of the
proposed alternatives for St. Croix Falls would pose financial burdens on
residents of St. Croix Falls.
4-39
-------
Table 4-5. Comparison of user charges and debt service as a percentage of
median family income.
Parameter0
Total user
charges as percentage
of median family income
Total debt
service as percentage
of median family income
Recommended
Upper Limit
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
St. Croix Falls
Taylors Falls
Alternative 8
St. Croix Falls
Taylors Falls
Alternative 9
St. Croix Falls
Taylors Falls
2% - 2.5%
1.1%
1.2%
1.0%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
1.5%
0.6%
1.4%
0.4%
1.7%
0.4%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.7%
0.1%
0.9%
0.1%
1.2%
0.1%
on USEPA (1978) and USEPA (1979).
4-40
-------
TAYLORS FALLS
The annual user costs for wastewater service for families in Taylors
Falls are presented in Table 4-4. The user costs for alternatives for
Taylors Falls range from $4 I/year for Alternative 9, the regional land
treatment system near Taylors Falls, to $152/year for Alternative 3, the
independent, cotiventional CAS WWTP for Taylors Falls. These costs include
the operation and maintenance costs and the debt service costs for the new
treatment facility. When current estimated collection costs are added to
obtain total user costs, the estimated annual costs range from $73 for
Alternative 9 to $184 for Alternative 3.
Compared to current annual user costs of $79, these represent changes
in costs that range from a slight decrease to an increase of approximately
133%. Thus, the costs to Taylors Falls residents will vary significantly,
depending on which alternative is implemented. It should be noted that the
lowest costs for Taylors Falls residents would result from implementation of
a regional system. For example, implementation of Alternative 7, the re-
gional, conventional WWTP at St. Croix Falls (the most expensive regional
alternative), would increase current costs to Taylors Falls residents by
only 38%. By comparison, implementation of Alternative 5, stabilization
ponds near Taylors Falls (the least cost non-regional alternative), would
increase costs to Taylors Falls residents by 72%. Thus, the regional alter-
natives appear to be the most economical options for Taylors Falls resi-
dents.
Compared to the USEPA guidelines presented in Table 4-5, it appears
that none of the alternatives would pose an economic hardship to the resi-
dents of Taylors Falls. Families in Chisago County have a median income of
$23,625 (Section 3.2.1.1.). This is relatively high. Compared to costs for
St. Croix Falls, the costs for wastewater treatment are low. Thus, regard-
less of which alternative is implemented, residents of Taylors Falls should
not be unduly burdened by increased wastewater treatment user fees.
4-41
-------
4.3.2. Municipal Indebtedness
ST. CROIX FALLS
A new wastewater treatment facility will increase the amount of indeb-
tedness supported by residents of St. Croix Falls from $449,600 (20%) to
$1,080,700 (49%), depending on which alternative is implemented. Compared
to the criteria suggested by Moak and Hillhouse (1975; Section 3.2.3.),
implementation of any of the alternatives would exceed the recommended upper
limit for debt per capita for middle income families, but would remain
within the recommended upper limit for the ratio of debt service to revenues
(Table 4-6). Neither of the non-regional alternatives would exceed the
recommended upper limit for the ratio of debt to total valuation, although
implementation of any of the regional alternatives would exceed this guide-
line.
It thus appears that St. Croix Falls is approaching its capacity for
incurring additional debt. Because other capital projects probably will be
required before the debt for the wastewater treatment plant is retired, it
is important to minimize the new burden on the finances of the City. This
will help the City to retain bonding capacity for additional projects.
Alternatives 1 and 2, which are similar in cost, would have the least
impact on municipal finances and are therefore most desirable from an eco-
nomic viewpoint. The regional alternatives are significantly more expensive
and would pose a much greater burden on municipal finances.
TAYLORS FALLS
A new wastewater treatment facility will increase the amount of indeb-
tedness supported by residents of Taylors Falls from $54,900 (18%) to
$116,400 (38%), depending on which alternative is implemented. Despite this
increase, however, none of the guidelines suggested by Moak and Hillhouse
(1975) for evaluating the ability of a community to incur debt would be
exceeded (Table 4-6). It also appears that Taylors Falls has the ability to
4-42
-------
in o o> -* r--
t*
00
01
T 1
f-(
CO
fu
CO
u
o
r-H
X
H
T3
C
CO ^o
CO
i-H
c«
fa
.2
o m
M a) in
0 >
H
4-1
*J CO
C/3 3
jj a)
CO H-> -*
co <:
a)
H
i <
- 1
o
cO en
^J
c
01
g
4-1
01
4J
t-l
11
4-1
CO
s
*-J i-H
J5
3
5
O
3
c: +-»
_0
&0 0)
C 4-> P
H C
O CD IN
C u 0
<0 u
C 3 ,-1
.-) u 0)
M-i >
0)
^ KJ
+J
a 4-»
'H
<5 -r4
+j .j
ffl
O tU
05 a.
CO ^D
T)
t3
CO VJ
iH CO
OJ t3
> d
gsj g^$
CN
1
&-SO &-5 &-S
r^
m -H «> a*
1 C
11 d> ^i
CJ P 4-*
0 0 tf
d c -H u-4 u-t
*r-f i-( O G) O
3 T3 W) B^ »H ^5
O *H -H O cO in
JX?: -* > CN
a
co ci co ai en
i O >O 3 i
^CO -rJr- [U i H
co 3 O al T3
H cO -H ^. -i-l
o« >Oco aloco
WOO ,-JCJO -rJOO
-r-l ^-4 CO r-< > 1
O, t>> 4J .>, [j . >,
cO+jfO OH-*CO aiH-icO
UcyiH HU2H U5C«H
4J 4J 4-1
ai a) ai
Q 0 Q
43 01 rJ
604! CO
S4J lJ
ai
)-j m C
43 o a>
4J 60
CO
^3 t4 a>
Of 1} 4?
kl CO 4J
rH 3
P C
a) g o
u 0
u -o
co iw a
T3 1)
C! ~3 C.
o o) a)
43 4-1 *^
CJ
e i) 4:
O l I 4J
H 1 O
4J O 43
(0 O
ao fr,
H co a)
I-H a) s?
o c
ai a)
*-< > m
co ai 3
VH Vj CO
0) CJ
a) Zi 43
00 -H
3 en
HJ -a c
1) o
c! J-i 43
0 -H
rl W 0)
H-l 11 3
r-H 1)
11 CO >
>-i T5 ai
c o
"-1 -° 14-1
x a) °
CJ 11 ^
ai a) 2
4: u g-
<-" g
U-( 43
0 ^g
tJ 3
rH O CO
6 S en
,-H CO
4J -0 CO
~l co
3 43 Q
1! 0 *J
O CU
'fll
c c 2
CO CO 3
£ °-43
H 4J
M-) ai
^s-s
3 QJ (0
14_) l-l -fJ
-t-J )-J
(!) ^
^ U 4->
^ D -H
^J U
^ cu fli >^
S 3 TJ 3
4-J E
O ^ TJ O
^ 4J rt 0
"C
to y-< 4-»
3 TJ i M-4
3J 3J 'rf O
J-i 3 rn
CO CO W
CO , OJ
T) -H S 0
f-J S ^
^35 I
^ o . S
y -r)
. JJ QJ C3
x 5 "^
*-> . qj ^J
en d «
- 0) O 0)
^3 C
H ^ ' '"
S 2 § o
10 4J C
co *"*
*
5
3
a.
g
CJ
01
^J
$
CD
CO
11
4T
H-l
Q
£>
(C
c1
r^
&
01
i_<
o
CM
"i
0
t3
c:
.
r_|
C1*1)
S
o
o
cu
^)
tn
en
o
o
T 1
4-1
O
4->
U-J
o
B^
0
QJ
^J
S
en
O
o
ii
(0
4_l
r-l
cx
o
jjj
CO
Cfl
i-H
13
O
O
en
S
CO
rt
CO
( 1
r-l
r*
H
O
O
4-»
O
£
ce
r-i
a?
^
to
4J
o
C1
o
-H
cfl
u
to
4-1
r\)
4-1
3
CU
0
o
15
L4
«H
cr-
CD
c
o
H
«
g
O
o
.
0)
rH
CO
14
CO
>
CO
0
II
a)
4-43
-------
incur a significant amount of debt in addition to a new wastewater treatment
plant. For example, if Alternative 5, a stabilization pond system for
Taylors Falls (the most expensive alternative for Taylors Falls), was imple-
mented the City still could incur an additional $349 of debt per capita
before exceeding the suggested guidelines for middle income families.
For Taylors Falls, the regional alternatives cost significantly less
than the non-regional alternatives. However, because the City appears
capable of financing the non-regional alternatives, and because the regional
alternatives would impose a significant burden on St. Croix Falls, it ap-
pears that Alternatives 5 and 6 are most desirable for Taylors Falls.
4.4. Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts include the indirect or induced effects that result
in land use, demographic, and other socioeconomic changes. These changes
may be manifested by higher population density and increased development
made possible by the availability of wastewater treatment capacity in excess
of presently needed capacity, or lower rates of growth in St. Croix Falls
and Taylors Falls versus the surrounding area because of high user charges
for wastewater services. As these changes would occur, associated impacts
may be created. These include: air and water pollution; changes in the tax
base; increased consumption of energy and other resources; increased noise
levels; demand for expanded public infrastructure; conversion of agricul-
tural lands, wetlands, and environmentally sensitive areas to other uses;
decreased wildlife habitat; increased employment and business activity;
change in property values; and changes in the cost of public services.
Because each of the nine alternatives under consideration will provide
only moderately expanded wastewater treatment capacity for the St. Croix
Falls and Taylors Falls area, no significant secondary impacts are antici-
pated. The portion of the 2.5-mile force main to be placed along Military
Road in Alternatives 5, 6, 8, and 9, may allow for additional residential
growth along the sewer line that could not be supported by individual waste-
water disposal systems. New local collection sewers serving such areas
4-44
-------
could discharge to the force main system at the pumping stations. Such
developments could affect prime agricultural land. The owners of frontage
land along the segment of Military Road, where the force main would be
placed, may experience economic pressures to sell frontage road property for
residential lots. Unless the local property taxes are structured to assess
farmland at its farmland value, the increased taxes that would result from
the property being assessed as developable land would induce the sale of the
land. The extent of such growth would be limited by the maximum carrying
capacity of the force main system.
If local population growth by the year 2000 is greater than the pro-
jected growth for the project area, the wastewater treatment system(s) would
need to be expanded.
A possible concern of local residents related to the secondary effects
of stabilization lagoons or land treatment of wastewater at the St. Croix
Falls or Taylors Falls sites is whether land values of surrounding property
would be affected by the presence of the system. The perceived psychologi-
cal effect related to the concept of odors generated by the storage lagoons
and irrigation of wastewater, and applying domestic wastewater on land would
make selling adjacent property, especially for residential use, extremely
difficult. The literature has not dealt with this subject and little case
study information is readily available. No evidence of differential pro-
perty values is evident in the area of Muskegon County, Michigan, where a
7,000 acre wastewater spray irrigation system has been operational for
several years. A new land treatment system in the project area likely would
have to prove itself a "good neighbor" to ensure that neighboring property
values were not affected adversely.
4.5. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
As previously discussed, adverse impacts would be associated with each
of the alternatives. Many of these adverse impacts could be reduced signi-
ficantly by the application of mitigative measures. These mitigative mea-
sures consist of a variety of legal requirements, planning measures, and
4-45
-------
design practices. The extent to which these measures are applied will
determine the ultimate impact of the selected action. The following sec-
tions discuss potential measures for alleviating construction, operation,
and secondary effects presented in Sections 4.1. through 4.3.
4.5.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts
The construction oriented impacts presented in Section 4.1. primarily
are short-term effects resulting from construction activities at the WWTP
site or along the route of the proposed raw wastewater or effluent force
mains. Proper design should minimize the potential impacts and the plans
and specifications should incorporate mitigative measures consistent with
the following discussion.
Fugitive dust from the excavation and backfilling operations for the
force mains and treatment plants could be minimized by various techniques.
Frequent street sweeping of dirt from construction activities would reduce
the major source of dust. Prompt repaving of roads disturbed by construc-
tion also could reduce dust effectively. Construction sites, spoil piles,
and unpaved access roads should be wetted periodically to minimize dust.
Soil stockpiles and backfilled trenches should be seeded with a temporary or
permanent seeding or covered with mulch to reduce susceptibility to wind
erosion.
Street cleaning at sites where trucks and equipment gain access to
construction sites and of roads along which a force main would be con-
structed would reduce loose dirt that otherwise would generate dust, create
unsafe driving conditions, or be washed into roadside ditches or storm
drains. Trucks transporting spoil material to disposal sites should cover
their loads to eliminate the escape of dust while in transit.
Exhaust emissions and noise from construction equipment could be mini-
raized by proper equipment maintenance. The resident engineer should have,
and should exercise the authority, to ban from the site all poorly main-
tained equipment. Soil borings along the proposed force main right-of-ways
4-46
-------
conducted during "Step 2" system design, would identify organic soils that
have the potential to release odors when excavated. These areas could be
bypassed by rerouting the force main if, depending on the location, a signi-
ficant impact might be expected.
Spoil disposal sites should be identified during the project design
stage ("Step 2") to ensure that adequate sites are available and that dis-
posal site impacts are minimized. Landscaping and restoration of vegetation
should be conducted immediately after disposal is completed to prevent
impacts from dust generation and unsightly conditions.
Lands disturbed by trenching for force main construction should be
regraded and compacted as necessary to prevent future subsidence. However,
too much compaction will result in conditions unsuitable for vegetation.
Areas disturbed by trenching and grading at the plant site should be
revegetated as soon as possible to prevent erosion and dust generation.
Native plants and grasses should be used. This also will facilitate the
re-establishment of wildlife habit. If fill material is necessary at the
existing Taylors Falls WWTP site, a US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit
may be required.
Construction-related disruption in the community can be minimized
through considerate contractor scheduling and appropriate public announce-
ments. The State and County highway departments have regulations concerning
roadway disruptions, which should be rigorously applied. Special care
should be taken to minimize disruption of access to frequently visited
establishments. Announcements should be published in local newspapers and
broadcast from local radio stations to alert drivers of temporary traffic
disruptions on primary routes. Street closings should be announced by
fliers delivered to each affected household. If a regional treatment facil-
ity is constructed, special care should be taken to minimize traffic dis-
ruption on the Route 8 bridge.
4-47
-------
Planning of routes for heavy construction equipment and materials
should ensure that surface load restrictions are considered. In this way,
damage to streets and roadways would be avoided. Trucks hauling excavation
spoil to disposal sites or fill material to the WWTP sites should be routed
along primary arteries to minimize the threat to public safety and to reduce
disturbance in residential environments.
Erosion and sedimentation must be minimized at all construction sites.
USEPA's Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1 establishes requirements for
control of erosion and runoff from construction activities. Adherence to
these requirements would serve to mitigate potential problems:
Construction site selection should consider potential occur-
rence of erosion and sediment losses
The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the
local topography and soil conditions
When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be kept
at a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating runoff and
erosion problems which require extensive control measures
Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled
before grading begins
Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time
Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as quickly
as possible by means of mulching or vegetation
Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible
Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
runoff and sedimentation should be provided during and after
construction
Early completion of stabilized drainage system (temporary and
permanent systems) will substantially reduce erosion poten-
tial
Access roadways should be paved or otherwise stabilized as
soon as feasible
Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm
construction schedule is known and can be effectively co-
ordinated with the grading and clearing activity.
4-48
-------
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593
(1971), The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the
1973 Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation require
that care must be taken early in the planning process to identify cultural
resources and minimize adverse effects on them. USEPA's final regulations
for the preparation of EISs (40 CFR 1500) also specify that compliance with
these regulations is required when a Federally funded, licensed, or per-
mitted project is undertaken. The State Historic Preservation Officer must
have an opportunity to determine that the requirements have been satisfied.
Once an alternative is selected and design work begins, a thorough
pedestrian archaeological survey may be required for those areas affected by
the proposed facility. In addition to the information already collected
through a literature review (WAPORA 1979) and consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer and other knowledgeable informants, a con-
trolled surface collection of discovered sites and minor subsurface testing
should be conducted. A similar survey would be required of historic struc-
tures, sites, properties, and objects in and adjacent to the construction
areas, if they might be affected by the construction or operation of the
project.
In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, it would
be determined if any of the resources identified by the surveys appear to be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequently, an
evaluation would be made of the probable effects of the project on these re-
sources and what mitigation procedures may be required. Prior to initiation
of the proposed Federally funded project, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation in Washington DC should be notified of the intended undertaking
and be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed project.
4.5.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts
The majority of potentially adverse operational aspects of the conven-
tional treatment alternatives relate to the discharge of effluent to surface
waters. For the land treatment alternatives, the most significant potential
4-49
-------
adverse effects are impacts on groundwater, high cost, and possible health
risks. Measures to minimize these and other operation phase impacts from
all the alternatives are discussed below.
Adverse impacts related to the operation of the proposed force mains
and treatment facilities would be minimal if the facilities are designed,
operated, and maintained properly. Aerosols, gaseous emissions, odors, and
noise from the various treatment processes could be controlled to a large
extent. Above-ground pumps would be enclosed and installed to minimize
sound impacts. Concentrations of the effluent constituents discharged from
either the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs or a regional WWTP would
be regulated by the conditions of the NPDES permits. The effluent quality
is specified for both Minnesota and Wisconsin and must be monitored. Proper
and regular maintenance of facilities also would maximize the efficiency of
system operation.
Special care to control chlorination and effluent concentrations of
chlorine residuals should be taken to minimize adverse impacts to the aqua-
tic biota of the St. Croix River. Tsai (1973) documented that depressed
numbers of fish and raacroinvertebrates were found downstream from outfalls
discharging chlorinated effluent. No fish were found in water with chlorine
residuals greater than 0.37 mg/1, and the species diversity index reached
zero at 0.25 mg/1. A 50% reduction in the species diversity index occurred
at 0.10 mg/1. Arthur and others (1975) reported that concentrations of
chlorine residuals lethal to various species of warm water fish range from
0.09 to 0.30 mg/1. Many wastewater treatment plants have effluents with
chlorine residual concentrations of 0.5 to 2.0 mg/1. Furthermore, chlorina-
tion of wastewater can result in the formation of halogenated organic com-
pounds that are potentially carcinogenic (USEPA 1976). Rapid mixing of
chlorine and design of contact chambers to provide long contact times,
however, can achieve the desired disinfection and the minimum chlorine
residual discharge (USEPA and others 1977). Chlorination will require
especially careful application and routine monitoring to insure that
chlorine residual concentrations are kept to a minimum.
4-50
-------
In the document Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Mainte-
nance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion 1970), it is required that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and
designed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times.
The facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily
during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure,
and maintenance shutdowns.
The design engineers for the Cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
should consider the measures listed in Section 2.5.2. to insure system reli-
ability.
4.5.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
As discussed in Section 4.4., few secondary impacts are expected to
occur during the operation of any of the nine alternatives. Adequate zoning
regulations and property tax structure could help deter the conversion of
prime farmland to residential use within the project area. Local growth
management planning would assist in the regulation of general location,
density, and type of growth that might occur.
4.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Some impacts associated with the implementation of each of the alterna-
tives cannot be avoided. These include the following:
Some short-term construction dust, noise, and traffic nui-
sance
Alteration of vegetation and wildlife habitat at the WWTP
site and along the force main route
Some erosion and siltation during construction
Discharge of BOD, SS, phosphorus, and ammonia at levels that
would not significantly affect overall water quality of the
St. Croix River
Minimal impacts from the operation of the WWTP, such as
possible odors and noises
4-51
-------
Minimal induced growth and some resultant loss of agricul-
tural land
Increased user fees for wastewater treatment services for
residents of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls.
4.7. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
The major types and amounts of resources that would be committed
through the implementation of any of the nine alternatives are presented in
Sections 4.1. and 4.2. The resource commitments would include:
Fossil fuel, electrical energy, and human labor for facil-
ities construction and operation
Chemicals, especially chlorine, for WWTP operation
Tax dollars for construction and operation
Some unsalvageable construction materials.
For each alternative, there is a significant consumption of these
resources with no feasible means of recovery. Thus, non-recoverable re-
sources would be foregone for the provision of the proposed wastewater
control system.
Accidents which could occur from system construction and operation
could cause irreversible bodily damage or death, and damage or destroy
equipment and other resources. Unmitigated treatment plant failure poten-
tially could kill aquatic life in the immediate mixing zone.
The potential accidental destruction of undiscovered archaeological
sites through excavation activities is not reversible. This would represent
permanent loss of the site.
4-52
-------
5.0. CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF PREPARERS
The Draft Environmental Statement (DES) for this project was prepared
by the Chicago Regional Office of WAPORA, Inc., under contract to USEPA
Region V. USEPA approved the DES and hereby publishes it as a Draft EIS.
Consultation and coordination among WAPORA, USEPA, and the various Federal,
State, local, and private agencies and organizations listed in the following
facilitated the exchange of information and data for inclusion and analysis
in the DES:
National Park Service
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Short, Elliott, and Hendrickson, Inc. (St. Croix Falls Facil-
ities Planners)
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers (Taylors Falls Facilities
Planners)
City of St. Croix Falls
City of Taylors Falls.
Meetings during the preparation of the Draft EIS include:
Date Attending Organizations Purpose
Week of
27 November 1980 USEPA; WAPORA: MN-WN Boundary " Start-up meetings, Phase I
Area Commission; National Park Plan of Study, initial
Service; City of St. Croix Falls; data collection
City of Taylors Falls; Polk Co.
WI; Chisago Co. MN
7 March 1979 USEPA; WAPORA; MPCA; WDNR; Status of facility planning,
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers; water quality and discharge
Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, standards proposed by MPCA
and Associates; MN-WI Boundary
Area Commission
16 April 1979 USEPA; WAPORA; MPCA; Kuusisto Population and flow pro-
Consulting Engineers; Short, jections, wastewater
Elliot, and Hendrickson treatment alternatives
5-1
-------
Date
22 May 1979
24 May 1979
17 August 1979
Attending Organizations
USEPA; MPCA; National Park
Service; Facilities Planners;
MN-WI Boundary Area Commission;
private citizens
Public information meeting
USEPA; WAPORA; Kuusisto Con-
sulting Engineers; Short,
Elliot, and Hendrickson
24 October 1979 USEPA; WAPORA; Kuusisto Con-
sulting Engineers; Short,
Elliot, Hendrickson; MPCA
10 December 1979 USEPA; WAPORA; Kuusisto Con-
sulting Engineers; Short,
Elliot, and Hendrickson
10 December 1979 Second public information
meeting
14 April 1980
USEPA; WAPORA; Kuusisto Con-
sulting; Short, Elliot, and
Hendrickson
Purpose
Effluent discharge standands
EIS process, existing
environmental conditions,
population projections
Wastewater treatment
alternatives, need for
additional information
concerning effluent dis-
charge criteria
Development of system
alternatives, preliminary
engineering costs
Discussion of environmental
and cost assessment
Status of Facilities Plans
and EIS, potential waste-
water treatment solutions,
potential environmental
impacts
Cost data for alternatives,
environmental consequences,
recommended wastewater
treatment
14 April 1980
15 April 1980
USEPA; WAPORA; Kuusisto Con-
sulting Engineers; Taylors
Falls City Council
USEPA; WAPORA; Short, Elliot,
and Hendrickson; St. Croix
Falls City Council
Preliminary summary of cost
analysis, proposed wastewater
treatment system components,
potential environmental
consequences
Preliminary summary of cost
analysis, proposed wastewater
treatment system components,
potential environmental
consequences
5-2
-------
The USEPA Project Officer and the WAPORA staff involved in the prepara-
tion of the DES/DEIS during the past two years include:
Name
Highest
Degree
Project Assignment
Years of
Experience
USEPA
Jack Braun
WAPORA, Inc.
Dan Sweeney
Ron Sundell
Jim Hikolaitis
Kathleen Brennan
Mirza Meghji
J.P. Singh
Gerry Lens sen
Phillip Phillips
Sherman Smith
Carol Qualkinbush
Greg Lindsey
Valerie Krejcie
Terri-lynn Ozaki
Jan Saper
Ellen Renzas
Kimberly Smith
Tara Kidd
Ron Wilson
Peter Woods
Richard McKean
George Bartnik
Kent Peterson
Stuart Townsend
William C. McClain
Phil Pekron
Lauren Rader
M.S. Project Officer 5
M.S. Project Administration 6
M.U.P. Project Manager 3
M.S. Environmental Engineer 5
M.S. Ecologist 8
Ph.D. Senior Water Quality Scientist 10
M.S. Project Engineer 8
B.S. Agricultural Engineer 9
Ph.D. Socioeconomist 8
M.S. Air Specialist 6
M.L.A. Land Use 4
B.A. Public Finance Specialist 3
M.A. Cartographer 3
M.A. Air Analyst 2
M.A. Land Use 2
B.S. Socioeconomist 2
M.E.M. Environmental Scientist 1
B.S. Biologist 1
Production Specialist 6
B.L.A. Graphics Specialist 1
B.S. Biologist 4
M.A. Cultural Historian 7
M.S. Geologist, Hydrologist 4
M.A. Economist 8
B.S. Botanist 10
M.P.H. Environmental Scientist 2
M.A. Cultural Historian 2
5-3
-------
Highest Years of
Name Degree Project Assignment Experience
Robert M. Cutler M.S. Air Analyst 10
William Bale Graphics Specialist 19
Jerome Gold Graphics Specialist 14
Anita Locke B.S. Botanist 3
Winston Lung Ph.D. Environmental Engineer 9
Persons and organizations that were sent a copy of the Draft EIS include;
Federal
Senator Robert Kasten
Senator William Proxmire
Senator Rudolph E. Boschwitz
Senator David Durenberger
Representative Arlan Stangeland
Representative Steve Gunderson
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service
National Park Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Soil Conservation Service
USEPA Regional Offices
5-4
-------
State of Minnesota
Senator Randolph Peterson
Representative John Clawson
Governor Albert Quie
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Water Resources Board
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota State Historical Society
Minnesota State Planning Agency
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Energy Agency
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Minnesota Interstate State Park
State of Wisconsin
Governor Lee Dreyfus
Senator James Harstorf
Representative Robert Harer
Department of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Transportation
Bureau of Envionmental Health
Bureau of Planning and Budget
Bureau of State Planning
Public Service Commission
State Historical Society
Wisconsin Interstate State Park
Regional
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
East Central Regional Development Commission, Minnesota
5-5
-------
Local
Mayor, City of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
Mayor, City of Taylors Falls, Minnesota
City Council, City of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
City Council, City of Taylors Falls, Minnesota
Chairman, Polk County Board of Commissioners, Wisconsin
Chairman, Chisago County Board of Commissioners, Minnesota
Library, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
Citizens and Groups
This list is available upon request from USEPA
5-6
-------
6.0. LITERATURE CONSULTED
Aigner, V. W. 1978. Wisconsin energy use by county. State Office of
Planning and Energy, Madison WI, 50 p.
Aigner, V.W., C.P. Erwin, and M.J. Osborne. 1977. Wisconsin energy use
1972-1976. State Office of Planning and Energy, Wisconsin Department
of Administration, Madison WI, 116 p.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1976. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. Fourteenth edition. Washington
DC, 1,193 p.
Anonymous. No date. Timber resource inventory map for Interstate State
Park. 1 sheet.
Anonymous. 1970. Park monument recalls fierce Indian battle. The Dalles
Visitor (Summer), page 13.
Anonymous. 1971. Folsom House is opened. The .Minneapolis Tribune (6
June), page H-ll.
Anonymous. 1978a. DNR asks renewal for hatchery discharge permit. The
[St. Crois Falls] Standard Press (7 December 1978; Section 2), page 1.
Anonymous. 1978b. PGA to investigate local gravel pit. The [St. Croix
Falls] Standard Press (21 December 1978; Section 3), page 4.
Anonymous. 1979a. Classified and dollar saver. The [St. Croix Falls]
Standard Press (15 March 1979; Section 3).
Anonymous. 1979b. St. Croix Falls schools running short of gas. The [St.
Croix Falls] Standard Press (19 April 1979; Section 1), page 1.
Anthony, Robert G., Gregg R. Bierei, and Rosemary Kozlowski. 1978. Ef-
fects of municipal wastewater irrigation on select species of mammals.
In McKim, Harlan L. (Coordinator), State of knowledge in land treat-
ment of wastewater. Volume 2. Proceedings of an international sym-
posium, 20-25 August 1978, sponsored by the US Army Corps of Engi-
neers. Hanover NH, 423 p. (p. 281-287).
Anthony, Robert G. and Gene W. Wood. 1979. Effects of municipal waste-
water irrigation on wildlife and wildlife habitat. In Sopper, William
E. and Sonja N. Kerr (Editors), Utilization of municipal sewage efflu-
ent and sludge on forest and disturbed land. The Pennsylvania State
University Press, University Park PA, 537 p. (p. 213-223).
Aronson, R., and E. Schwartz (editors). 1975. Management policies in
local government finance. International City Managers Association,
Washington DC.
6-1
-------
Ayensu, E. S. and R. A. DeFilipps. 1978. Endangered and threatened plants
of the United States. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, 403 p.
Bailey, R.M., J.E. Fitch, E.S. Herald, E.A. Lachner, C.C. Lindsey, C.R.
Robins, and W.B. Scott. 1970. A list of common and scientific names
of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries
Society Special Publication No. 6., Washington DC, 149 p.
Bannister, A. W. 1978. Letter, A. W. Bannister, Bannister Engineering, to
H. D. Blanding, Attorney-at-law, 15 June 1978, 5 p.
Bannister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc. 1973. Report
on wastewater treatment plantSt. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. St. Paul
MN, 69 p. plus attachments.
Bannister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Asssociates, Inc. 1976. Faci-
lities plan for St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewerage Dis-
trict. St. Paul MN, variously paged, 155 p. plus appendixes.
Bloyd, R.M., Jr. 1975. Summary appraisals of the Nation's groundwater
resourcesUpper Mississippi Region. USGS 813-B, 22 p.
Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner
Press, New York NY, 596 p.
Breckenridge, W. J. 1944. Reptiles and amphibians of Minnnesota. Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis MN, 202 p.
Buckman, H.O., and N.C. Brady. 1960. The nature and properties of soils.
The Macmillan Co., New York NY, 567 p.
Burt, W.H. , and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals.
Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston MA, 289 p.
Gavin and Page. 1970. Munch-Roos House: National Register of Historic
Places inventory-nomination form. Prepared by Brooks Gavin. On file
at Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul MN.
Chisago County. 1970. Zoning ordinance. Mora MN, 25 p. plus amendments.
Chisago County Zoning and Building Department. 1978. Chisago County
comprehensive development plan. Center City MN, 69 p. plus appen-
dixes.
City of St. Croix Falls. 1971a. Capital program. St. Croix Falls WI, 20 p.
City of St. Croix Falls. 1971b. Development codes. St. Croix Falls WI, 87
P-
City of St. Croix Falls. 1971c. Master plan. St. Croix Falls WI, 44 p.
City of St. Croix Falls. 1980. Financial Report. St. Croix Falls WI, 18
P-
6-2
-------
City of Taylors Falls. 1980. City Financial Report. Taylors Falls MN, 15
Commonwealth Associates Inc. 1978. An archaeological survey of the St.
Croix National Scenic Riverway, Phase II report. Prepared for the Na-
tional Park Service, Contract No. CX-6000-6-A060, Jackson MI.
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and
central North America. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston
MA, 429 p.
Cornelius, R.R. 1975. Intra-department memorandum, R.R. Cornelius, WDNR,
to A.R. Santala, 11 February 1975.
Cowherd, Chaffen, Jr., Russel Bohn, and Thomas Cuscuno, Jr. 1979. Iron
and steel plant open source fugitive emission evaluation. Prepared
for USEPA, Washington DC, by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City
MO. 130 p.
Curtis, J. T. 1959. Vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison WI, 657 p.
Demirjian, Y. A. 1975. Design seminar for land treatment of municipal
wastewater effluents. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Program. Muskegon MI, 91 p.
Dindal, Daniel L., Linda Theoret Newell, and Jean-Peirre Moreau. 1979.
Municipal wastewater irrigation effects on community ecology of soil
invertebrates. jn Sopper, William L. and Sonja N. Kerr (Editors),
Utilization of municipal sewage effluent and sludge on forest and
disturbed land. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University
Park PA, 537 p. (p. 197-205).
Dowdy, R.H., G.C. Martin, C.E. Clapp, and W.E. Larson. 1978. Heavy metal
content and mineral nutrition of corn and perennial grasses irrigated
with municipal wastewater. _In_ McKim, Harlan L. (Coordinator), State
of Knowledge in land treatment of wastewater. Volume 2. Proceedings
of an international symposium. Sponsored by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. Hanover NH, 423 p. (p. 183-190).
Dressier, Richard L. and Gene W. Wood. 1976. Deer habitat response to
irrigation with municipal wastewater. Journal of Wildlife Management
40(4): 639-644.
Dunn, J. T. 1966. The St. Croix: midwest border river. Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York NY.
E.A. Hickok and Associates. 1977. Baseline environmental inventory-Twin
Cities metropolitan area. Prepared for the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission. Minneapolis MN, 426 p. plus 27 plates.
East Central Regional Development Commission. 1978. ECRDC population pro-
jections. Unpublished, 5 p.
6-3
-------
Eddy, S. , and J.C. Underbill. 1974. Northern fishes; with special refer-
ence to the Upper Mississippi Valley. Third edition. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis MN, 414 p.
Edwards, H. W. and H. G. Wheat. 1978. Seasonal trends in Denver atmos-
pheric lead concentrations. American Chemical Society, Fort Collins
CO.
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal guidelines for de-
sign, operation, and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities.
US Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 29 pp.
Folsora, W. H. C. 1888. Fifty years in the northwest. Pioneer Press
Company, St. Paul MN, p. 298-339.
Folsom, W. H. C. 1901. Lumbering in the St. Croix valley. In Minnesota
history 9. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul MN.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1978. Fresh-water mussel (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae)
of the Upper Mississippi River. Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila-
delphia, Philadelphia PA, 401 p.
Gilbert/Comma i\wealth Associates, Inc. 1978. An archaeological survey of
the St. Croix national scenic riverway: Phasee II report. Submitted
to the National Park Service, Midwest Archaeological Center. Jackson
MI.
Greatlakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers.
1978. Recommended standards for sewage works. Health Education
Service, Inc., Albany NY, 112 p.
Green, J. 1975. Minnesota birds where, when and how many. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis MN, 217 p.
Green, C. W. 1935. Distribution of Wisconsin fishes. Wisconsin Conserva-
tion Commission, Madison WI, 235 p.
Gromme, O.J. 1974. Birds of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison WI, 223 p.
Gunderson, H. L. and J. R. Beer. 1953. The mammals of Minnesota. Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis MN, 190 p.
Hanson, L.D., E.L. Bruns, and R.H. Rust. 1976. Interpolations of soil
landscapes and geomorphic regions-Twin Cities Metropolitan Sheet.
Extension Bulletin 320, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN, 31 p.
plus 3 plates.
Haugstad, M.C. 1968. Lawrence Creek, Chisago County. MDNR, St. Paul MN,
12 p.
Hickey, J.S., and P.C. Reist. 1975. Health significance of airborne
microorganisms from wastewater treatment processes. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation 47: 2,741-2,773.
6-4
-------
Hine, R. E. 1975. Endangered animals in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources, Madison WI, 10 p.
Hinesly, T.D., R.E. Thomas, and R.G. Stevens. 1978. Environmental changes
from long-term land applications of municipal effluents. US Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs. Publication No.
MGD-26. Washington DC, 31 p.
Hole, F. D. 1973. Soil association suitabilities analysis. Wisconsin
State Planning Office, Madison WI, 102 p.
Hole, F. D. 1976. Soils of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison WI, 223 p. plus 1 plate.
Holzworth, G. C. 1972. Mixing heights, wind speeds, and potential for
urban air pollution throughout the contiguous United States. US-EPA,
Research Triangle Park NC, 118 p.
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers. 1974. Report - Taylors Falls,
Minnesota - sanitary sewers and waste treatment facilities. St. Paul
MN, 19 p. plus attachments.
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers. 1979. ReportTaylors Falls,
Minnesota, infiltration/inflow analysis. St. Paul MN, 87 p.
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers. 1980. Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
Draft Facility Plan. St. Paul MN, variously paged, plus appendixes.
Jackson, H. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison WI, 504 p.
Johnson, M. and G. C. Becker. 1970. Annotated list of the fishes of
Wisconsin. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts,
and Letters 58: 265-300.
Jones, Jr., J.K., D.C. Carter, and H.H. Genoways. 1975. Revised checklist
of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occassional Papers; the
Museum, Texas Tech University 28:1-14.
Keeney, P.R. and L.M. Walsh. 1978. Monitoring requirements for land
treatment systems. In McKim, Harlan L. (Coordinator), State of know-
ledge in land treatment of wastewater. Volume 1. Proceedings of an
international symposium. Sponsored by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Hanover NH, 423 p. (p. 365-375).
King, Darrell L. 1978. The role of ponds in land treatment of wastewater.
In McKim, H.L. (Coordinator), State of knowledge in land treatment of
wastewater. Volume 2. Proceedings of an international symposium.
Sponsored by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, Hanover NH, p. 191-198.
6-5
-------
King, Darrell L. 1979. Some ecological limits to the use of alternative
systems for wastewater management. Presented at the seminar on aqua-
culture systems for wastewater treatment. University of California,
Davis CA, 11-12 September 1979. 9 p.
Kissinger, F.J. 1975. Interim soil survey report for Polk County, Wiscon-
sin. US Department of Agriculture, SCS, 151 p.
Knudson, L. W. No date a. Unpublished checklist of the mammals of Afton
State Park, Chisago County MN. Carlos Avery Game Farm, Forest Lake
UN, 1 p.
Knudson, L. W. No date b. Unpublished checklist of the birds of Afton
State Park, Chisago County MN. Carlos Avery Game Farm, Forest Lake
MN, 7 p.
Kranz, V.R., B.D. Lorenz, D.B. Wilconx, L.X. Davis, and B.B. Owen. 1978.
Section 316(b) demonstration for the Allen S. King Generating Plant on
Lake St. Croix, Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. NUS Corporation, Pitts-
burgh PA, 215 p.
Kuehn, J. H. , W. Niemuth, and A. R. Peterson. 1961. A biological recon-
naissance of the Upper St. Croix River. Minnesota Conservation De-
partment and Wisconsin Conservation Department, 25 p. plus appen-
dixes and tables.
Lewis, S.J. 1977. Arian communities and habitats on natural and waste-
water irrigated vegetation. Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park PA.
Linden, D.R., W.E. Larson, and R.E. Larson. 1978. Agricultural practices
associated with land treatment of domestic wastewater. In McKim, H.L.
(Coordinator), State of knowledge in land treatment of wastewater.
Volume 1. Proceedings of an international symposium. Sponsored by
the US Army Corps of Engineers, Hanover NH, 423 p. (p. 313-322).
Liesch, B. A. 1970. Groundwater investigation for St. Croix Falls, Wis-
consinan independent hydrologic report prepared for the Village of
St. Croix Falls. 15 p.
Lindholm, G. F., J. 0. Helgesen, W. L. Broussard, and D. F. Farrell. 1974.
Water resources of the Lower St. Croix River watershed, east central
Minnesota. US Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas
HA-490. Reston VA, 3 sheets.
Mann, G.E. 1955. Wetland inventory of Minnesota. US Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of River Basin Studies,
Region III, Minneapolis MN, 43 p. plus appendixes.
Max Anderson and Associates. 1971a. Development codesSt. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin. Madison WI, 103 p.
6-6
-------
Max Anderson and Associates. 1971b. Master plan for St. Croix Falls, Wis-
consin. Madison WI, 45 p.
Max Anderson and Associates. 1971c. Capital programSt. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin. Madison WI, 20 p.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York NY, 782 p.
Metropolican Council. 1978. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area employment
distribution. St. Paul MN, 1 p.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. 1973. St. Croix River regional flood analysis
St. Croix Falls, WI. to mouth. 19 p. and 1 sheet.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1976a. Final environmental
impact statement--proposed Lake St. Croix marina. Written response of
US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, list pre-
pared for final EIS by Minnesota DNR. Minneapolis MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1976b. Groundwater resources
in Minnesotaa review of general availability, quality, distribution,
use, and problems. Bulletin 27. St. Paul MN, 62 p.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1978. Draft management plan
for Minnesota Interstate State Park. 110 p.
Minnesota Department of Revenue. 1978a. Local aids summary. Local Gov-
ernment Aids and Analysis, St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Department of Revenue. 1978b. Minnesota tax guide. Local
Government Aids and Analysis, St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Department of Revenue. 1979. Property tax bulletin. Local Gov-
ernment Aids and Analysis, St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. 1977. Traffic volumes. St. Paul
MN, 1 p.
Minnesota Energy Agency. No date. Minnesota energy use control totals
1977. St. Paul MN, 2 p.
Minnesota Energy Agency 1979. 1977 Minnesota county and development region
energy use. Minnesota Data Systems, St. Paul MN, 20 p.
Minnesota Geological Survey. No date. Unpublished well records for Chi-
sago County, Minnesota. Minneapolis MN.
Minnesota Historical Society. No date. State historic sites registry.
Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul MN.
6-7
-------
Minnesota Historical Society. 1973. An archaeological survey of the Sun-
riseUpper St. Croix River, Minnesota. Prepared for the Minnesota
State Planning Agency. Archaeology Division, St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Historical Society. 1977. A historic interpretation program for
the State of Minnesota. St. Paul MN, p. 59-70.
Minnesota Historical Society. 1976. Interstate state park: archaeologi-
cal and historical sites inventory forms. Prepared by Ms. Susan
Queripel. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Ornithological Records Committee. 1978. Checklist of Minnesota
birds. Minnesota Ornithologists Union, 13 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1975a. 1975 Minnesota water quality
inventory. Report to Congress, Section 305(b). 194 pp. plus appen-
dix.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1975b. Recommended design criteria
for sewage stabilization ponds. Roseville MN, 17 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1976. Report on compliance monitoring
survey at City of Taylors Falls wastewater treatment facilityTaylors
Falls, MinnesotaAugust 5, 1976. Brainerd MN, 12 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1977a. Minnesota air quality, 1971-
1976. Division of Air Quality, Roseville MN, 111 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1977b. Report on compliance monitor-
ing survey at City of Taylors Falls, MinnesotaNovember 26, 1977.
Brainerd MN, 17 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1978a. Minnesota code of agency
rules. Office of the State Register-Department of Administration, St.
Paul MN, variously paged.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1978b. Unpublished documents in MPCA
files. 4 December 1978.
Minnesota Society of Architects. 1970a. Angel's Hill historic district:
National Register of Historic Places inventory-nomination form.
Prepared by Brooks Gavin. On file at Minnesota Historical Society,
St. Paul MN.
Minnesota Society of Architects. 1970b. Taylors Falls public library:
National Register of Historic Places inventory-nomination form.
Prepared by Brooks Gavin. On file at Minnesota Historical Society,
St. Paul MN.
Minnesota State Demographer. 1978. Population estimates for Minnesota
counties, 1977. Office of the State Demographer, St. Paul MN, 14 p.
6-8
-------
Moak, L. L. and A. M. Hillhouse. 1975. Concepts and practices in local
government finance. Municipal Finance Officers Association of the US
and Canada, Chicago IL, 454 p.
Moberg, E. 1971. Logging played major role in establishing Taylors Falls.
The Chisago County Press (11 November), pages 2-3.
Morley, T. 1972. Rare or endangered plants of Minnesota. Unpublished
manuscript. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN, 13 p.
Moyle, J. B. 1980. The uncommon ones - animals and plants in need of
special consideration in Minnesota. MinnesotaDNR, 32 p.
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1974.
Water quality criteria 1972, EPA-R3-003. US Government Printing
Office, Washington DC, 594 p.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1977. Local climatologi-
cal data, MinneapolisSt. Paul, Minnesota. Ashville NC, 4 p.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1978. Local climatologi-
cal data, annual summary with comparative data 1978, Minneapolis-St.
Paul MN. Environmental Data and Information Center. National Cli-
matic Center, Ashville NC. 4 p.
National Park Service. 1971. Master plan, St. Croix National Scenic River-
way. US Department of Interior, Washington DC, 50 p.
National Park Service, Midwest regional office. 1975a. Final environmen-
tal statement, master plan, Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway,
MinnesotaWisconsin. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC,
119 p. plus appendixes.
National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office. 1975b. Final environmen-
tal statement, master plan, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, Wis-
consinMinnesota. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 225
p. plus appendixes.
Nelson, L. 1979. Inventory and evaluation for USEPA. US Soil Conserva-
tion Service, in conjunction with the Chisago Soil and Water Conser-
vation District.
Ohr, C. E. 1978. Letter, C. E. Ohr, Minnesota PGA, to S. L. Olson, Mayor
Taylors Falls MN, 31 January 1978, 2 p.
O'Neill, M.O. No date. Early history of the friendly valley and falls of
St. Croix. Standard Press, St. Croix Falls WI.
Perry, J.H. (Editor). 1963. Chemical engineers handbook. Fourth edition.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York NY.
6-9
-------
Polk County, Wisconsin. 1971. Comprehensive land use ordinance. Balsam
Lake WI, 4 p.
Polk County, Wisconsin. 1973. Shoreline protection zoning ordinance.
Balsam Lake WI, 4 p. plus amendments.
Pond, A. W. 1937. Interstate Park and the Dalles of the St. Croix. St.
Croix Standard Press, St. Croix Falls WI.
Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites. 1973. Wastewater treatment and reuse by land
application, Volume 1, Summary. USEPA, Office of Research and De-
velopment, Washington DC, 80 p.
Pope, R. W. 1979. Letter, R. W. Pope, Wisconsin-DNR, to Rick Loughery,
WAPORA, 23 January 1979, 1 p.
Porter, J. L. 1975. Memorandum, John L. Porter, Wisconsin-DNR, to A. R.
Santala, Wisconsin-DNR, 3 February 1975, 5 p. plus attachments.
Powers, J.A. 1978. Feasibility study and preliminary site identification
for land treatment in middle Tennessee. In State of knowledge in land
treatment of wastewater, Proceedings of an international symposium, US
Army Corps of Engineers CRREL, August 1978, Volume II, Hanover NH, 423
P-
Read, R. H. 1976. Endangered and threatened vascular plants in Wisconsin.
Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 92, Madison
WI, 58 p.
Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The costs of sprawl-detailed cost
analysis. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 278 p.
Sanks, R.L., and T. Asano. 1976. Land treatment and disposal of municipal
and industrial wastewater. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann
Arbor MI, 310 p.
Scott, W. 1970. Greek revival buildings featured in the Dalles area. The
Dalles Visitor (Summer), pages 1-2, 5-6.
SERCO. 1978. Report of wastewater surveyCity of Taylors Falls, Taylors
Falls, MN, November-December, 1978. Roseville MN, 25 p.
Short, Elliott, and Hendrickson, Inc. 1980. Facilities Plan Wastewater
Treatment St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, Our File No. 79002. St. Paul
MN, 10 p.
Sidle, R.C., J.E. Hook, and L.T. Kardos. 1976. Heavy metals application
and plant uptake in a land disposal system for wastewater. Journal of
Environmental Quality 51(1):97-102.
6-10
-------
Snider, J.R. and G.W. Wood. 1975. The effects of wastewater irrigation on
the activities and movements of songbirds. In Wood, G.W. and others
(Editors), Faunal response to spray irrigation of chlorinated sewage
effluents. Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources.
Research Publication 87, the Pennsylvania State University Press,
University Park PA, p. 20-49.
Sopper, William E. and Sonja N. Kerr. 1979. Renovation of municipal
wastewater in eastern forest ecosystems. jn Sopper, William L. and
Sonja N. Kerr (Editors), Utilization of municipal sewage effluent and
sludge on forest and disturbed land. The Pennsylvania State Univers-
ity Press, University Park PA, 537 p. (p. 61-76).
Sopper, William E. and Richenderfer, James L. 1979. Effects of municipal
wastewater irrigation on the physical properties of the soil. In
Sopper, William E. and Sonja N. Kerr (Editors), Utilization of munici-
pal sewage effluent and sludge on forest and disturbed land. The
Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park PA, 537 p.
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Historic Preservation Division. No
date a. Wisconsin archaeological codification files. Historic Pres-
ervation Division, Madison WI.
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Historic Preservation Division. No
date b. Wisconsin inventory of historic places. Historic Preserva-
tion Division, Madison WI.
Stoker, S.H., S.L. Seager, and R.L. Capener. 1975. From source to use
energy. Scott, Foresman, and Co., Glenview IL, 337 p.
Strahler, A.N., and A.H. Strahler. 1978. Modern physical geography. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York NY, 502 p.
Taylors Falls Planning Commission. No date. Taylors Falls village ordin-
ances. Taylors Falls MN, 109 p.
Thiel, G. A. 1944. The geology and underground waters of southern Minne-
sota. Minnesota Geological Survey Bulletin 31, 506 p.
Todd, D.K. 1967. Groundwater hydrology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York NY, 336 p.
Tsai, C. 1973. Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls. Trans-
actions of the American Fisheries Society 102 (281).
Tsuzynski, D. No date. Unpublished list of the birds, mammals, reptiles,
and amphibians of Little River Park, Chisago County, Minnesota.
Cambridge MN, 8 p.
Urie, Dean H. 1979. Nutrient recycling under forests treated with sewage
effluent and sludge in Michigan. In Sopper, William L. and Sonja N.
Kerr (Editors), Utilization of municipal sewage effluent and sludge on
forest and disturbed land. The Pennsylvania State University Press,
University Park PA, 537 p. (p. 7-17).
6-11
-------
US Bureau of the Census. 1932a. Fifteenth census of the US: 1930.
Population, Volume III, Part I, AlabamaMissouri. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC, 1,389 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1932b. Fifteenth census of the US: 1930.
Population, Volume III, Part II, MontanaWyoming. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC, 1,389 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1952a. US census of population: 1950. Volume
II, characteristics of the population, Part 23, Minnesota. Department
of Commerce, Washington DC, 20 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1952b. US census of population: 1950. Volume
II, characteristics of the population, Part 49, Minnesota. Department
of Commerce, Washington DC, 230 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1970a. Fifth count census of population: Chi-
sago County. Department of Commerce, Washington DC.
US Bureau of the Census. 1970b. Fifth count census of population: Polk
County. Department of Commerce, Washington DC.
US Bureau of the Census. 1971a. General population characteristics,
Minnesota. US Government Printing Office, Department of Commerce,
Washington DC, 211 p. plus appendixes.
US Bureau of the Census. 1971b. General population characteristics,
Wisconsin. US Government Printing Office, Department of Commerce,
Washington DC, 196 p. plus appendixes.
US Bureau of the Census. 1971c. Number of inhabitants, Minnesota. US
Government Printing Office, Department of Commerce, Washington DC, 55
P-
US Bureau of the Census. 1971d. Number of inhabitants, Wisconsin. US
Government Printing Office, Department of Commerce, Washington DC, 46
P-
US Bureau of the Census. 1972a. General social and economic characteris-
tics, Minnesota. US Government Printing Office, Department of Com-
merce, Washington DC, 495 p. plus appendixes.
US Bureau of the Census. 1972b. General social and economic characteris-
tics, Wisconsin. US Government Printing Office, Department of Com-
merce, Washington DC, 492 p. plus appendixes.
US Bureau of the Census. 1972c. Housing characteristics for states,
cities, and counties, Minnesota. US Government Printing Office,
Department of Commerce, Washington DC, 239 p. plus appendixes.
US Bureau of the Census. 1972d. Housing characteristics for states,
cities, and counties, Wisconsin. US Government Printing Office,
Department of Commerce, Washington DC, 260 p. plus appendixes.
6-12
-------
US Bureau of the Census. 1979a. 1976 population estimates and 1975 and
revised 1974 per capita income estimates for counties, incorporated
places, and selected minor civil divisionsMinnesota. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC, 44 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1979b. 1976 population estimates and 1975 and
revised 1974 per capita income estimates for counties, incorporated
places, and selected minor civil divisionsWisconsin. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC, 34 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1980. Housing units authorized by building
permit and public contracts-1979. Department of Commerce, Washington
DC, 50 p.
US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1978. Employment by type and broad indus-
trial sectors, 1971-76. Regional Economic Information System. Wash-
ington DC, computer printout.
US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1980a. Local area personal income 1973-
1978. Volume 4, great lakes region. US Department of Commerce,
Washington DC, 142 p.
US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1980b. Local area personal income 1973-
1978. Volume 5, plains region. US Department of Commerce, Washington
DC, 184 p.
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1962. Public Health
Service drinking water standards-Public Health Service Publication
956, US Government Printing Office, Washinton DC, 61 p.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1978. Flood hazard bound-
ary mapPolk County, Wisconsin-unincorporated areas. 12 p.
US Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Ser-
vice. 1979. National Register of Historic Places: annual listing of
historic properties. Federal Register 44 (26): 7509, Tuesday, 6
February, Part II.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Process design manual for
upgrading existing wastewater treatment plants. Technology transfer.
Variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976a. Compilation of air pollutant
emission factors, 2nd edition. Office of Air and Waste Management,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
NC. Variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Quality criteria for water.
EPA-440/9-76-003. Washington DC, 501 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978a. Plant emissions report data-22
August 1978.
6-13
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978b. Printout of STORET data-23
October 1978. variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978c.. Proceedings from national
conferences on shopping for sewage treatment: How to get the best
bargain for your community or home (draft), April 23-30, and June 4-6.
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington DC, 119 p. (p. 53).
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Grant funding of projects
requiring treatment more stringent than secondary. Construction
grants program requirements memorandum PRM//79-7. From Thomas C.
Jorling, Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management, to
Water Division Directors, Regions I-X, 9 May 1979. Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979b. Long-term effects of land
application of domestic wastewater: Dickinson, North Dakota, slow
rate irrigation site. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab, Ada
OK. EPA 600/2-79-144, 162 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Summary of long-term rapid
infiltration system studies. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Lab, Ada OK. EPA 600/2-80-165, 51 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US
Department of Agriculture. 1977. Process design manual for land
treatment of municipal wastewater. EPA 625/1-77-008, 575 p.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978a. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants. Department of the Interior, Office of Endangered Species,
Washington DC, 9 p.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978b. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants. ENF 4-REG-17, August 1973 revision of Part 17, Title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations. Department of the Interior, Office of
Endangered Species, Washington DC, 41 p.
US Geological Survey. No date. Unpublished water quality data. Madison
WI.
US Geological Survey. 1974. St. Croix Dalles NE, NW, SE, and SW quad-
rangles, 7.5-minute series orthophotoquads. Reston VA, 4 sheets.
US Geological Survey. 1977. Water resources data for Wisconsin, water
year 1976. Department of the Interior, Madison WI, 596 p.
US Geological Survey. 1978. Water resources data for Wisconsin, water
year 1977. Department of the Interior, Madison WI, 626 p.
US Geological Survey. 1980. Water resources data for Wisconsin, water
year 1979. Department of the Interior, Madison WI, 514 p.
US Office of Air, Land, and Water Use and US Office of Research and Devel-
opment. 1978. Manual for evaluating secondary impacts of wastewater
treatment facilities. US EPA, Washington DC, 175 p.
6-14
-------
US Office of Energy Data. 1979. March 1979 monthly energy review. US
Department of Energy, Washington DC, 110 p.
US Soil Conservation Service. 1962. Soil survey manual. Agricultural
Handbook No. 18. 503 p.
University of Minnesota. 1973. Resource study of Chisago County, Minne-
sota. Resource and community development interdisciplinary seminar.
St. Paul MM, 107 p.
University of Minnesota. 1977. St. Croix National Scenic Riverway re-
source inventory analysis. Department of Horticultural Science and
Landscape Architecture, St. Paul MN, variously paged plus appendixes.
University of Wisconsin. 1965. Soil map of Wisconsin (preliminary).
Geology and Natural History Survey, Madison WI, 1 sheet plus overlay.
University of Wisconsin. 1978. Lower St. Croix riverway: user and re-
source conditions. Submitted to the Lower St. Croix Management Com-
mission and Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, Madison WI,
498 p.
University of Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. No date a.
Generalized stratigraphy of the Cambrian System. Madison WI, 2 p.
University of Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. No date b.
Unpublished ground water analyses. Madison WI.
Vlyina, R. 1965. Nevers Dam. . .the lumberman's dam. St. Croix Standard
Press, St. Croix Falls WI.
WAPORA, Inc. 1979. Existing environmental conditions in the St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota, Wastewater Facilities
Project Area. Prepared for USEPA Region V. Chicago IL, 175 p.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1976. Manual of practice No. 11-
operation of wastewater treatment plants. Lancaster Press, Lancaster
PA, 536 p.
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. No date. Population
projectionsPolk County. Unpublished.
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1973a. Basic back-
ground data for the east.central Wisconsin region, housing data. Eau
Claire WI, 107 p.
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1973b. Basic back-
ground data for the west central Wisconsin region, population data.
Eau Claire WI, 107 p.
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1976. An economic
analysis of the west central Wisconsin region. Eau Claire WI, 114 p.
6-15
-------
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1978a. District
overall economic development program for the west central Wisconsin
region. Eau Claire WI, 147 p. plus appendixes.
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1978b. Polk County-
community outdoor recreation plan. Eau Claire WI, 147 p. plus appen-
dixes.
White, Helen. 1971. Angel's Hill is romantic history preserved. The
Chisago County Press (11 November; Section 2), pages 11 and 15.
Wisconsin Conservation Department. 1961. Surface water resources of Polk
County. Madison WI, 143 p.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. 1975. Wisconsin population pro-
jections. Edition 3. State Bureau of Program Management, Madison WI,
367 p.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. 1976. State of Wisconsin January
1, 1976 final population estimates. Bureau of Program Management,
Madison WI, 47 p.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. 1977. Official population esti-
mates for 1977, final estimates for all Wisconsin towns, incorporated
villages and cities as of January 1, 1977. Demographic Services
Center, Madison WI, 47 p.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. 1978. Official population esti-
mates for 1978, final estimates for all Wisconsin towns, incorporated
villages and cities as of January 1, 1978. Demographic Services
Center, Madison WI, 47 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1970. State of Wisconsin
public water supply data. Division of Environmental Protection,
Madison WI, 101 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1971. Report of information of
the St. Croix Falls fish hatchery St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. Eau
Claire WI, 5 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1972a. Dresser sewage treatment
plant, 24-hour survey. Eau Claire WI, 11 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1972b. St. Croix Falls sewage
treatment plant, 24-hour survey, March 2223, 1971. Eau Claire WI, 10
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1972c. St. Croix River pollu-
tion investigation survey. Division of Environmental Protection,
Madison WI, 37 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1973. Endangered species
handbook. Chapter 30 endangered animals. Madison WI, 4 p.
6-16
-------
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1975. Unpublished list of en-
dangered animals in Wisconsin, with supplementary lists of threatened
animals, animals with watch status, and extirpated animals. Prepared
by the Endangered Species Committee, Madison WI, 10 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976a. Environmental impact
statement for the proposed development, management, and continued
acquisition of the St. Croix River State Forest, Burnett and Polk
counties, Wisconsin. Bureau of Environmental Impact, Madison WI, 112
P-
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976b. 1975 air quality data
report, Air Management Section, Madison WI.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976c. Natural area inven-
torywest central Wisconsin. Scientific Areas Preservation Council.
Madison WI. p. 27.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1977a. 1976 air quality data
report. Air Management Section, Madison WI, 45 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1977b. Wisconsin 1977 water
quality inventory. Bureau of Water Quality, Madison WI, 88 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1978a. EIS for the proposed Ice
Age National Scientific Reservemaster plan. Bureau of Environmental
Impact Assessment, Madison WI, 159 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1978b. 1977 air quality data
report. Air Management Section, Madison WI, 43 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1978c. Water quality opera-
tions handbook 3205.1. Bureau of Water Quality, Madison WI, 34 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1978d. Wisconsin 1978 water
quality program, an introduction. Bureau of Water Quality, Madison
WI, 33 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1979. List of endangered and
threatened species. Office of Endangered and Nongame Species, Madison
WI, 1 p.
Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 1977. Indebtedness 1976. Bureau of
Local Financial Assistance, Department of Revenue, Madison WI, 31 p.
Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 1978a. Municipal resources provided and
expended. Bureau of Local Financial Assistance Bulletin No. 57,
Madison WI, variously paged, 177 p.
Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 1978b. Taxes - aids and shared taxes.
Bureau of Local Financial Assistance, Madison WI, 105 p.
6-17
-------
Wood, G.W., D.W. Simpson, and R.L. Dressier. 1973. Effects of spray
irrigation of forests with chlorinated sewage effluent on deer and
rabbits. In Sopper, W. E. and L.T. Kardos (Editors), Recycling
treated municipal wastewater and sludge through forest and cropland.
The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park PA, p. 311-
323.
Young, H. L., and S. M. Hindall. 1973. Water resources of Wisconsin: St.
Croix River Basin. US Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations
Atlas HA-451. Washington DC, 4 sheets.
Zuiches, J.J., and G.V. Fuguitt. 1972. Residential preferences: implica-
tions for population redistribution in non-metropolitan areas. In
population, distribution, and policy. Sarah Mills Mazie, Editor. US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, p. 617-630.
6-18
-------
7.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Activated sludge process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which a suspended microbiological culture is maintained inside an
aerated treatment basin. The microbial organisms oxidize the complex
organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.
Advanced secondary treatment. Wastewater treatment more stringent than
secondary treatment but not to advanced waste treatment levels.
Advanced waste treatment. Wastewater treatment to treatment levels that
provide for maximum monthly average BOD,, and SS concentrations less
than 10 mg/1 and/or total nitrogen removal of greater than 50% (total
nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate).
Aeration. To circulate oxygen through a substance, as in wastewater treat-
ment, where it aids in purification.
Aerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
oxygen.
Aerosol. A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.
Algae. Simple rootless plants that grow in bodies of water in relative
proportion to the amounts of nutrients available. Algal blooms, or
sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.
Algal bloom. A proliferation of algae on the surface of lakes, streams or
ponds. Algal blooms are stimulated by phosphate enrichment.
Alluvial. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.
Ambient air. Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air.
Ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH^) that is produced
in nature when nitrogen-containing organic material is biologically
decomposed.
Anaerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of oxygen.
Aquifer. A geologic stratum or unit that contains water and will allow it
to pass through. The water may reside in and travel through innumer-
able spaces between rock grains in a sand or gravel aquifer, small or
cavernous openings formed by solution in a limestone aquifer, or
fissures, cracks, and rubble in harder rocks such as shale.
Artesian (adj.). Refers to ground water that is under sufficient pressure
to flow to the surface without being pumped.
7-1
-------
Artesian well. A well that normally gives a continuous flow because of
hydrostatic pressure, created when the outlet of the well is below the
level of the water source.
Bar screen. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large float-
ing and suspended solids.
Base flow. The rate of movement of water in a stream channel that
occurs typically during rainless periods, when stream flow is main-
tained largely or entirely by discharges of groundwater.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A bioassay-type procedure in which the
weight of oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
the organic matter present per liter of water is determined. It is
common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
a subscript to the abbreviated name. For example, BODc indicates that
the results are based on a five-day long (120-hour) test. The BOD
value is a relative measure of the amount (load) of living and dead
oxidizable organic matter in water. A high demand may deplete the
supply of oxygen in the water, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to
the degree that many or all kinds of aquatic organisms are killed.
Determinations of BOD are useful in the evaluation of the impact of
wastewater on receiving waters.
Bio-disc. See rotating biological contactor.
Bio-surf. See rotating biological contactor.
Chlorination. The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable com-
pounds.
Clarifier. A settling tank where solids are mechanically removed from
waste water.
Coliform bacteria. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish in
the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including man.
Fecal coliform bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli (E. coli),
enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runnoff.
Coliforms apparently do not cause serious human diseases, but these
organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
detect. The abundance of coliforms in water, therefore, is used as an
index to the probability of the occurrence of such disease-producing
organisms (pathogens) as Salmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses.
The pathogens are relatively difficult to detect.
Comminutor. A machine that breaks up wastewater solids.
Community. The plants and animals in a particular area that are closely
related through food chains and other interactions.
Compact activated sludge. See activated sludge process.
7-2
-------
Cultural resources. Fragile and nonrenewable sites, districts, buildings,
structures, or objects representative of our heritage. Cultural
re-sources are divided into three categories: historical, archi-
tectural, or archaeological. Cultural resources of especial signifi-
cance may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Decibel (dB). A unit of measurement used to express the relative intensity
of sound. For environmental assessment, it is common to use a fre-
quency-rated scale (A scale) on which the units (dBA) are correlated
with responses of the human ear. On the A scale, 0 dBA represents the
average least perceptible sound (rustling leaves, gentle breathing),
and 140 dBA represents the intensity at which the eardrum may rupture
(jet engine at open throttle). Intermediate values generally are: 20
dBA, faint (whisper at 5 feet, classroom, private office); 60 dBA,
loud (average restaurant or living room, playground); 80 DBA, very
loud (impossible to use a telephone, noise made by food blender or
portable standing machine; hearing impairment may result from pro-
longed exposure); 100 dBA, deafening noise (thunder, car horn at 3
feet, loud motorcycle, loud power lawn mower).
Detention time. Average time required to flow through a basin. Also
called retention time.
Digestion. In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.
Disinfection. Effective killing by chemical or physical processes of all
organisms capable of causing infectious disease. Chlorination is the
disinfection method commonly employed in sewage treatment processes.
Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen gas (0~) in water. It is utilized in res-
piration by fish and other aquatic organisms, and those organisms may
be injured or killed when the concentration is low. Because much
oxygen diffuses into water from the air, the concentration of DO is
greater, other conditions being equal, at sea level than at high
elevations, during periods of high atmospheric pressure than during
periods of low pressure, and when the water is turbulent (during
rainfall, in rapids, and waterfalls) rather than when it is placid.
Because cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water, the con-
centration tends to be greater at low temperatures than at high tem-
peratures. Dissolved oxygen is depleted by the oxidation of organic
matter and of various inorganic chemicals. Should depletion be ex-
treme, the water may become anaerobic and could stagnate and stink.
Drift. Rock material picked up and transported by a glacier and deposited
elsewhere.
Effluent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or
in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treatment
plant, or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.
7-3
-------
Endangered species. Any species of animal or plant that is in known danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.
Eutrophication. The process of enrichment of a water body with nutrients.
Fauna. The total animal life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Fecal coliforra bacteria. See colifonn bacteria.
Floodway. The portion of the floodplain which carries moving water during
a flood event.
Flood fringe. The part of the floodplain which serves as a storage area
during a flood event.
Flora. The total plant life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Flowmeter. A guage that indicates the amount of flow of wastewater moving
through a treatment plant.
Force main. A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.
Gravity system. A system of conduits (open or closed) in which no liquid
pumping is required.
Gravity sewer. A sewer in which wastewater flows naturally down-gradient
by the force of gravity.
Groundwater. Subsurface fresh water.
Infiltration. The water entering a sewer system and service connections
from the ground through such means as, but not limited to, defective
pipes, pipe joints, improper connections, or manhole walls. Infiltra-
tion does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.
Inflow. The water discharged into a wastewater collection system and
service connections from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
leaders, cellars, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling
water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole
covers, cross-connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch
basins, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters or drainage.
Inflow does not include, and is distinguished from, infiltration.
Influent. Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment facility, or any unit thereof.
Interceptor sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
series of trunk sewers and to convey it to a sewage treatment plant.
Lift station. A facility in a collector sewer system, consisting of a
receiving chamber, pumping equipment, and associated drive and control
devices, that collects wastewater from a low-lying district at some
convenient point, from which it is lifted to another portion of the
collector system.
7-4
-------
Loam. Soil mixture of sand, silt, clay, and humus.
Macroinvertebrates. Invertebrates that are visible to the unaided eye
(those retained by a standard No. 30 sieve, which has 28 meshes per
inch or 0.595 mm openings); generally connotates bottom-dwelling
aquatic animals (benthos).
Macrophytes. A macroscopic plant, especially one in an aquatic habitat.
Milligram per liter (mg/1). A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
in 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs 1,000
grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part per mil-
lion, by weight). Used to measure and report the concentrations of
most substances that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.
Moraine. A mound, ridge, or other distinctive accumulation of sediment
deposited by a glacier.
National Register of Historic Places. Official listing of the cultural
resources of the Nation that are worthy of preservation. Listing on
the National Register makes property owners eligible to be considered
for Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation through state
programs. Listing also provides protection through comment by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the effect of Federally
financed, assisted, or licensed undertakings on historic properties.
Nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO.,). It is the most
oxidized phase in the nitrogen cycle in nature and occurs in high
concentrations in the final stages of biological oxidation. It can
serve as a nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.
Nitrite-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrite (N02). It is an in-
termediate stage in the nitrogen cycle in nature. Nitrite normally is
found in low concentrations and represents a transient stage in the
biological oxidation of organic materials.
Nonpoint source. Any area, in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
which pollutants flow into a body of water. Common pollutants from
nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
and sediments from agricultural soils.
Nutrients. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
and development of an organism; e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and
phosphorus.
Outwash. Sand and gravel transported away from a glacier by streams of
meltwater and either deposited as a floodplain along a preexisting
valley bottom or broadcast over a preexisting plain in a form similar
to an alluvial fan.
Oxidation lagoon (pond). A holding area where organic wastes are broken
down by aerobic bacteria.
7-5
-------
Percolation. The downward movement of water through pore spaces or larger
voids in soil or rock.
pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid or solid.
pH is represented on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 being a neutral state;
0, most acid; and 14, most alkaline.
Phosphorus. An essential food element that can contribute to the eutrophi-
cation of water bodies.
Photochemical oxidants. Secondary pollutants formed by the action of
sunlight on nitric oxides and hydrocarbons in the air; they are the
primary components of photochemical smog.
Piezometric level. An imaginary point that represents the static head of
groundwater and is defined by the level to which water will rise.
Plankton. Minute plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that
float or swim weakly in rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, or seas.
Point source. In regard to water, any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,
tunnel, well, discrete operation, vessel or other floating craft, or
other confined and discrete conveyance from which a substance con-
sidered to be a pollutant is, or may be, discharged into a body of
water.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A group of organic compounds used es-
pecially in the manufacture of plastics. In the environment, PCBs
exhibit many of the same characteristics as DDT and may, therefore, be
confused with that pesticide. PCBs are highly toxic to aquatic or-
ganisms, they persist in the environment for long periods of time, and
they are biologically magnified.
Primary treatment. The first stage in wastewater treatment, in which
substantially all floating or settleable solids are mechanically
removed by screening and sedimentation.
Prime farmland. Agricultural lands, designated Class I or Class II, having
little or no limitations to profitable crop production.
Pumping station. A facility within a sewer system that pumps sewage/
effluent against the force of gravity.
Rotating biological contactor. This secondary treatment process (also
sometimes referred to as biodiscs or rotating biological surfaces)
consists of a series of closely spaced discs (10 to 12 feet in dia-
meter) mounted on a horizontal shaft within a tank of wastewater.
During operation, the discs are covered with a layer of biological
slime and are rotated with about one-half of their surface area im-
mersed in wastewater. As the discs rotate, they carry a film of
wastewater into the air, where it trickles over the slime surface and
the microbes oxidize the organic material in the wastewater. As the
discs complete their rotation, this film mixes with the wastewater in
7-6
-------
the tank, adding to the oxygen in the tank, and excess biological
growth is sheared from the discs. The attached growths are similar in
concept to a trickling filter, except that the media with the microbes
attached is passed through the wastewater rather than the wastewater
passed over the microbes.
Runoff. Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that flows over the
ground surface and returns to streams. It can collect pollutants from
air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.
Sanitary sewer. Underground pipes that carry only domestic or commercial
wastewater, not stormwater.
Screening. Use of racks of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended
solids from sewage.
Secondary treatment. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
This step is accomplished by introducing the sewage into a trickling
filter or an activated sludge process. Effective secondary treatment
processes remove virtually all floating solids and settleable solids,
as well as 90% of the BOD and suspended solids. USEPA regulations
define secondary treatment as 30 mg/1 BOD, 30 mg/1 SS, or 85% removal
of these substances.
Seepage. Water that flows through the soil.
Settling tank. A holding area for wastewater, where heavier particles sink
to the bottom and can be siphoned off.
7-day, 10-day low flow. The lowest average flow that occurs for a consecu-
tive 7-day period at a recurrence interval of 10 years.
Sludge. The accumulated solids that have been separated from liquids such
as wastewater.
Storm sewer. A system that collects and carries rain and snow runoff to a
point where it can soak back into the groundwater or flow into surface
waters.
Surface water. All bodies of water on the surface of the Earth.
Suspended solids (SS). Small solid particles that contribute to turbidity.
The examination of suspended solids and the BOD test constitute the
two main determinations for water quality that are performed at waste-
water treatment facilities.
Tertiary treatment. Advanced treatment of wastewater that goes beyond the
secondary or biological stage. It removes nutrients such as phos-
phorus and nitrogen and most suspended solids.
Threatened species. Any species of animal or plant that is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant part of its range.
7-7
-------
Till. Unsorted and unstratified drift, consisting of a heterogeneous
mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders, that is deposited by and
underneath a glacier.
Trickling filter process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which the biological growth is attached to a fixed medium, over which
wastewater is sprayed. The filter organisms biochemically oxidize the
complex organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and
energy.
Unique farmland. Land, which is unsuitable for crop production in its
natural state, that has been made productive by drainage, irriga-
tion, or fertilization practices.
Wastewater. Water carrying dissolved or suspended solids from homes,
farms, businesses, and industries.
Water quality. The relative condition of a body of water, as judged by
a comparison between contemporary values and certain more or less
objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
parameters. The standard values usually are based on a specific
series of intended uses, and may vary as the intended uses vary.
Water table. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure. The upper
surface of the substrate that is wholly saturated with groundwater.
Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a
frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or
would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires
saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction.
7-8
-------
8.0. INDEX
Air quality, 3-2, 3-3, 4-8, 4-9
impacts on, 4-2, 4-3, 4-8, 4-13, 4-15,
4-20, 4-46
See also Odor
Alternatives:
considered, 1, iii
independent system, iii-vi, ix,
2-34, 2-39, 2-41, 2-43, 2-46,
2-47
costs, iv-vi, ix, 2-39, 2-41,
2-47
no-action, iii, 2-26, 2-34, 2-35,
2-38, 2-39, 4-1
costs, iii, 2-38
feasibility of, iii, 2-38, 2-39, 4-1
regional system, iii, vi-vii, ix,
2-34, 2-50, 2-52, 2-54
costs, vi, vii, ix, 2-50, 2-52, 2-54
desireability of, ix
environmental impacts, viii, ix, 1-7,
2-60, 4-1, 4-5, 4-8, 4-17, 4-20
most cost-effective, 1-4, 1-6, 2-60
recommended action, i, ix, x, 2-62, 2-63
Aquatic biota:
endangered, 3-37
impacts on 4-4, 4-5, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17,
4-50
of Colby Lake, 3-37
of Lawrence Creek, 3-37
of St. Croix River, 3-36-3-38
threatened, 3-37
Archaeological resources, 3-68, 3-69
impacts on, 4-6, 4-7, 4-11, 4-12,
BOD:
effluent limitations, iv, 2-13, 2-14,
2-16, 2-30, 2-39, 4-29
loading, 2-2, 2-3, 2-9-2-12, 3-25,
4-22
of St. Croix River, 3-21, 3-23, 3-24,
4-22
of treatment plant effluent, 2-2-2-5,
3-25, 3-26
removal, 2-23, 2-28, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11
Clean Water Act, ii, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4
Climate, 3-1, 3-2
Construction:
environmental impacts of, i, viii,
2-60, 2-61, 4-1-4-8
mitigation, 4-46-4-48
Construction Grants Program. See Funding,
federal
Costs:
annual user charges, ix, 1-7, 3-53,
3-55, 4-36-4-41
capital, iv-vii, 2-39, 2-41, 2-43,
2-47, 2-50, 2-52, 2-54, 2-59
comparison, 2-59, 2-60, 4-37, 4-43
operation and maintenance, iv-vii, 2-39,
2-41, 2-43, 2-47, 2-50, 2-52, 2-54, 2-59
present worth, iv-vii, 2-39, 2-41, 2-43,
2-47, 2-50, 2-52, 2-54, 2-57
See also Economic impacts
Economic cost criteria, 2-15
Economic impacts:
on local government finances, 1-7
4-16, 4-17, 4-42-4-44
on property values, 1-8, 4-45
on system users, 4-16, 4-17, 4-38-4-41
See also Costs
Effluent. See Wastewater
EIS:
issues, 1-7
requirement for, 1-4
Erosion, 4-48, 4-51
Facilities Plans, 1-5
alternatives considered, ii, 1-1
recommendations, 1-5, 1-6
Fecal coliforms:
effluent limitations, 2-12, 2-14, 2-16, 2-30
in St. Croix River, 3-16, 3-19, 3-23, 3-24
in treatment plant effluent, 2-4, 2-5, 3-25,
3-26
removal of, 2-28
Funding:
federal, iii, 1-3, 4-10, 4-34
Construction Grants Program, 1-3, 1-4,
4-10, 4-34
8-1
-------
priority, 4-36
local, 4-34, 4-36
state, 1-3, 4-34, 4-36
difference in priorities, ix
Geology, 3-5, 3-6
Groundwater
contamination, viii, 1-7, 1-8, 2-27-
2-29, 2-61, 3-28, 4-14, 4-15, 4-26,
4-33
levels, iv, vi, vii, 2-18, 2-28, 2-61,
4-31
quality, 3-28
use, 3-27, 3-28
Historical/cultural resources, 3-69,
3-70
impacts on, 4-6, 4-7, 4-13, 4-49
Interstate sanitary district:
formation of, 2-62
Land:
existing use, 3-55-3-60
prime agricultural, viii, 1-7, 2-61,
3-6, 3-8, 3-31, 4-10
projected use, 3-61-3-63
requirements of alternatives, iv-viii,
2-28, 2-41, 2-47, 2-50, 2-54, 2-61
3-10, 3-11, 3-33, 4-4, 4-5
Land application/disposal, ii, iv, vi-viii,
1-1, 2-25-2-27, 2-39, 2-47
discharge limitations, 2-30
odors from, 1-7, 1-8
processes, 2-27
land/spray irrigation, 3-10, 4-31-
4-33
overland flow, 2-28, 3-11
rapid infiltration, 2-28, 2-34, 2-41,
2-61, 3-8, 4-29
soil/land suitable for, 2-29, 3-8-
3-11
wetlands discharge, 2-31
j>ee also sludge, disposal
Nitrogens:
in St. Croix River, 3-17-3-19, 3-21, 3-23
removal, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 4-31
Noise, 4-2, 4-3, 4-14, 4-15, 4-21
NPDES permit, ii, 1-1, 2-12, 2-13
effluent limitations, 1-1, 2-3, 2-12-
2-16
compliance with, 2-3, 2-4
monitoring requirements, 2-3, 2-4
Odors, 4-20
from construction, 4-2
from land application, 1-7, 1-8
from sludge disposal, 4-24
from treatment plant, 3-3, 4-14, 4-15, 4-24
from treatment/storage ponds, 4-25, 4-27
pH:
effluent limitations, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16
of St. Croix River, 3-17-3-19
Phosphorus:
effluent limitations, 2-13, 2-16, 2-25
in St. Croix River, 3-17, 3-21, 3-23,
3-24
removal, 2-28, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 4-30
Population:
induced growth, 1-7, 4-16, 4-17, 4-52
past trends, 3-45, 3-46
projections, 2-9, 2-11, 3-47-3-49,
3-62, 3-63
Project area:
map of, 1-2
Project history, 1-4, 1-5
Public finance:
City of St. Croix Falls, 3-49, 3-53
impacts on, 4-4, 4-5
City of Taylors Falls, 3-52-3-55
impacts on, 4-4, 4-5
Public health, 1-8, 4-18-4-20
Recreation, 3-67, 3-68, 3-71, 4-6, 4-7
impacts on, 4-16, 4-17, 4-22
Sewer system, See Wastewater
collection system
Sludge, 2-32
digestion, 2-33, 4-23
disposal of, 1-8, 2-32, 2-33
Socioeconomic data:
employment, 3-43-3-45
housing, 3-64-3-66
income, 3-42, 3-43, 4-39
Soils, 3-6, 3-7, 3-27
alteration by land treatment, 4-32
suitability for land treatment,
3-8-3-11, 4-33
8-2
-------
St. Croix National Scenic and
Recreational Riverway, i, ii, x, 1-1
See also Water quality
Surface water, 3-11, 3-12
flow data, 3-12-3-14, 3-21
recreational uses, 3-14, 3-67, 3-71
j>ee also Water quality
Suspended solids:
effluent limitations, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16
in St. Croix River, 3-21, 3-23, 3-24
in treatment plant effluent, 2-4, 2-5
3-25, 3-26
loading, 2-2, 2-9-2-12, 3-25, 4-21,
4-22
removal, 2-23, 2-28, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11
Topography, 3-3-3-5
suitability for land treatment, 3-10,
3-11
Vegetation, 3-29-3-34, 4-51
revegetation, 4-47
Wastewater:
dispersion, 3-25
existing discharges of, 3-25, 3-26
flow rates, 2-2, 2-3, 2-5, 2-8, 2-10-
2-12, 3-25
contribution of Interstate State
park, 2-6-2-8
reduction by conservation, 2-19-
2-21
quality, 1-7, 2-3-2-5
reuse, 2-31, 2-32
Wastewater collection system:
flexibility, 2-54, 2-56
reliability, 2-56-2-58
St. Croix Falls, 2-1, 2-5, 2-6, 2-21,
2-22
force main route, 3-33, 3-35, 4-11
infiltration/inflow, 2-5, 2-6, 2-18,
2-19
service area customers, 2-1, 2-8
Taylors Falls, 2-1, 2-2, 2-6-2-8, 2-21, 2-22
force main route, 3-34, 3-35
infiltration/inflow, 2-6, 2-7, 2-19
See also Wastewater treatment plants
Wastewater treatment:
disinfection, 2-25, 2-26
primary, 2-22, 2-23
process description/diagrams, 2-40-2-55
secondary, 2-23, 2-24
septic tanks, 2-1, 2-2
tertiary, 2-24, 2-25
See also Land application/disposal:
Alternatives, considered
Wastewater treatment plants:
existing, iii, 2-2, 2-3
condition of, ii, iii, 1-1
demolition/abandonment of
iv-vii, 2-41, 2-43, 2-52,
2-54
design flows, 2-2, 2-3, 2-39
effluent data, 2-4, 2-5, 3-25, 3-26
upgrading/expanding of, i-iii, iv,
vi, viii, ix, 1-1, 1-6, 2-26, 2-27,
2-34, 2-35, 2-39, 2-50, 2-54, 2-56,
4-21
interim, v
new, i, vii, ix, 1-1, 2-35
cost of, vii
design factors, 2-8-2-12
design flows, iv, v, 2-9-2-12
operation impacts, 4-12-4-34
reliability of, 2-57, 2-58, 2-61
Water quality:
impacts, viii, 2-61, 3-21, 4-2, 4-3,
4-14, 4-15, 4-21, 4-22, 4-51
of St. Croix River, 3-15-3-20
standards, 3-14, 3-15
stations, 3-16
survey, 3-21-3-25
Wetlands, 3-21, 3-31-3-32
impacts on, 4-9, 4-16, 4-17
Wildlife, 3-35-3-42
endangered, 3-38, 3-40, 4-11
impacts on, 4-2-4-5, 4-16, 4-17,
4-51
threatened, 3-38-3-40, 4-11
Wisconsin Fund. See Funding, state
8-3
-------
APPENDIX A
Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
St. Croix Falls Wastewater Treatment System
The wastewater treatment facility for St. Croix Falls was designed in
1948 and constructed in 1951. The treatment plant is located on the bank
of the St. Croix River on approximately 0.5 acres of land leased from the
WDNR.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary treat-
ment, biological filtration, final clarification, flow measurement, chlori-
nation, sludge digestion, and sludge dewatering. The facility was designed
to treat 120,000 gpd, with a BOD. loading of 250 pounds per day and a total
suspended solids loading of 240 pounds per day (Banister, Short, Elliott,
Hendrickson, and Associates 1976). The 1975 yearly average wastewater flow
was 211,400 gpd (Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates
1976). The monthly peak flow was 299,400 gpd. Based on the 1978 average
raw sewage BOD,- concentration of 159 mg/1 and the 1975 average flow, the
current BOD,, loading is 280 pounds per day. This estimate assumes that
there has been no significant increase in wastewater flow since 1975.
Raw sewage from the St. Croix Falls service area enters the treatment
plant from sewers located along River Street. The old outfall sewer that
was used before the construction of the treatment facility could be used as
an emergency bypass from the River Street sewer. There are no reported
instances of its use.
Preliminary Treatment
Raw sewage flows by gravity to the treatment plant and passes through
a 4-foot bar screen. One manually-cleaned bar screen with 1.5-inch bar
spacing is provided. Flow from the bar screen is combined with a recircu-
lation flow from the final clarifier effluent. Screened materials are
collected and hauled to the city landfill.
A-l
-------
Primary Treatment
A rotating fine-mesh screen is utilized for removal of settleable
solids. One screen, approximately 38 inches in diameter by 4 feet in
length, is provided. The screen is comprised of a 14x14 bronze wire mesh.
Final clarifier effluent is used as spray washwater. Solids removed by the
screen are discharged to the anaerobic sludge digester. The unit appears
to be in good working condition.
Biological Filtration
A high-rate, single-stage trickling filter with prefabricated tile
media is provided as part of the secondary treatment. The filter is oc-
tagonal in shape, with a surface area of approximately 500 square feet and
a depth of 6 feet. The design hydraulic loading is 3.5 million gallons per
acre per day (mgad) and the current hydraulic loading is 6.1 mgad.
This filter has design and current organic loadings of 3,600 and 4,100
pounds of BOD,- per acre per foot per day, respectively, or 83 and 93 pounds
of BODr per thousand cubic feet of media, respectively. The organic load-
ings are higher than the design criteria indicated in the WDNR regulations.
Two 100-gpm pumps are provided for a one-to-one recirculation. Recir-
culation presently is utilized for about 14 to 16 hours per day, during the
nighttime low flow periods, in order to provide continuous application of
wastewater.
The turntable of the rotary distributor formerly had a mercury-type
seal. The seal was broken, and no new seal has been provided. This condi-
tion results in substantial leakage. There is an unmetered trickling
filter bypass from the fine screen to the final clarifier.
The coarse nozzles used, the leakage from the distributor, and the
apparent inefficiency of the fine screen have allowed sewage debris to
accumulate on the surface of the media. According to the Director of
A-2
-------
Public Works of the City of St. Croix Falls, the filter has not been sus-
ceptible to flooding problems. Apart from the turntable, the trickling
filter appears to be in satisfactory condition. Although the degree of
hydraulic and organic overloading is unknown, some loss of efficiency in
this unit is suspected. In addition, bypassing of the filter during severe
hydraulic loading periods substantially reduces the overall pollutant
removals.
Final Clarification
The trickling filter underdrainage flow and bypass flow are discharged
by gravity to the final clarifier. The clarifier is 36 feet by 12 feet,
with a 10-foot operating depth. At the design loading and current loading,
this clarifier provides surface settling rates of 280 and 490 gallons per
square foot per day (gpsfd), respectively; detention times of 6.5 and 3.7
hours, respectively; and weir overflow rates of 5,000 and 8,800 gallons per
foot per day (gpfd), respectively.
These loading rates are within the Wisconsin design criteria. Sludge
and scum are removed with an axially-rotated chain and scraper flight
system. The scum and sludge are pumped to the anaerobic sludge digester.
The hydraulic overloading has caused a noticeable deterioration in the
performance of the final clarifier. The inlet baffles have been submerged
due to high inlet wastewater velocities. Heavy scum layers have arisen due
to the inadequate operation of the flight system. The effluent troughs
occasionally are submerged, and high concentrations of effluent suspended
solids are discharged due to the hydraulic overloading. Replacement of the
sludge and scum removal equipment and structural modifications to ensure a
uniform flow distribution, a dissipation of inlet velocities, and a minimum
of large-scale turbulence appear to be required to ensure a prolonged
period of proper operation.
Flow Measurement
The discharge from the final clarifier flows by gravity to the reclr-
culation wet well containing the flow measurement device. Two 100-gpm
A-3
-------
pumps lift the final clarifier effluent to a 450-gallon tank for use as the
fine screen spray and also to recirculate flow to the trickling filter. A
12-inch rectangular weir with a Stevens Type F, Model 63 recorder is pro-
vided. The most recent known calibration was performed during February
1979. Erroneous flow readings may have been obtained prior to February
1979 due to a lack of calibration. The flow meter is not easily access-
ible, but appears to be properly maintained.
Chlorination
The chlorine contact tank is located immediately downstream from the
flow measurement weir. The contact tank has a volume of 3,440 gallons and
provides detention times of 40 minutes and 23 minutes at the design flow
and current average flow, respectively. At the current peak flow of
299,400 gpd, the detention time is 11 minutes. These detention times are
significantly less than the Wisconsin design average rate and peak rate of
60 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively. A Wallace and Tiernan gas chlori-
nator is provided. Approximately 10 pounds of chlorine is applied to the
effluent daily. The condition of the chlorination facilities is unknown
because of their inaccessibility.
Sludge Digestion
Sludge from the fine screen and final clarifier is digested in a
single-stage, 5,000-cubic-foot anaerobic digester. The digester has a
fixed cover and is heated. The only mixing occurs when sludge recirculates
through the heat exchanger, which is operated on fuel oil. Gas produced in
the digester is vented off without being flared. At present, only pH
analyses are run on the digester. The information is not sufficient to
determine the adequacy of performance of the unit.
Sludge Dewatering and Disposal
Six sludge-drying beds occasionally are used for dewatering. The beds
have a total area of 1,100 square feet. Dewatered sludge is removed from
A-4
-------
the beds manually. More frequently, digested liquid sludge is pumped
directly from the digester into a tank truck and hauled to disposal sites
on the Bishop Farm and the Chinander Farm, both located north of St. Croix
Falls. These sludge disposal sites were not inspected.
Other Facilities
The treatment facility is enclosed in a three-story, concrete struc-
ture located on the bank of the St. Groix River. Wastewater flows through
the treatment plant entirely by gravity, except for recirculation, fine-
screen spray water, and sludge flows. Although the structure is almost 30
years old, it appears to be in sound condition. Ancillary facilities,
including ventilation equipment, doors, windows, handrails, and electrical
facilities, generally are in need of replacement or repair. Other mechani-
cal equipment, such as the heat exchanger and pumps, may need replacement
if an extended service life is required.
At present, only chlorine residual and pH tests are run at the plant
site. Other analyses are conducted by Commercial Testing Laboratory, Inc.
Additional laboratory and administrative facilities appear to be required
for proper operation and control of the treatment plant.
A 15-kwh portable generator is owned by the City of St. Croix Falls
for power outage emergencies. Because the major treatment-related units
that would be affected by a power loss are the sludge removal equipment,
the recirculation pumps, and the fine-screen motor, the emergency power
facilities appear to be sufficient.
There are no domestic water protection facilites, such as a water
break tank, at the treatment plant. This omission should be corrected.
The existing plant is located on approximately 0.5 acres of land
leased from the WDNR. The adjacent land also is owned by the WDNR. Any
expansion of the existing facilities would require an arrangement for the
use of additional land.
A-5
-------
EXHIBIT A-2
Taylors Falls Wastewater Treatment System
The existing sewage treatment facility for the City of Taylors Falls
was constructed in 1941. The plant is located on the bank of the St. Croix
River immediately north of the Route 8 and Route 95 Bridge.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary treat-
ment, biological filtration, final clarification, chlorination, sludge
digestion and sludge dewatering. The existing facilities were designed for
a flow rate of 75,600 gpd and a maximum raw sewage SOD,- concentration of
250 mg/1 (MPCA 1976). A flow measurement and sampling survey conducted by
SERCO (1978) during November 1978 showed that the treatment plant loading
was 90,900 gpd and 105 pounds of BOD,, per day. The peak flow rate observed
during this period was 144,000 gpd.
Preliminary Treatment
Sewage entering the treatment facility is screened by a bar rack,
which is cleaned manually. The bar rack structure contains a bypass line
tributary to the plant outfall (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers
1979). The bypass is used infrequently (MPCA 1976, 1977). No permanent
flow measurement device is provided.
Primary Treatment
Both the sewage flow from the bar rack and a recirculation flow from
the final clarifier enter the primary clarifier. The enclosed clarifier is
21 feet by 8.3 feet, with an operating depth of 7 feet. The detention time
and surface settling rate at the design flow of 75,600 gpd are 2.8 hours
and 450 gpsfd, respectively. At the current loading of 90,900 gpd, the
detention time is 2.4 hours and the surface settling rate is 520 gpsfd.
These rates generally are within the recommended design criteria (Great
Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers 1978;
Metcalf and Eddy 1972). The clarifier structure and the sludge removal
equipment appear to be in satisfactory condition. However, some scum
removal deficiencies were observed.
A-6
-------
Biological Filtration
A standard-rate, single-stage trickling filter with a coarse rock
media is provided for biological oxidation after primary clarification.
The trickling filter was converted to a high-rate filter with the addition
of a pump to recirculate the flow from the final clarifier. The recircula-
tion pump is rated at 150 gpm. The circular filter is enclosed separately
from the other treatment units and is 42.5 feet in diameter by 6.0 feet in
depth. The current organic loading is 540 pounds of BOD- per acre-foot per
day. The desiga and current hydraulic loadings are 1.5 tagad and 1.6 mgad,
respectively. These loadings are well below the recommended criteria for
high-rate filters and are within the standard-rate classification (Water
Pollution Control Federation 1977). The rotary distribution system was
leaking at the turntable, and several diffusers were clogged. This caused
an irregular spray of sewage on the surface of the media. Some deteriora-
tion of the filter housing also was observed, indicating that major reha-
bilitation would be required for continued service.
Final Clarification
The trickling filter underdrainage flows by gravity to the final
clarifier. The uncovered, rectangular clarifier is 28.2 feet long and 8
feet wide. The operating water depth is unknown. The design and current
surface settling rates are 335 gpsfd and 403 gpsfd, respectively. The
current peak surface settling rate is 638 gpsfd, based on a maximum hourly
flow of 100 gpm. The design and current weir overflow rates are 4,725 gpfd
and 5,680 gpfd, respectively. These rates are below the recommended cri-
teria (Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engi-
neers 1978). The final clarifier has a chain and scraper sludge conveyor
system similar to the other clarifier system previously discussed. Sludge
is pumped continuously to the primary settling tank. Electrical problems
occasionally have shut down the sludge pump and the conveyor system. There
is no provision for scum removal in the final clarifier. The final clari-
fier is subject to flooding during periods when the water level in the
river is high.
A-7
-------
Chlorination
One section of the final clarifier is walled off and utilized as a
chlorine contact basin. The basin is 5.5 feet by 8 feet, with an approx-
imate depth of 5.5 feet. The detention time is 18 minutes at the current
peak hydraulic loading, slightly better than the 15-minute criterion recom-
mended by the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary
Engineers (1978).
A new gas chlorinator currently is utilized. Normal chlorine usage is
approximately 2 pounds per day. Although the contact tank is baffled, the
MPCA has recommended a different point of chlorination in order to promote
additional dispersion and lengthen the contact time. Final effluent from
the chlorine contact tank flows into the outfall pipe tributary to the St.
Croix River.
Sludge Digestion
Sludge from the primary clarifier is pumped to the single-stage,
anaerobic sludge digester. The digester is 15 feet in diameter, with a
depth of 16 feet. Heating and mixing facilities are not provided. The
existing operating data are not sufficient to evaluate the performance of
this unit or the loading on the unit. The lack of heating and mixing
equipment, however, generally precludes its ability to digest sludge pro-
perly, especially during the winter months. An odor from sludge being
dewatered during April 1979 also indicated insufficient digestion.
Sludge Dewatering and Disposal
One sand drying bed, divided into four compartments, is provided for
dewatering of digested sludge. The drying bed is 30 by 28 feet. According
to the Public Works Director of the City of Taylors Falls, approximately
four beds of sludge are drawn per year. This usage does not appear to be
excessive. No provisions are made for pumping liquid digested sludge for
disposal. Dewatered sludge is hauled to the Blood Farm, located north of
A-8
-------
Taylors Falls, for ultimate disposal. This disposal site was not inspected.
Other Facilities
The structures enclosing the control room and the primary clarifier,
the trickling filters, and the anaerobic digester are approximately 40
years old and generally in need of repair. The sludge pump, part of the
original equipment, should be replaced.
The treatment plant has very little laboratory or control room space.
Additional facilities should be provided if continued operation at this
site is required. At present, most laboratory analyses are conducted by
Feed-Rite Controls, Inc.
Alternative power facilities are not provided for the treatment plant.
The sludge conveyor systems, the sludge pump, and the recirculation pump
would be affected by a power loss.
The existing plant site has limited space for additional facilities
The plant is bordered by a ravine on the north; by a ridge and a commercial
district on the west; by the State Highway 8 and 95 Bridge on the south;
and by the St. Croix River on the east. A large-scale plant expansion at
this site may not be feasible.
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits
-------
EXHIBIT B-l
Permit to Discharge under the
Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System
for the City of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
-------
Permit No. WI-,oa2079f-2
PERMIT TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE '
WISCONSIN POLLUTANT DISCHAR& ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 147., Wisconsin Statutes,.'
CITY OF ST. CROIX FALLS - .
Is permitted to discharge from a wastewater treatment facility located at
RIVER STREET
ST. CROIX FALLS, WISCONSIN
) .
to .THE ST. CROIX RIVER, IN POLK COUNTY ,
In accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and
other conditions set forth In this permit. '
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and
conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant Identified In
this permit more frequently than or at a level fn excess of that authorized
shall constitute a violation of the permit.
This permit shall become effective on the date of signature, '
This permit to discharge shall expire at mldnlpht, June. 30, 1982,
The permittee shall not discharge after the date of expiration. If the
permittee wishes to continue to discharge after this expiration'date an
application shall be filed for r«Issuance of this permit In accordance with
the requirements of Chapter NR 200, Wisconsin Administrative Code, at /
least 180 days prior to this expiration date.
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
For the Secretary
THOMAS A. KROEHN
ADMINISTRATOR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
Dated this 3C day of' (Jk^e^ ,
ff
B-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Part I - Monitoring Requirements and Effluent Limitations
A) Influent Requirements
B) Interim Effluent Requirements
C) Final Effluent Requirements
Part II - Special Report Requirements Date Due
A) Solids Report October 31, 1078
Part III - Schedule of Compliance
A) Submft Facilities Plan July 1, 1979
B) Submit Plans and Specifications July 1, 1980
C) Award Construction Contracts February 1, 1981
D) Construction Progress Report August 31, 1981
E) Complete Construction of an Upgraded
Wastewater Treatment Facility June 30, 1982
Part IV - Special Conditions
Part V - General Conditions
B-2
-------
Part I, Pago 1 of tfr-.-^
WPOES Permit tto. Wt-0020796^l£
" i J'-^Tt' **
"* isa
Part I. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ... -
i " *
«
1. Reporti ng
a. Mom'torinq results obtained during the previous month shall be .
summarized and reported on a WPDES Self-Monitoring Report Form,
#3200-28, postmarked no later than the 15th day of the month following
the completed reporting period. The first Deport for the month of
June, 1978 is due on or before July 15, 1978. The white and green
copies of 3200-28 shall be submitted to:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Section-Permits
Northwest Distr1ct: '
Hwy. 70, Box 309
Spooner, Wisconsin 54801
The pink report copy -is to be retained by the permittee.
b. Monitoring reports shall be signed by a principal executive officer,
a ranking elected official, or other duly authorized representative.
c. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than«,
required by this permit, the results of such monitoring Shall be
Included on form #3200-28.
i-. , ',
d. Sampling and laboratory testing procedures shall be performed in
accordance with Chapters NR 218 and NR 219 of the Wisconsin Administra-
tive Code.
B-3
-------
O
CM
O
O
a>
>
I
re E
o. C
0)
o.
»*
to
4-> UJ
L. a
tfl
19
?
re
(U
a.
at
$-
(O
c
0)
a>
(O
^i
in
O
'al
JO
o
01
o
0)
a.
CD
J_
IO
a.
Irt
oo
h-
z.
UJ
i
re H-
^ .
CX
E
0
o
J_
^B
i
CO
^^^
>^
o
Ol C.
Ol
ex 3
E cr
re 0*
i/> ,
w
>»
32
o>
Ol
s
X
U. CO
aF^J
«/>
0
CX
u
S-
^~
*>
1
ro
>>
r
^<:
Ol
Ol
5
X
CO
J_
3
O
f
f^
o
Ol
J *
^^
o
Ol
*
'o
(J
Ol
E
p**
o
>
^*
*o
s
CX
o
0
o
c
re
c
o
o
zr
o
0
o>
c
f
PMM
CX
M
«
C
o
12
u
o
CX
s
CX
1
£
O) r
«A
0)
Q
a:
<i
Si
UJ
Oi
o
UJ
c o.
o
o
c t_
f »"
CD 3
CD cr
jo o>
i_
a
o «/»
a> u
a. a>
4J
O) 4J
j= *-
^g
c?el
r
s- a>
cr
a>
a.
*r
O
01
01
o
CL
O
u
ai
J*
3«;
C
Vt O
*u
ex re
E y
re o
»/) r-
f
1 1
^-
3
^*^. ^Sfc
en o>
E E
V)
^o
^»
o
00
a:
UJ
I
UJ
s
2
<
£
T3
>> 01
re TD
^o c
.* 1 OJ
V LOCX
O
O 3
CO 00
«/>
a><
f"
Q.O
E 0
re
*- E
0 f-
->
in
4J en
10 C
f* -r-
«/) r-
c a.
0 E
u re
V)
o>
r- -0
CL a;
E -a
re c
>/> ai
^
6
u
u
J=
^t
CM
*
^^
^
*-
f»
U
0
<»-
^
41
T3
£
S
a
1
01 e
4-> O
r-
o oc
ex
o
o -o
01
J- !->
3 t-
O VI
J= O
I CX
co E
O
c
o
7
«r
B-4
-------
CM
to
Ot
rv
S
8
CU 4J>
si
CO
fel
£§e
12
i
Of
UJ
CO
o
p*^
r £
EFFLU
CM
00
O)
O
to
in
O
U
o
3
*
Ol M
J9 -M
r- 3
"w e
JC «
M
» s
o
lu ^
u
CO
a
i/>
*U Ol
Ol JC
£ S
11 M
vt t-
f Ol
5^
o*ie
*S M
o» o>
t e
O> ^M
C «
T 3
o <«-
*>
c fe
- t ^"
o 55
S3 **
EF
Vt
^^ !* -
Ol JC Ol J3
« M *>' "M
JC"»- -t-
55-C -c >
c o -^ H-
04J X O
Ol O O>
g-^ 10 10
i- w JC
-e - u
JQ 3
« u
o o
O M C C
I « C JD
LOI Ol
4J Jtf
I *J 10 t
:"*»*
S5- ^ t
i *
J ?5
EFFLUENT
*l Ol 01 Ol
^J ^J -t J* At}
v» «/» vt
o o o
u u u
il tl tl
JC J= JC
ro co
c
c^X^X^
Ol Ol Ol
Oi Ol O)
3 i
O
X X X
co ro co
i i i i
i i i i
1 O LO LO
r (O PSi
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
tV)
o
I
u
u
JC
ro
^ vo -.
tn « to
VO CO CM VO
1 00
00
-O J3
22
»*»
O f-.
r- Ot
CM
MM
-------
CM
1
vb
r--.
0
CM
O
o
-J~ t4
3.
«4-
Q
Ij~ ^-^
0) 4->
EOTr-
0)
> Q-
tM<
CO
4-> LU
S_ 0
2»
^r
CO
O
« i
J
£
t-x
E
»»
_J
>
+J
f^
v>
U
CO
<*-
^J
c
0)
£5
3
m c
2^
M fO
r
T3 t-
OJ OJ
O t/>
o.«e
3«4-
*J
J*g
4J
E
<«- 0
°£
**
c
O Q)
i CJl
4-> i-
O) CO
r .C
gl/>
O *^
OTD
C O
0 4->
cfo
C O»
r- N
C T-
C i-
t- 0
Cf)J=
tt) -»
JO 3
fO
O m
r f-
i.
0) 0)
0. (U
-M
0) «->
JC f-
4-> E
C Q.
« flj
3 J=
O 4J
Oj
>
r~
4->
T5
4^>
c
QJ
QJ
i-
Q.
QJ
i-
4-J
10
C
QJ
«0
M
Q)
JD
r"~*
fM
T3
JT
in
5:
O
QJ
J3
(U
*-
14-
i
O
CL
in
in
C
OJ
gr
OJ
L.
t-
3
CT
a;
s_
cr.
c:
r~
o
_i \
^^
r-
C
c
*
x:
4^
^r
r-
5
QJ
O
fO
v~
r--"
CL
^
u
c
r"
C
OJ
4-* (A
c
I/) O
CL fO
E o
4-> 4-J
r- -P- »
(/I I/I (/I
on
t
^^
LU
"t~
LU
ce
l~4
*^~^
O
^J
cc
C^3
7^
H-<
c:
o
K-
» <
^7"
0
o o o
CL CL CL
QJ
QJ
CL Q.
E >i
CO
E E E
O O O
O O (J
l/> J_ t- L-
3 JT JC J=
Oil 1
C CMCM CM
r*
^k. 4J
QJ (J
. c
D. QJ
E 3
IO O"
CO QJ
i.
Lu
C >, >i >,
O r- r-
C-? ^ v^ sx
QJ QJ QJ
QJ OJ QJ
55 3
XX X
CO CO CO
to
o
» 1
J»-
>,
<4-
U
QJ
Q.
to
v"
in
c
O
r-
4->
(0
4J
r"
r*
J
^
QJ
JZ
4J
O
^^*
«
TZ5
k^^1.
JO
!3-
ro
"oi
"^
I
£
ff
4->
C
^
§,
E
X
fD
III 1
*"
I
QJ
^** f"
Sr^CO^
4-> j«: f
c o> -o JE
O QJ QJ *->
E 2T3 C
-^^ C 0
r- O O 3
Lu CO CO CO
1
o>
4->
fM.
*/l
o
CL
s5 LO
O to
5-
L.
_P"
1
^j
>«j
r~*
V^ Jte
OJ 1
2
o
i
IT)
1 1
* ^
IO
rx
to
"» "
t^i
. i
o
CO
vt
"TJ3
^»
r»
o
C/) ^"*»
>>
"O r"
01 ^
TD O)
SI
Q.* *
to
3 I
CO Q.
X> JO
ft) ^0
U L.
CO CD
>n
r"
^> «^
r- OJ
T- QJ
S2
X
J~
en
E
i
,_
E
O
0
1 r
^.^
^4
?K
1 1
1 1
1 1
CM
3
"O "v. **"
r- ^ f-
M> -J r-
0) O
o: tt: o
r- °'i
T5 t3
4tal "-IL^* *)
O C)
1 U.
,
o
eg
*-
00
. r~
*
«*-
O
S
o
r
*»-
C
w
f*
I/)
0)
o
A3
C
o
QJ
m
CO
t
v-»
,
e>
e
^
M
*«
(;
O
4J
t.
o
CL
O
O.
§
^
4A
O)
10
u
1
CM
B-6
-------
P«rt II. .
WPOES Permit Ho,
PART II. SPECIAL REPORTS
All reports required 1n this section shall be signed by a principal
executive officer, a ranMnn elected official, or other duly authorized
representative, these signed reports shall be submitted to:
I
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WPDES Permits - Municipal Wastewater Section
P. 0. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
B-7
-------
Part II - Section
Page 1 of 4
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. A sludge management plan shall be developed for the disposal of
solids, sludges or other materials resulting from treatment of
wastewater. The permittee shall submit the initial sludge management
plan by OCT 31 1978 . If the Department determines that
the plan is acceptable it will issue a letter of approval to the
permittee.
If the plan as submitted is determined by the Department to be
unacceptable, it shall be returned to the permittee for revision
. and resubmittal.
The permittee shall be responsible for the implementation of the
approved sludge management activities. The permittee may at any
time amend the sludge management plan, subject to the approval
of the Department. The amended plan may not be put into effect
until it has received approval from the Department.
The Department shall evaluate the management plans on the basis
of recommendations in Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) Technical Bulletin #88 and any other pertinent information
deemed appropriate to the review of sludge management plans.
The sludge management plan shall be submitted on reporting forms
to be provided by this Department. Following review of the management
plan, the Department shall issue a letter of approval with any
necessary conditions. The letter of approval will establish a
means by which the oermittee will periodically report to the Department
on the sludge disposal practices in the time period between reports.
It will also indicate the frequency of sludge analysis required
and the parameters to be analyzed in the next reporting period.
In general municipalities over 1 MGD will be required to report
on a quarterly basis, while municipalities under 1 MGD will be
required to report annually. This may be modified depending on
the type of waste treated at the municipal facility.
2. The management plan shall be a comprehensive report which incorporates
the following items in sufficient detail to allow evaluation:
a. Storage facilities, when normal disposal sites are unavailable
or inaccessible, including:
1) Type of facility
2) Location of facility
3) Capacity of facility
4) Property interest or contractual agreement allowing use
of facility, and
5) Any other planned use of the storage facility
B-8
-------
Part II - Section
Page 2 of 4
A description of sludge characteristics, including:
1) Type of wastewater treatment provided that results in sludge
generation
2) Type of sludge treatment prior to disposal
3) The quantity of sludge generated for disposal on a dally,
monthly and annual basis
4) Physical and chemical characteristics of the sludge Including:
Parameter Abbreviation
*Percent Total Solids
Total Nitrogen N
Ammonium Nitrogen
*pH
Total Phosphorous P
Total Potassium K
Arsenic As
Cadmium Cd
Copper Cu
Chromium Cr
Lead Pb
Mercury Hg
Nickel HI
Z1nc In
*A11 parameters other than Percent Sol Ids and pH shall
be calculated on a dry weight basis.
The mode of sludge transportation, Including:
1) The hauler's name and mailing address (license number 1f
a certified hauler).
2} The method of transportation, such as pipe line, barge,
truck, train and others.
3) If hauled by a vehicle the following Information 1s needed:
a) Type of vehicle
b) Capacity of vehicle
B-9
-------
Part II - Section A
Page 3 of 4
c) The gross weight of vehicle
d. Information about the ultimate disposal site.
1) If sludge will be disposed of at one or more licensed landfill
sites, the following information shall be provided:
a) The amount of sludge to be disposed of at each site
b) The site names and license numbers
c) Contractual agreements
d) An indication of approval from the Solid Waste Management
Section of this Department
2) If sludge will be disposed of on land areas (other than
at licensed landfill sites), the following information shall
be provided for each disposal site.
»
a) A soil test shall be completed for each disposal site
for each year that sludge is to be applied.
b) The location of the site shall be indicated on a soils
map. Either a plat map or U.S.G.S. topographic map
shall also be provided.
c) A description of the crops to be grown or the dominant
vegetation on the disposal site.
d) A discussion of adjacent land use, drainage and land
features associated with the disposal site.
e) The ownership of the site
f) A description of the land use agreement
g) A description of methods to be used to. spread and incorporate
the sludge into the soil.
h) The applicator of the sludge, such as the farmer, land
owner, municipality, contractor or others.
i) An estimate of the total acreage to which sludge will
be applied.
j) The maximum rate of application (tons/acre/year based
on nitrogen or cadmium, whichever is lower) and the
loading limit (tons/acre based on metal equivalents
or cadmium whichever is lower). If recommended application
rates or loading limits are exceeded, comprehensive
monitoring may be required.
B-10
-------
Part II - Section
Page 4 of 4
k) The anticipated use of the site for the 12 months Immediately
followinq sludge application.
3) The frequency of sludqe disposal and the months 1n which
it will occur.
3. Beginning with submission of the plan, records shall be maintained
for each site, (other than at a licensed landfill site), Including:
a. The amount of sludge applied (tons/acre).
b. The amount of nitrogen applied per year (Ibs./acre).
c. The amount of cadmium applied per year (Ibs./acre).
d. The total amount of metal equivalents applied (Ibs./acre).
e. The total amount of cadmium applied (Ibs./acre).
*
f. The location of the site on a plat map and the number of acres
to which the sludge was applied.
g. The site monitoring results.
h. A description of any adverse environmental, health or social
effects that occurred due to sludge disposal.
1. A report of any action not in conformance with the approved plan.
B-ll
-------
Part III. Page 1
WPDES Permit No. WI-0020796-2
PART III. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Due
a. Submit Facilities Plan - July 1, 1979
b. Submit Plans and Specifications - July 1, 1980
c. Award Construction Contracts - February 1, 1981
d. Construction Progress Report - August 31, 1981
e. Complete Construction of an Upgraded Wastewater
Treatment Facility - June 30, 1982
The above reports shall be submitted to:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WPDES Permits - Municipal
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
B-12
-------
Part IV. Page 1 of 2
WPDES Permit No. WI-
PART IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Noncompl 1 ance Not1f1ca 11on
If for any reason the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to
comply with any condition specified 1n this permit or should any unusual or
extraordinary discharge of wastes occur from the facilities permitted
herein, the permittee shall within five days of noncompllance occurrence
notify the Department of Natural Resources, Compliance Section, Box 7921,
Madison, Wisconsin 53707, providing the following Information:
a. Cause for noncompllance.
b. Expected duration of noncompllance period.
c. Steps taken by permittee to regain compliance with permit
conditions.
d. Steps taken to prevent recurrence of the condition of
noncompllance.
2. Change 1n Discharge
The permittee shall notify this Department 1n advance of:
a. Any facility modification, addition and/or expansion that
increases the plant capacity.
b. Any anticipated change in the facility discharge, Including
any new or changed significant Industrial discharges or any significant
changes 1n the quantity or quality of existing industrial discharges as
required under Section 147.14, Wisconsin Statutes.
c. Any maintenance of the treatment facility which could result 1n
degradation of effluent quality.
Where necessary, the permit will be modified or reissued to reflect changes
1n discharge, including any necessary effluent limitations for any pollutants
not Identified or limited herein. In no case are any new connections,
operational changes, Increased flows, or significant changes In Influent
quality permitted that will cause violation of the effluent limits specified
herein.
3. Change of Owner
In the event of transfer of control of operation of a wastewater treatment
facility, the prospective owner must file a Statement of Acceptance with this
Department. This "Statement" shall indicate that the new owner accepts the
terms, conditions and liabilities of the present permit and desires that the
existing permit be transferred. At this time the new owner shall also state
whether there will be any changes in operation due to transfer of ownership
which will cause a change in the discharge.
B-13
-------
Past 2 of 2
4. Penult Modification
Afttr notice and opportunity for a hearing as provided 1n Section 147.03,
Wisconsin Statutes, this permit nay be modified, suspended, or revoked 1n
whole or 1n part during Us term for cause Including, but not limited to,
the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit.
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts.
c. A change 1n any condition that requires either a temporary or
permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge.
B-14
-------
Part V. Page 1 of 4
WPDES Permit No. WI-
PART V. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Facility Operation and Quality Control
All waste collection, control, treatment and disposal facilities shall be
operated 1n a manner consistent with the following:
a. The municipal wastewater treatment facility must be under the
supervision of a state certified operator as required by Chapter 114
of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
b. At all times, all facilities shall be operated as efficiently as
possible and 1n a manner which will minimize upsets and discharges
of excessive pollutants.
2. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse Impact
on waters of the state resulting from noncompllance with any effluent
limitations specified In this permit, 1nclud1no such special or additional
monitoring as may be required by the Department or may be necessary to deter-
mine the nature and Impact of the noncomplylna discharge.
3. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow authorized representatives of the Department of
Natural Resources, and the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized representatives, upon the presentation
of credentials:
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source
1s located or 1n which any records are required to be kept under the
terms and conditions of this permit; and
b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; to Inspect
any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required In this permit;
and to sample any wastewaters.
4. Records Retention
All records and Information resulting from the monitoring activities required
by this permit, Including aTl records of analyses performed and calibration
and maintenance of Instrumentation and recordings from continuous monitoring
Instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer
1f requested by the Department of Natural Resources.
B-15
-------
5. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this
permit, the permittee shall record the following Information:
a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
b. The dates the analyses were performed;
c. The person(s) who performed the analyses;
d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
e. The results of all required analyses.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (General Condition
17 & 18) and "Power Failures" (General Conditions 16), nothing 1n this permit
shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties
or liabilities under Section 147.21, Wisconsin Statutes, Section 311 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1321) or any other
applicable state law or regulation.
7. Property Rights
The Issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights 1n either
real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does 1t authorize
any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any
infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations.
8. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this
permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance,
1s held Invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and
the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
9. Construction of Onshore or Offshore Structures
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or
offshore physical structure of facilities or the undertaking of any work 1n
any navigable waters.
10. Confidential Information
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 147.08(2)(c),
Wisconsin Statutes, all monitoring reports required by this permit shall be
available for public inspection at the headquarters of U.S. EPA Region V and
the Department of Natural Resources.
11. False Statements and Data
Knowingly making any false statement on any report or other document required
by this permit or knowingly rendering any monitoring device or method inaccurate,
may result in the imposition of criminal penalties 1n accordance with the
provisions of Section 147.21, Wisconsin Statutes.
B-16
-------
Part V. Page 3 of 4
12. Prohibited Wastes
Under no circumstances shall the Introduction of wastes prohibited by
NR 211.10, Wisconsin Administrative Code, be allowed Into the waste
treatment system. Prohibited wastes Include those:
a. Which create a fire or explosion hazard 1n the treatment works,
b. Which will cause corrosive structural damage to the treatment
works,
c. Solid or viscous substances 1n amounts which cause obstructions
to the flow In sewers or Interference with the proper operation of
the treatment works,
d. Wastewaters at a flow rate or pollutant loading which are excessive
over relatively short time periods so as to cause a loss of treatment
efficiency, or
e. Changes In discharge volume or composition from contributing
Industries which overload the treatment works or cause a loss of
treatment efficiency.
t
13. Pretreatment
The permittee shall require any Industrial user of the permitted facility to
meet pretreatment standards established pursuant to Section 147.07(2),
Wisconsin Statutes, and to provide records, reports, and/or Information
related to compliance with such pretreatment standards.
14. Effluent Limit Modification
Pollutants attributable to Significant Industrial Dischargers may be present
1n the permittee's discharge. At such time as sufficient Information becomes
available to establish limitations for such pollutants, and after notice and
opportunity for public hearings as provided 1n Chapter NR 3, Wisconsin
Administrative Code, this permit may be revised to specify effluent limitations
for any or all of such other pollutants.
15. Toxic Pollutants
Nothing In this permit shall be construed to authorize the discharge of
any toxic pollutant or combination of pollutants 1n amounts or concentra-
tions which exceed any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition
promulgated under Section 147.07(1). If the promulgated toxic effluent
standard or prohibition under Section 147.07(1) for a pollutant present 1n
the discharge 1s more stringent than any pollutant limitation In this permit,
this permit shall be modified or revised 1n accordance with the toxic
effluent standard or prohibition.
16. Power Failures
The permittee 1s responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to prevent
the discharge of untreated or Inadequately treated wastes during electrical
power failure either by means of alternate power sources, standby generators
or retention of inadequately treated effluent.
B-17
-------
Part V. Page 4 of 4
17. Unscheduled Bypassing
The unscheduled diversion or unscheduled bypass of any wastewater at the
treatment works or collection system 1s prohibited except (1) an Inadvertent
bypass resulting from equipment damage or temporary power Interruption, or
(11) an unavoidable bypass necessary to prevent loss of life or severe
property damage, or (111) a bypass of excessive storm drainage or runoff
which would damage any facilities necessary for compliance with the effluent
limitations and prohibitions of this permit. In the event of an unscheduled
bypass, the permittee shall Immediately notify the Department District Office
by telephone of such occurrence. In addition, the permittee shall notify the
Department of Natural Resources, WPDES Permit Section 1n writing of each such
unscheduled diversion or unscheduled bypass by letter within 72 hours.
18. Scheduled Bypassing
Bypassing of wastewater in order to accomplish maintenance or construction
activities 1s prohibited unless specifically authorized 1n writing by the
Department. Under certain conditions, 1t may be necessary to bypass waste-
water in order to accomplish such maintenance or construction activities.
When such conditions exist, the permittee shall request permission not less
than 60 days prior to the proposed date of scheduled bypassing. The request
shall include justification for the bypassing and an evaluation of alterna-
tives for minimizing the volume of the bypass. Based upon the Information
presented, the Department may deny the request, approve it, or approve it
with conditions. If the Department determines that the proposal is of
significant public interest, the Department may circulate the request for
public comment.
B-18
-------
EXHIBIT B-2
Permit to Discharge under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
for the City of
Taylors Falls, Minnesota
B-lg
-------
Page 1
v^
Permit
,1768
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE AND CONSTRUCT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
AND STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution ControVAct,
as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq; hereinafter the "Act"), Minnesota Statutes
Chapters 115 and 116 as amended and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Regulation
WPC 36 (hereinafter Agency Regulation WPC 36)
CITY OF TAYLORS FALLS
is authorized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to construct wastewater
treatment facilities and/or to discharge from the municipal wastewater treatment
facility located in the NW k of the SW ^ of Section 30, T 34 N, St. Croix Falls
Township, R 18 W, Chisago County, and from the bypass point listed herein
to receiving water named the St. Croix River
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit is a reissuance of an existing permit which has an expiration
date of midnight, June 30, 1977. This reissued permit shall become effective
on the date of issuance by the Director and will supersede the existing permit
upon issuance.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire,at midnight,
June 30, 1984. The Permittee is not authorized to discharge after the
above date of expiration. In order to receive authorization to discharge be-
yond the above date of expiration, the Permittee shall submit such information and
forms as are required by the Agency no later than 180 days prior to the above date
of expiration pursuant to Agency Regulation WPC 36.
Date:
MOV 1 3
For
Barry/C. Schade
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Terry Hoffman
Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
B-20
P-R(Rev. 10/78) 325 768
-------
Page 2 of 20
Permit No: MN 00217w
PART I
A. TREATMENT FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The application and plans indicate that the project or existing treatment
system consists of:
A grit chamber, primary sedimentation tank, pumping station, dosing siphon
trickling filter, resettling tank, chlorination chamber, sludge digester,
and sludge drying bed.
The facility has a continuous discharge (Discharge 001) to the St. Croix
River and is designed to treat an average flow of up to 75,000 gallons
per day with a strength as measured by the 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
of 250 milligrams per liter.
The facilities are further described in plans and specifications on file
with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (X-3545 dated December 8, 1939)
and in an engineering report by the firm of Bannister Engineering Company.
Treatment facility bypass Discharge Serial No. 001-A has infrequent un-
treated discharges to the outfall sewer.
B-21
(Rev.6/75)
-------
CO
vo
CM
O
O
z
o 2:
CM
*
«*- O
0 Z
-« n 4->
r"
i oj e
ce CTJ L.
*Z ro OJ
J- O. Q-
'
~-
l/}
Z
0
*"
1
ei
t
Z:
_J
1
Z
LU
rs
i
LU-
LL.
UU
s
oc
LjJ
t
z
t t
r
Id
C to
r- QJ
r- O -«
*- Z «
O QJ
QJ
+J ^^
C 4->
QJ -r-
E E
c C
>- QJ
ro 0.
+J
4-> OJ
re jc
4->
r*
t » (/}
+> Z
c u. o
3 i «
(
CT: H-* <£
C 1
I- 1
4-> or ^
10 «« i
ro Q. 1
r
C UJ
"O *f~ ' f ^
c So:
ro C O O QJ U
r r~ o £/)
E to -
i- -0 O
QJ
CT
t- QJ
IO >
JC *r~
U *-» OJ
in 3 cr r-
-r- U « *s^
o oj i. en
10 QJ E
to c >
3 O < O
o o m
3 >,
C >> ro
*r~ 4*J* f^**
4-> U
CT »^"
O JC
C*5 H1
QJ QJ O QJ
Q. (_> O -
C «*-
to ro * » -F
i- -r- «/) U
JC i QJ
4-» Q. Q.
E J- to
V- O CO
O «_3 JD to
E t3
QJ Vi- 3
4-> O C QJ
~C QJ r 4-'
CO 4->
QJ 3 -i- -
> -0 t. E
r- QJ QJ S-
4-> JC to QJ
O U O-
QJ t/^ ^^
4- to QJ - >
t^- QJ **«-^ r* LO
QJ JC r- 4-» Q
^ * r f~^
QJ ro >, ca
JC O M- J3
4-> 4-> 4-»
3 XJ -o
C Cn O QJ C
O C 4-> ro
i- E -i- £
cr-o O E QJ
C t. J- -r- O
i- O «*- r
f ^ Q/^
C U QJ QJ U
f ro C7* J3 *-*
CD i- 1
QJ i/ ro i OO
J2 C JC i
O U ro CC
"O -r- to JC LU
O 4-J -r- 10 I
ro "^ C_J
i- 4J QJ et
cj -i- O cr> cr:
Q. E 4-> i.
JC O) O
4-> 4-> IM t/1 1
C -r- -r- Z
en QJ L. ^ LJJ
C 3 O 3
JC JC 1
S- W- 4-> U U.
3 H- 3 3 U_
O QJ ro to UJ
C
QJ
CD
X
O
r
ro
O
'i
QJ
JC
U
o
r~
CO
^)
ro
O
IT)
«-4
v,^^
^^
^^^
cr
O
ro
v
^^^
oo
CO
1
^^f
in
o
O
en
~X3
QJ
C
QJ
Q.
10
3
tn
^>
ro
O
t
C^"
^i r-*
fH
E
C
O
« i
"*s^
Z
o.
s:
o
o
CM
ro
QJ
U
ro
CO
E
0
14-
.^
r""
O
o
^~
ro
QJ
U-
t t
^*
0
C
OJ
c^
ro
to
C
O
r*
4->
ro
s
^*
r
L.
QJ
2
O
"O
c
ro
y_
OJ
Q.
Q.
3
QJ
QJ
JC
t
,
If)
CO
C in
ro QJ
'£
L.
OJ r
4-> i
ro ro
QJ
J- 4->
C7 ro
S- 4->
O QJ
c. E
in c.'
vo *"
er ^
(O ro
f g
4_> (/)
IO T3
to c
QJ ro
cn
QJ C
JO -t-
cn
4-> ro
O S-
C QJ
r- ro
ro O
JC 4->
t/1
Z U
CX QJ
r ^
QJ JO
1 to
V)
4->
C
ro
QJ
U
S~
4->
C
ro
JC
4->
J_
QJ
JC
4->
O
c
r-
E
ro
O
L)_
QJ
r~-
r
IO
>
^
O
IO
D
r"
^_
o
to
D:
C
.^
4^
ro
0
' **-
lt-
o
QJ
i-
ro
JC
U
to
-5
o
c
QJ
JO
y^V
r-
rO
JC
QJ
QJ
JC
0
*o
0)
JO -
r
in
r
^
ro
QJ
4J
ro
s-
u
o
4->
4->
C
QJ
r*
O
i^.
l(-
^5
I/I
IO
4->
C
3
c
ro
C
to
QJ
O
C
ro
to
to
i.
QJ to
JC i-
4J QJ
0 *->
ro
s_ 5
O
cr.
i c
0 ">
c S
i- O
ro OJ
->-> S-
c
O QJ
U JC
4J
O >*-
c o
r QJ
i U
ro ro
to 4-
QJ to
en
I- OJ
ro JC
JC 4->
O
in C
"- O
E
OJ r
JC -r~
r- >+-
C
ro
QJ
s:
.^f
j-
QJ
O
QJ
O
I
^ i.^
CVJ
c:
QJ
ty
.p.
4J>
QJ
4->
$
^£
1
^^
t I
..
to
4->
o
Z
CVJ
00
B-22
-------
in
o>
00
to
cv
o
o
tt)
o
CO
0) E
en C
re QJ
CL. O.
OJ
"5.
to c
4-> O
C O.
0) 3
Ici
r- re r
3
cr in .
W CO
»- ^O ro
E+J o>
T£§
£i^>
QJ
JO
o
QJ
4->
(D
*J
t/l
c <
O L_
«- o
re i
*« I
E '
o
O)
re c
QJ
O 3
QJ i
3 <4-
t- K-
4-> QJ
to
U J-
OJ
QJ 4->
JD C
i QJ
re 10
JC QJ
in JC
*-> O
C O
cn to
^ j^^--
i- t-
4-> Q>
10 JD
re E S
3 O
C r
o QJ
C J3
" 1- CO
C Q> -i-
O in «*-
QJ
CX
co
c
o
> re
Or S-
cl --
o. o.
X
C QJ
o
»«
s
»-
»M
2:
o o
QJ
_D C
f- O
10 re
QJ C
O -r-
IA t
re QJ
10
c c
o o
f- ca-
re
E c
f O
«J re
c s-
QJ 3
3 -O
QJ
Q,
u in
t- r-
jj
to re in
c «*- re
o *->
O 3 QJ
O QJ
S- +>
O E *-»
^ o -
O I- E
c w- C
re QJ
QJ D.
IO CD
C J- QJ
o re jc
r- JC »->
re 10 >,
J- -i- JD
QJ -O
4-> -O
f O QJ
re -4-> *->
IO QJ -i-
C ISi r
O -t-
-^ J- QJ
*-> O JD
re jz
u »-> »
i- 3 r
«*- re re
r- JC
T3 10 tn
O -r-
E QJ
OJ CD
>, QJ I-
S- 4-> TO
re 4-> jc
IO T- O
in
OJ
CJ QJ
QJ O.
in
QJ U
M- JC 3
O *-> IO
QJ
QJ C
O
O) T-
JC 4J
*> U
IO
t- O
QJ
U to
C 4->
re c
r- re
l-
CL t-
QJ
QJ in
t- 3
-r- re
3 o
cr
eu -o
J- o
o
o cn
4->
s.
4-> QJ
C JC
QJ 4->
E O
D
C S~
QJ O
re in
QJ
O U
4-> C
re
4^> 4->
U tO
OJ E
"-> 3
X) O
3 (.
in -i-
QJ
4-> CD
r- C
Ere
JC
QJ U
CL
QJ
in L.
^- QJ
JC JC
cc
in
in
OJ
O
ro
o
o
O
O
CM
tr>
re
re
OJ
cr
t-
re
10
5
tn
3
O
QJ QJ
> cn
^- re
4J J-
3 U
>> U >
4J> Qjct
t- in
- c >,
jc o re
t o o
in
CM
CD
o
ro
O
O
d.
s:
o
o
CO
in
CM
ur>
O
O
U QJ
> cr
-r- re
4-> U
3 QJ
U >
C QJ el
QJ in
> c >,
QJ O TO
10 O O
CD
in
CD
E
l/i
o
O
CD
re
E "-
QJ CO
QJ re
CD 10 *-
>. -o i.
X -f- QJ
O i 4J>
O (J
r to re
re CD
O "D
T- QJ E
E T3 J-
O) C O
JC QJ U-
(J Q. -
O IO t
i- 3 O
CD IO O
QJ
'<£> re
c o c
QJ re
>* J-
QJ -« -O
CD
QJ,
^ * re re
ro in > in.
+-> >,
in r
QJ
QJ -4-J
jc re
QJ
-(->
CJ
re
QJ
r o r- o
O - r* H-
r- f ^-' QJ TO
*J O
re
o
i
in
re
re
u
QJ
_ _
QJ QJ QJ QJ
JZ > JZ JZ C
I re I I o
Cxi
*
CD
B-23
-------
PAR?5
Page'5,^20
N. ^
Permit No: MN 0021768
B.3. BYPASS/OVERFLOW AUTHORIZATION
In accordance with PART II. A.l.b. and A.2., of this permit, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from bypass/overflow points,
outfall(s) serial number(s) 001-A.
The Permittee shall, in accordance with PART II, A.I., of this
permit, report in the remarks section of the Discharge Monitoring
Report Form, each bypass or overflow event, its duration and
estimated volume.
In accordance with the schedule as contained in the Schedule of
Compliance shown in PART I, F. of this permit, the Permittee may be
required to eliminate or further control the bypass/overflow(s).
(2/79) 542521 B-24
-------
Page 6
^
Permit No: MN 0021768
C. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 301 (i)(l) Time Extension
In accordance with Section 301 (i)(l) of the Act, it has been
demonstrated that an extension to achieve compliance with
limitations under section 301 (b)(l)(B) or 301 (b)(l)(C)
should be granted. Therefore, the Agency hereby extends the
Schedule for achieving compliance with final effluent limitations,
2. State Certification
The Agency certifies that Federal funding allotted to the
State will be made available for obligation under Section 201
of the Act in a timely manner to ensure compliance by the
Permittee by July 1, 1983. This certification is dependent on
the allocation of sufficient Federal funds to the State.
If it is subsequently determined that Federal funding will
not be available in time to ensure compliance by the Permittee
by July 1, 1983, the time extension shall be terminated in
accordance with Minnesota Regulation WPC 36(s).
Construction Grant Applications
With regard to all future construction grant applications, the
Permittee shall comply with the requirements of Section 201
(b) through (g) of the Act.
Funding Progress Report
By December 31 of each year, the Permittee shall submit to the
Director (Attn: Compliance and Enforcement Section) a report
as to its progress in obtaining Federal funding.
R
P-(Rev. 11/78) 522151
-------
PART- I
Permit No: ^MN^021768
'\
D. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. Monitoring
a. Representative Sampling
Samples shall be taken at a point representative of the
discharge. Any monitoring measurements taken as required
herein shall be representative of the volume and nature
of the monitored discharge.
b. Quality Assurance
In order to insure the validity of analytical data, the
Permittee shall submit an outline of the quality assurance
program employed by the laboratory performing the analyses.
Such outline shall be contained in the monitoring plan
required by PART I, D.2.
c. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform
to regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 304 (g) of
the Act, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 115.03, Subd. 1 (e)
(7) as amended.
The Permittee shall periodically calibrate and perform
maintenance on all monitoring and analytical instrumentation
used to monitor pollutants discharged under this permit, at
intervals to insure accuracy of measurements. The Permittee
shall maintain written records of all such calibrations and
maintenance.
d. Recording of Results
For each measurement taken or sample collected pursuant to
the requirements of this permit, the Permittee shall record
the following information, except for data in items 1) and 4)
below which is identified in the monitoring plan required by
PART I, D.2.
1) the exact place, date, and time of sampling;
2) the dates the analyses were .performed;
3) the person who performed the analyses;
4) the analytical techniques, procedures or
methods used; and
5) the results of such analyses.
e. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant designated herein more
frequently than required by this permit, or as otherwise
directed by the Agency or Director, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting
of values submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report Form.
Any increased monitoring frequency shall also be indicated on
such designated form.
B-26
P(Rev. 11/78} 4520
-------
PART '
^
Page
Permit No:MN 0021768
f. Recording and Records Retention
All sampling and analytical records required by this
permit shall be retained by the Permittee for a minimum
of three (3) years. The Permittee shall also retain all
original recordings from a'ny continuous monitoring
instrumentation, and any calibration and maintenance
records, for a minimum of three (3) years. These re-
tention periods shall be automatically extended during
the course of any legal or administrative foceedings or
when so requested by the Regional Administrator, the
Agency, or the Director.
2. Monitoring Plan
The Permittee shall submit a monitoring plan or monitoring plan
amendments to the Director for approval within forty-five
(45) days after the date of issuance of this permit, unless
a previously submitted monitoring plan has not been rejected
by the MPCA and is being followed. New monitoring plans or
amendments to previous monitoring plans shall be submitted if
changes are to be made or if additional -or different monitoring
is required by this permit. The monitoring plan shall include
the items described in Agency Regulation WPC 36 (n)(2).
3. Reporting
a. The Permittee shall effectively monitor the operation and
efficiency of all treatment facilities and the quantity
and quality of the treated discharge. The Permittee
shall enter on the Agency Monthly Operation Report of
Wastewater Treatment Facility (MPCA Form 703 ) the
determinations as listed in PART I, D.4.
/
b. The reporting form shall be submitted to the Director on
a monthly basis, or as specified in PART I, C., at the
following address and shall be postmarked no later than
the 21st day following the month during which the monitoring
was completed:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Attn: Compliance and Enforcement Section
c. The Permittee shall report the results of the monitoring
in the units specified in this permit. The reports or
written statements shall be submitted even if no discharge
occurred during the reporting period. The report shall
include (a) a description of any modifications in the
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
B-27
P-R (Rev. 12/78) 138643
-------
PART I ,
Page 9 of 20
Permit No: MN 0021768
(b) any substantial changes in operational procedures;
(c) any other significant activities which alter the
nature or frequency of the discharge; (d) any other
material factors affecting compliance with the conditions
of this permit and such information as the Agency or
Director may reasonably require of the Permittee pursuant
to Agency Regulation, WPC 36 (n) and Minnesota Statutes,
Chapters 115 and 116 as amended.
d. Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308
of the Act, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.075, Subd. 2,
all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of.-this permit
shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the
Agency. Procedures for submitting such confidential material
shall be pursuant to Minnesota Regulation WPC 36 (j) (2). As
required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered
confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on any such
report, confidential or otherwise, is subject to the imposition
of criminal penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act
and Minnesota Statutes, Section 115.071 Subd. 2 (b).
B-28
-------
PART I
Page 10 'of.;
Permit No: MN 0021768
4. Monitoring Requirements for Class C Mechanical Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Serving Population Areas of up through 700
Determination
Precipitation
Influent flow
Effluent
Effluent
Chlorine
Chlorine
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
% BOD5 removal
Influent total
Effluent total
fecal coliform
dissolved oxygen
residual
used
settleable solids
settleable solids
PH
BOD5
BOD
suspended solids
suspended solids
% Total suspended solids removal
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample Type Notes
Continuous
Grab
Grab (1)
Grab (1)(2)
Grab (1)(2)
Grab (1)(2)
Grab (3)
4 hour composite (4)
4 hour composite (4)
4 hour composite (4)
4 hour composite (4)
Notes:
(1) Analysis shall be performed at the time of sampling.
(2) Excluding weekends and holidays.
(3) It is recommended that the analysis be performed at the time of
sampling; however, if this is not possible, a holding time of
up to six (6) hours is permissible between the time of sampling
and the time of analysis.
>
(4) The four (4) hour composite shall be collected during the time
period which will provide the most representative sample. Unless a
more representative time interval can be established, this composite
shall be collected between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M.
P-(Rev. 3/78) 3689
B-29
-------
PARTI
Page 11 of 2
H
Permit No: MN 0021768
E. DEFINITIONS
1. The "Agency" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as
constituted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.02, Subd. 1.
2. The "Director" means the Executive Director of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.03 as
amended.
3. The "Regional Administrator" means the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Regional Administrator for the region in which Minnesota is
located (now Region V).
4- The "Act" means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.
5. A "Composite" sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as (1)
a series of grab samples collected at least once per hour at equally
spaced time intervals and proportioned according to flow, or (2) grab
samples of equal volume collected at equally spaced intervals of
wastewater volume and collected not less than once per hour.
6. The thirty (30) consecutive day average, other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is defined as the arithmetic mean of the samples collected
in a period of thirty (30) consecutive days. The thirty (30) consecutive
day average for fecal coliform bacteria is defined as the geometric mean
of samples collected in a period of thirty (30) consecutive days.
7. The seven (7) consecutive day average, other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is defined as the arithmetic mean of the samples collected
in a period of seven (7) consecutive days. The seven (7) consecutive
day average for fecal coliform bacteria is defined as the geometric
mean of samples collected in a period of seven (7) consecutive days.
8. The "Grant Agreement" means the formal EPA grant offer, as executed by
the Permittee, accepting an EPA construction grant, or the grant agree-
ment between the Permittee and the Agency in the case of the Independent
State Grant Program.
B-30
P-(Rev 3/77) 4438
-------
PART 'I
Page
Permit No: MN 0021768
F. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The Permittee shall achieve compliance with the future final
effluent limitations and eliminate or control any bypass/over-
flow points that may exist by proceeding in accordance with the
following schedule:
a) Submit facilities plan (Step 1 Grant) not later than
April 30, 1980.
b) The Permittee shall submit a completed grant application for
a step 2 grant as soon as possible and not later than 150 days
of being notified by the Agency of the availabilvty of funds,
or within any other reasonable time period specified by the
Agency.
c) Upon completion and approval of the Facilities Plan, this permit
will be modified in accordance with Minnesota Regulation WPC
36(s) to incorporate fixed date schedules for the Step 2 and
Step 3 grants.
d) The Permittee shall submit a report to the Director of the MPCA
(Attn: Compliance and Enforcement Section) within fourteen days
following each date in the schedule. The report shall indicate
compliance or noncompliance with the schedule, and in the case
of noncomoliance, include the cause of noncomplia'nce, any reme-
dial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the remain-
ing scheduled requirements.
The Permittee shall submit a report of progress on June 30 and
December 31, of each year, in addition to other reports required
by the above schedule.
The Permittee shall submit the necessary reports, plans and
specifications for the construction required by the compliance
schedule in this permit or contained in subsequent modifications
to this permit to the Director (Attn: Compliance and Enforcement
Section) for review and written approval in accordance with PART
II, A.9.
No construction shall begin until the Permittee has submitted
reports, plans, and specifications for the construction to the
Director (Attn: Compliance and Enforcement Section) and has
received written approval of the reports, plans, and specifi-
cations in accordance with PART II, A.9. of this permit.
(Rev. 5/79) 138610
B-31
-------
Page 13 o<
.
Permit No:,
PART II
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Non-Compliance and Bypass Notification
If, for any reason, the Permittee exceeds any effluent limitation
specified in the permit, bypasses, or causes a diversion of wastewater
or unauthorized discharge in violation of this permit, the Permittee
shall notify the Director as follows:
a. Telephone Communication
Report Immediately to the Compliance and Enforcement Section
(612)296-7373 any bypass which may cause a nuisance or health
hazard and all unauthorized discharges, accidental or otherwise
of oil, toxic pollutants, or other hazardous waste. The Permittee
shall immediately recover as rapidly and thorour-ly as possible
such discharged substance(s) and take such other action as may be
reasonable to minimize or abate pollution of the waters of the
State. This must be followed by a written explanation on the
discharge monitoring report.
b. Prior Approval
Bypassing which would result in the discharge of raw or inadequately
treated effluent is prohibited during routine maintenance procedures.
If, for any reason, a major treatment unit must be bypassed for
routine maintenance, and this bypass will result in a degradation
of the effluent, the Director (Attn: Operations Unit, (612)296-7207)
must be notified and grant approval prior to removing this unit from
service. In the case of emergency maintenance, the Director shall
be informed of the circumstances surrounding the need for emergency
maintenance and the action taken.
c. Written Report
Report on the Discharge Monitoring Report, any violation of daily
minimum, maximum, seven (7) day average, or thirty (30) day average
effluent limitation and any bypass that did not present a nuisance
or health hazard.
d. Written notification required above shall contain the following
information:
(1) A description of the discharge, approximate volume, and
cause of non-compliance or bypass.
(2)
The period of non-compliance or bypass including exact dates
and times; or if not corrected, the anticipated time the non-
compliance is expected to continue; and steps taken to correct,
reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the non-complying
discharge.
B-32
P(Rev 11/78) 470994
-------
PART
Page
Permit No.' MN 0021768
2. Bypassing
The diversion or bypass of any discharge from the collection system or
treatment facility by the Permittee is prohibited, except: (1) where
unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property damage; or (2)
where excessive storm drainage or runoff would damage any facilities
necessary for compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit;
or (3) where emergency maintenance must be performed; or (4) where routine
maintenance must be performed on a major treatment unit and prior
approval has been received from the Director. Provision (3) does not
authorize discharges caused by a failure to perform routine or preventive
maintenance or by a failure to maintain system reliability in accordance
with PART II, A.8.
3. Adverse Impact
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse
impact to waters of the State resulting from:
a. All unauthorized discharges accidental or otherwise, of oil, toxic
pollutants or other hazardous substances;
b. Effluent limitation violations or;
c. A bypass.
4. Change in Discharge
a. All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more
frequently than, or at a level in excess of, that identified and
authorized by this permit shall constitute a violation of the terms
and conditions of this permit. Such a violation may result in the
imposition of civil or criminal penalties as provided for in Section
309 of the Act and Minnesota Statutes Section 115.071.
}
b. Facility modifications, additions, and/or expansions that increase
the plant capacity shall be reported to the Director, (Attn: Complianc
and Enforcement Section) and this permit then modified or reissued to
reflect such changes.
c. Any anticipated change in the facility discharge, including any new
significant industrial discharge or significant change in the
quality of existing industrial discharges to the treatment system
that may result in a new or increased discharge of pollutants shall
be reported to the Director, (Attn: Compliance and Enforcement
Section). Modification to the permit may then be made to reflect
any necessary change in permit conditions, including any necessary
effluent limitations for any pollutant not identified and limited
herein.
P(Rev 11/78) 868406 B-33
-------
PART J
Permit No.^MN 0021768
d. In no case are any new connections, increased flows, or significant
changes in influent quality permitted that will cause violation of
the effluent limitations specified herein.
5. Sewer Extensions
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 115.07 Subd. 3, application
must be made, plans and specifications submitted, and a permit obtained
for any addition to or extension of a sanitary sewer prior to the commence-
ment of construction.
6. Facilities Operation and Quality Control
All waste collection, control, treatment, and disposal facilities shall
be operated in a manner consistent with the following:
a. Maintenance of the treatment facility that results in degradation
of effluent quality shall be scheduled as much as possible during
non-critical water quality periods and shall be carried out in a
manner approved by the Director.
b. The Director may require the Permittee to submit a maintenance plan
to eliminate degradation of the effluent. The Permittee shall
operate the disposal system in accordance with this plan as approved
by the Director.
c. The Permittee shall provide an adequate operating staff which is
duly qualified under Minnesota Regulations WWOB 1, if applicable
(as determined by the Director pursuant to Agency Regulation WPC
36 (1) (6) (ee), to carry out the operation, maintenance and
testing functions required to insure compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
/
d. The Permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order
and operate as efficiently as possible all facilities or systems
of control installed or used to achieve compliance with the terms
and conditions of this permit.
e. Necessary in-plant control tests shall be conducted at a frequency
adequate to ensure continuous efficient operation of the treatment
facility.
P(Rev 11/78) 3831 B"34
-------
PART II
Page 16 of 20'
Permit No: MN 0021768
7. Removed Substances
f
The Permittee shall dispose of solids, sludges, or other pollutants
removed from or resulting from treatment or control of wastewaters in
a manner acceptable to the Agency. When requested by the Director,
the Permittee shall submit for approval an acceptable plan for such
disposal and shall be responsible for obtaining Agency approval and/or
permit of such disposal plans.
8. System Reliability
The Permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes
at all times. The Permittee is responsible for insuring system
reliability by means of alternate power sources, back up systems,
storage of inadequately treated effluent, or other appropriate
methods of maintaining system reliability.
9. Construction
This permit only authorizes the construction of treatment works to
attain compliance with the limitations and conditions of this permit,
after plans and specifications for treatment facilities have been
submitted and approved in writing by the Director prior to the start
of any construction.
B-35
P(Rev 11/78) 5791
-------
Permit No: MN 0021768
-»,
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Prohibited Wastes
Under no circumstances shall the Permittee allow the introduction of wastes
prohibited by regulations promulaate"d pursuant to Section 307 of the Act or
regulations adopted by the Agency (Rules and Regulations WPC 36) into the
sewer collection system including, but not limited to the following:
a. Those which create a fire or explosion hazard in the disposal
system,
b. Which will cause corrosive structural damage to the disposal system,
c. Solids or viscous substances in amounts which cause obstructions to
the flow in sewers or interference with the proper operation of the
treatment works,
d. Wastewaters at a flow rate and/or pollutant discharge rate which is
excessive over relatively short time periods so as to cause a loss
of treatment efficiency.
e. New wastes or increased volumes or quantities of wastes from
contributing industries in such volumes or quantities as to over-
load the treatment facility or cause a loss of treatment efficiency.
2. Cooling Water
a. Recirculation of non-contact cool inn water by contributors to the
collection system shall be encouraged in order to conserve surface
and ground water supplies and to reduce the hydraulic load on the
collection and treatment system of municipal wastewater treatment
facilities receiving these discharges.
,'
b. Consistent with federal construction grant regulations and the
intent of the Act, existing discharges of non-contact cooling
waters to municipal sanitary sewer systems shall be eliminated,
where such elimination is cost effective, where such discharges
adversely impact the municipal treatment facilities, or where an
infiltration/inflow analysis and sewer system evaluation survey
indicates the need for such removal, provided such discharges are
in compliance with all applicable Agency effluent quality standards,
or which, through reasonable measures, can be brought into such
compliance.
c. New discharges of non-contact cooling waters to municipal sanitary
sewer systems are prohibited, unless there are no cost-effective
alternatives, provided such discharges do not cause the discharge
from the facility to violate the effluent limitations contained in
this permit.
P-(Rev. 2/78) 4976 B"36
-------
PART II
"of 20
N 0021768
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control
No permit may be assigned or transferred by the holder without the
approval of the Agency. In the event of any changes 1n control or
ownership of the facilities, a Request for Permit Transfer, signed
by both parties shall be sent to the Agency, Attn: Compliance and
Enforcement Section. Any succeeding owner or controller shall also
comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
f
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be
modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part during its term
for cause including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to
disclose fully all relevant facts;
c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary
or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized
discharge; or
d. Agency Regulation WPC 36 (s) (1).
5. Toxic'Pollutants
Notwithstanding PART 11,8.4. above, if a toxic effluent standard or
prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such
effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307
(a) of the Act or Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115 and 116 as amended,
for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and such
standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such
pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in
accordance with the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and in
accordance with applicable laws and regulation.
6. Right of Entry
The Permittee shall, pursuant to Section 308 of the Act and Minnesota
Statutes 115.04, allow the Director of the Agency, the Regional
Administrator, and their authorized representatives, upon presentation
of credentials:
a. to enter upon the Permittee's premises where a disposal system
or other point source or portion thereof is located for the
purpose of obtaining information, examination of records,
conducting surveys, or investigations;
b. to examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda
pertaining to the installation, maintenance, or operation of the
discharge, including but not limited to, monitoring data of the
disposal system or point source or records required to be kept
under the terms and conditions of this oermit;
B-37
P-fRev 3/77) 4454
-------
PART
0021768
c. to Inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring procedures
required in this permit; and
d. to sample any discharge of pollutants.
7. Civil and Criminal Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from
civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance with the terms and
conditions provided herein.
8. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution
of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject
to under Section 311 of the Act and Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115
and 116 as amended.
9. Minnesota Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution
of any legal or administrative proceedings or relieve the Permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for violation of
effluent and water quality limitations not included in this permit.
10. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor
does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of
personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or Local laws
or regulations.
.'
11. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provisions
of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit
to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision
to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not
be affected thereby.
B-38
P. fppi/ 3/77)
-------
Page
Permit No:, M 0021768
PART III
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ON INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS
i
Requirements for Effluent Limitations on Pollutants Attributable to Industrial
Users.
By regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Act, or regulations
adopted by the Agency pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 115.03, Subd. 1 (e) (6)
the Permittee shall, with respect to all major contributing industries impose
such pre-treatment requirements on such industrial users as may be necessary to
assure compliance by the Permittee with all applicable effluent limitations set
forth in this Permit, with more restrictive pretreatment requirements as
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 307
(b) of the Act, or as otherwise required by the Director. A major contributing
industry is one that: (a) has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average work
day; (b) has a flow greater than five percent of the flow carried by the
municipal system receiving the waste; (c) has in its waste a toxic pollutant,
in toxic amounts, as defined in standards issued under Section 307(a) of the
Act; or (d) has significant impact, either individually or in combination with
other contributing industries, on the treatment works or the quality of its
effluent.
Immediately following the issuance of this Permit, the Permittee shall establish
and implement a procedure to obtain from all major industrial contributors,
specific information on the quality and quantity of effluents introduced by
such industrial contributors and their impact on the overall municipal discharge.
This information shall be reported to the Director (Attn: Compliance and
Enforcement Section) on a quarterly basis, with reports for the previous three
months, postmarked no later than the 21st day of January, April, July, and
October.
This permit may be modified in accordance with WPC 36(s) to incorporate a com-
pliance schedule for the Permittee to develop a Pretreatment Program in accordance
with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 403 (40 CFR 403). In
addition, prior to allowing a significant industrial contributor to tie into the
municipal sewer system, the Permittee shall develop an approved Pretreatment
Program in accordance with 40 CFR 403.
P-{Rev. 11/78) 1712
-------
APPENDIX C
Geology and Soils
-------
I ] CAMBRIAN SYSTEM
f FRANCONIA SANDSTONE
IRONTON AND 6ALESVILLE
FORMATION (SANDSTONE)
«C EAU CLAIRE SANDSTONE
ss UNDIFFERENTIATED SANDSTONES
ig
INFERRED FAULT
U UPTHROWN SIDE
D DOWNTHROWN SIDE
INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT
| | PRECAMBRIAN-
pb PRECAMBRIAN BASALT
Figure C-l. Character of the bedrock surface in the St. Croix Falls
Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-l
-------
WAPOftA, INC
p«Tl THICKNESS LESS THAN 5 FEET
Figure C-2. Thickness of glacial deposits in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-2
-------
"Gffi
\':"_-':\ OUTWASH PLAINS
[//.I END MORAINE
[g:;*:;j UNDIFFERENTIATED GLACIAL DRIFT
Figure C-3. Character of glacial deposits in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-3
-------
EXHIBIT C-l
Soils of the Project Area
The soils of the project area generally are coarse textured and well-
drained on the Wisconsin side and medium textured and poorly-drained on the
Minnesota side. The general soils associations within the project area are
presented in Figure 3-2. These associations may consist of soils that are
very different from each other but that occur together. They may include
only half of the soils indicated in the name of the association.
Onamia-Cromwell-Menahga Association
The predominant soils association present in the Wisconsin section of
the project area is the Onamia-Cromwell-Menahga. It is described as nearly
level to steep, well-drained to excessively-drained, loamy and sandy soils
over glacial outwash sand and gravel. It occurs on terraces and terraced
slopes in the project area. The Onamia series is the most prominent series
in the association, and is a well-drained, nearly level to moderately
steep, loamy soil underlain by sand and gravel at depths of 20 to 40
inches. Permeability in the surface soil (upper 30 inches) is moderate
(0.6 to 2.0 inches per hour) and in the substratum is very rapid (greater
than 20 inches per hour). The Cromwell series is a somewhat excessively-
drained, nearly level to moderately steep soil underlain by sand and gravel
at a depth of 15 to 30 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid (0.2 to
6.0 inches per hour) in the surface soil (upper 15 inches depth) and rapid
(6.0 to 20.0 inches per hour) in the substratum. The Menahga series con-
sists of excessively-drained, gently sloping to steep, sandy soils. Per-
meability of the profile is rapid.
Buckhardt-Dakota Association
The next most extensive association present in the Wisconsin section
of the project area is the Buckhardt-Dakota. It is characterized as nearly
level to sloping, well-drained and somewhat excessively-drained, loamy soil
over glacial outwash sand and gravel. This association occurs southwest of
Dresser, along Route 5 south of the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, and at
C-4
-------
the northeast corner of the St. Croix Falls corporate boundary. The Burk-
hardt series consists of well-drained, nearly level, sandy soils underlain
by gravel at depths of 10 to 20 inches. The permeability of the surface
soil and the substratum is rapid. The Dakota complex is composed of well-
drained, nearly level to gently sloping loamy soils underlain by glacial
outwash sand and gravel at depths of 24 to 40 inches. The surface soil
permeability is moderate, while the substratum permeability is rapid.
Gushing Association
The Gushing association occurs to the south of St. Croix Falls. It
consists of gently sloping to steep, well-drained loamy soil over loam
glacial till. The Gushing series soils are well-drained, gently sloping to
steep loamy soils underlain by loam glacial till at depths of 24 to 50
inches. The permeability of the surface material (upper 40 inches) is
moderate and the permeability of the underlying material is moderately slow
(0.2 to 0.6 inches per hour).
Amery-Santiago Association
The Amery-Santiago association occurs on the top of the hill south of
St. Croix Falls (Section 6) and along the east boundary of the project
area. The soils are gently sloping to steep, well-drained, loamy-textured
soils over sandy loam glacial till. The Amery series consists of deep
(upper 30 to 50 inches), well-drained, gently sloping to steep loamy soils.
These soils overlay glacial till that consists of fine sandy loam, sandy
loam, or loamy sand. The permeability of the surface material is moderate
to moderately rapid, and the permeability of the underlying material is
moderately rapid.
The Santiago series consists of well-drained, gently sloping to mod-
erately steep, loamy soils underlain by sandy loam glacial till. The
permeability throughout the profile is moderate.
C-5
-------
Hayden-Bluffton Association
The principal soils association in the eastern part of the Minnesota
section of the project area is the Hayden-Bluffton. This association is
characterized by nearly level to very steep, very poorly to well-drained,
loamy soils formed in loam glacial till. The Hayden series consists of
well-drained, gently sloping to steeply sloping, loamy soils underlain by
loam glacial till. Permeability is moderate throughout the profile. The
Bluffton series consists of poorly and very poorly-drained, nearly level
loamy soils. They are underlain by loam to sandy clay loam glacial till.
The permeability of the surface material (upper 22 inches) is moderately
slow to moderately rapid, and the underlying glacial till is moderately
slow.
Nessel-Bluffton Association
The Nessel-Bluffton association extant in the western, Minnesota
section of the project area are nearly level to gently sloping, very poorly
to moderately well-drained, loamy soils formed in loam glacial till. The
Nessel series consists of moderately well-drained, nearly level to gently
sloping, loamy soils underlain by loam glacial till on ground moraines.
Permeability of these soils is moderate throughout the entire profile. The
Blufftoii series was described in the discussion of the Hayden-Bluf f ton
association.
Special Limitations
Two areas within the project area are mapped as "shallow to bedrock"
(Figure 4). These areas include the bluff along the St. Croix River south
of Taylors Falls, (Sections 25, 35 and 36) and the hill on the northern
boundary of the project area (Section 24). These areas are characterized
by numerous bedrock exposures and shallow bedrock depths. Slopes are
nearly level to very steep. The texture of the soil material is highly
variable.
C-6
-------
WAPORA, INC
E5B3 GOOD
| | MARGINAL
| | UNSUITED
IF''' j NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Figure C-4. Agricultural land classes in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-7
-------
I I PERMANENTLY 0-3 FEET
[;';.':'..-:U SEASONALLY 1-3 FEET
d SEASONALLY 3-5 FEET
| | GREATER THAN 5 FEET
1 NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Figure C-5. Depth to water table in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors
Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-8
-------
Figure C-6.
Generalized water table map for the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-9
-------
rS\
WAPORA, INC
| | 6-12%
[;- .' -j 12-20%
^;.:;.'j GREATER THAN 20%
["' 1 NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Figure C-7. Slope gradients in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors
Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-10
-------
APPENDIX D
Water Quality
-------
Table D-l. Wisconsin water quality standards for the St. Croix River down-
stream from the northern boundary of Polk County.
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Limit
5 mg/1
1) There shall not be any changes
which adversely affect
aquatic life
2) Natural daily and seasonal
fluctuations shall be main-
tained
3) Maximum rise at the edge of
the mixing zone above the
existing natural temperature
shall not exceed 5°F.
4) Shall not exceed 89°F for warm-
water fish
Fecal coliform
Dissolved solids
Shall be within the range 6.0 to
9.0 with no change greater than
0.5 units outside the estimated
natural seasonal maximum and
minimum
The membrane filter count shall
not exceed 200 per 100 ml as a
geometric mean based on not less
than 5 samples per month, nor
exceed 400 per 100 ml in more than
10% of all samples during any
month
Not to exceed 500 mg/1 as a
monthly average value, nor exceed
750 mg/1 at any time at sites
where water is withdrawn for
treatment and distribution as a
potable water
D-l
-------
Table D-2. Minnesota water quality standards for the St. Croix River down-
stream from the dam located in Taylors Falls (MPCA 1978a).
Parameter
Fecal coliform
Turbidity
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia as nitrogen
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Oil
PH
Phenols
Color value
Threshold odor number
Methylene blue active substance
Arsenic
Chlorides
Carbon chloroform extract
Liinit_
200 MPN/100 ml
25 NTU
Not less than 6 mg/1 from 1 April
through 31 May, and not less than
5 mg/1 at other times
Shall not exceed a rise of 5° F
above natural levels, based on
monthly average of the maximum
daily temperature or in any case
the daily average temperature shall
not exceed 86° F
1 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 or not greater than
0.10 the 96-hour mean tolerance
limit (TLM) value
0,01 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
Within the range of 6.5 to 8.5
units
0.001 mg/1 and none that could
impart odor or taste to freshwater
edible products such as crayfish,
clams, prawns and like creatures
15 units
3 units
0.5 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
100 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
D-2
-------
Table D-2. Minnesota water quality standards (continued),
Parameter
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Nitrates
Sulfates
Total dissolved solids
Zinc
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Radioactive material
Hardness
BicarbonaCes
Boron
Specific conductance
Total dissolved salts
Limit
1.5 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
45 mg/1
250 mg/1 or 10 mg/1 applicable to
waters used for production of wild
rice during periods when the rice
may be susceptible to damage by
high sulfate levels
500 mg/1
5 mg/1
1 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
Not to exceed the lowest concen-
tration permitted to be discharged
to an uncontrolled environment as
prescribed by the appropriate
authority having control over their
use
250 mg/1
5 meq/1
0.5 mg/1
1,000 umhos/cm
700 mg/1
D-3
-------
Table D-2. Minnesota water quality standards (concluded).
Parameters
Sodium
Total salinity
Hydrogen sulfide
Unspecified toxic substances
Limit
60% of total cations as meq/1
1,000 mg/1
0.02 mg/1
None at levels harmful either
directly or indirectly
D-4
-------
Table D-3. Water quality standards for Dry Creek (MPCA 1978a)
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia as nitrogen
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Oil
PH
Phenols
Turbidity
Radioactive materials
Biocarbonates
Boron
Specific conductance
Total dissolved salts
Limit
Not less than 6 mg/1 from 1 April
through 31 May, and not less than
5 mg/1 at other times
5° F above natural based on monthly
average of the maximum daily tempera-
ture except in no case shall it exceed
the daily average temperature of 86° F
1 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 or not greater than
0.1 of the 96-hour mean tolerance limit
(TLM) value
0.02 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
Within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 units
0.01 mg/1 and none that could im-
part odor or taste to fish flesh or
other freshwater edible products such
as crayfish, clams, prawns and like
creatures. Where it seems probable
that a discharge may result in tainting
of edible aquatic products, bioassays
and taste panels will be required to
determine whether tainting is likely
or present
25 NTU
Not to exceed the lowest concentra-
tion permitted to be discharged to an
uncontrolled environment as prescribed
by the appropriate authority having
control over their use
5 meq/1
0.5 mg/1
1,000 umhos/cm
700 mg/1
D-5
-------
Table D-3. Water quality standards for Dry Creek (concluded).
Parameter
Sodium
Fecal coliform organisms
Sulfates
Total salinity
Unspecified toxic substances
Chlorides
Hardness
Hydrogen sulfide
Limit
60% of total cations as meq/1
200 most probable number per 100 ml
10 mg/1 applicable to waters used for
production of wild rice during periods
when the rice may be susceptible to
damage by high sulfate levels
1,000 mg/1
None at levels harmful either directly
or indirectly
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
0.02 mg/1
D-6
-------
Table D-4. Water quality standards for Colby Lake and other Minnesota
intrastate waters not specifically classified (MPCA 1978a).
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia as nitrogen
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Oil
Phenols
Turbidity
Radioactive materials
Chlorides
Hardness
Biocarbonates
Boron
Limit
Not less than 6 mg/1 from 1 April
through 31 May and not less than
5 mg/1 at other times
5° F above natural in streams and
3° F above natural in lakes, based
on monthly average of the maximum
daily temperature, except in no case
shall it exceed the daily average
temperature of 86° F
1 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 or not greater than 0.1
the 96-hour TLM value
0.02 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 and none that could impart
odor or taste to fish flesh or other
freshwater edible products such as
crayfish, clams, prawns and like
creatures. Where it seems probable
that a discharge may result in taint-
ing of edible aquatic products, bio-
assays and taste panels will be re-
quired to determine whether tainting
is likely or present
25 NTU
Not to exceed the lowest concen-
tration permitted to be discharged
to an uncontrolled environment as pre-
scribed by the appropriate authority
having control over their use
100 mg/1
250 mg/1
5 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
D-7
-------
Table D-4. Water quality standards for Colby Lake (concluded).
Parameter
pH
Specific conductance
Total dissolved salts
Sodium
Fecal coliform organisms
Sulfates
Total salinity
Unspecified toxic substances
Hydrogen sulfide
Limit
Within the range of 6.0 to 8.5 units
1,000 umhos/cm
700 mg/1
60% of total cations as meq/1
200 MPN/100 ml
10 mg/1 applicalbe to waters used
for production of wild rice during
periods when the rice may be susceptible
to damage by high sulfate levels
1,000 mg/1
None at levels harmful either directly
or indirectly
0.02 mg/1
D-8
-------
Table D-5. Concentrations of heavy metals in the St. Crois..River at St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, for water years 1976 and 1977 (USGS 1977, 1978). Values-
represent total metal concentrations and are expressed in micrograms
per liter (ug/1).
. Date
14 October 1975
14 January 1976
14 April 1976
6 July 1976
7 October 1976
11 January 1977
19 March 1977
8 July 1977
Mean
Arsenic
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
3
1
Cadmium
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
Chromium
10
Cobalt
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Copper
24
10
0
0
0
0
10
2
6
Date
14 October 1975
14 January 1976
14 April 1976
6 July 1976
7 October 1976
11 January 1977
19 March 1977
8 July 1977
Mean
Iron
Zinc
Lead Manganese Mercury Selenium
320
590
630
300
200
240
510
500
410
50
10
10
10
0
10
0
0
10
7
2
3
3
5
7
8
6
5
50
20
50
92
50
40
60
100
60
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
D-9
-------
Table. D-6. Concentrations of heavy metals in the St, Croix River at Stillwater,
Wisconsin, for water year 1977 (USGS 1977). Values represent
total metal concentrations and are expressed in micrograms per
liter Qig/11,
Date
1 February 1977
6 April 1977
6 June 1977
4 August 1977
Mean
Arsenic Barium Boron
0
0
1
1
1
Q
0
100
300
100
40
40
50
70
50
Chro-
Cadmium mium
0
0
0
<60
0
Cobalt Copper
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
Date
1 February 1977
6 April 1977
6 June 1977
4 August 1977
Mean
Iron
500
580
900
470
610
Zinc
10
10
10
30
20
Lead
Manganese
50
60
10
130
60
"Mercury
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
loleniuia
0
0
0
0
0
D-10
-------
/z
t)
/ o
1
8
7
S
4
3
Z
i
30
M)
c-
V)
-------
A 7
0.6,
A/
a
a.*
o-i
/V
in
0.2.
0. /
M>TK.AT& it
(mg/J.)
oof
a,t>-}
' $
0, o /
a
TOTAL
lo
Figure D-2. Nutrient concentrations observed in May 1979.
D-12
-------
1000
100
1000
100
Figure D-3.
Fecal coliform and fecal strep concentrations
observed in May 1979.
D-13
-------
8 '
1 -
'O
/o
7
S
7
U-
2 -
Av
of
/5
/<3
5"
(°C)
O § -
^ V>
-------
o.j
Taylor t, Fa/Is
5TP
Figure D-5. Nutrient concentrations observed in August 1979.
D-15
-------
10000
1000
100
10000
1000
100
Figure D-6.
Fecal coliforra and fecal strep concentrations
observed in August 1979.
D-16
-------
APPENDIX E
Public Finance and User Fees
-------
EXHIBIT E-l
Water and Sewer Rate Schedule for St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
MINIMUM QUARTERLY CHARGE
5/8 and 3/4 Inch Meter ... $ 6.00 3 Inch Meter ... $ 76.00
1 Inch Meter 13.50 4 Inch Meter . . . 126.00
1*2 Inch Meter 26.00 6 Inch Meter ... 250.00
2 Inch Meter 40.00
For each ADDITIONAL unit of Service* on one meter, add $1.50 to the appro-
priate minimum charge for the meter size.
First 600 cu. ft. used ea. qtr. - apply minimum charge
Next 8,400 cu. ft. used ea. qtr. - 55c per 100 cu. ft.
Next 26,000 cu. ft. used ea. qtr. - 37
-------
EXHIBIT E-2
Current wastewater treatment user costs for a typical family
of three in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin.
These calculations are based on Table E-l. It is assumed that the per
capita generation of sewage is 74 gallons per day, that there are 90 days
per quarter, and three persons per family.
1) The amount of sewage generated per family per quarter first must be
calculated:
12.6 cu. ft. (94 gal)/capita/day x 90 days/quarter x 3 persons/family
= 3,402 cu. ft./quarter.
2) Based on Table E-l, a typical quarterly residential rate can be com-
puted:
2,802 '
1.5 x ($6.00 + ($0.55 x 100 )) = 1.5 x ($6.00 + $15.44) =
$32.16/quarter.
3) The annual charge is four times the quarterly charge: 4 x $32.16 =
$129/year.
E-2
-------
EXHIBIT E-3
Water and Sewer Rate Schedule for Taylors Falls, Minnesota (By
letter, City of Taylors Falls, to WAPORA, Inc., 17 October 1980).
All water sold shall be measured by meters, but where necessary a flat rate
of not less than the minimum charge may be established by the Council. The
rates for sewage service and the same.
Effective January 1, 1976, the following charges for water and sewer used
per quarter are hereby established.
a. For the use of 3,000 gallons or less the charge shall be $6.00.
b. For the next 7,000 gallons the charge shall be $1.10 per each addi-
tional 1,000 gallons of water used.
c. For the next 10,000 gallons the charge shall be 80 cents per each
additional 1,000 gallons of water used.
d. For the next 80,000 gallons the charge shall be 70 cents per each
additional 1,000 gallons of water used.
e. For the amount of water in excess of 100,000 gallons, the charge shall
be 60 cents per each additional 1,000 gallons of water used.
f. Where there is more than one unit served through a meter, in that case
the minimum charge, at least, shall apply to each dwelling or business
unit served through that meter.
g. There shall be a surcharge of 100% of the bill calculated pursuant to
the rates set forth herein that shall be added to the bill of any
person purchasing water from the City whose property serviced by the
City water is not within the corporate limits of the City.
A service charge of $5.00 shall be made for each request of turning
water off or on.
E-3
-------
EXHIBIT E-4
Current Wastewater Treatment User Costs for a Typical Family
of Three in Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
These calculations are based on Table E-3. It is assumed that the per
capita generation of sewage is 65 gallons per day, that there are 90 days
per quarter, and three persons per family.
1) The amount of sewage generated per family per quarter first must be
calculated:
65 gal/capita/day x 90 days/quarter x 3 persons per family = 17,550
gallons/quarter.
2) Based on Table E-3, a typical quarterly residential rate can be com-
puted:
7.000 7,550
$6.00 + (1,000 x $1.10) + (1,000 x $0.80) = $6.00 + $7.70 + $6.04 =
$19.74/quarter.
3) The annual user charge is four times the quarterly charge: 4 x $19.74
= $79.00/year.
E-4
-------
Table E-l. Estimated user charges for Alternatives 1 through 9.
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Alternative A Alternative 5 Alternative 6
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Upgrade /Expand
Existing WWTP
at St. Croix Falls
Without With
Federal Federal
Funding Funding
Cost a ,
Capital Cost ' 1,124,000 1,124,000
Annual OS.M 31,000 31,000
Community's Share
of Cost of
Regional System
Capital Cost
Annual O&M
Capital Cost
Distribution
Federal -- 843,000(757.)
State 674,400(60/0
Local 449,600(4050 281,000(25%)
Annual CostC
O&M Residential 27,900 27,900
O&M Interstate
State Park 3,100 3,100
Debt service
Residential 38,600 24,100
Debt service
Park
Typical Monthly Residen-
tial User Charge a
06.M Residential 4.20 4.20
Debt service
Residential 5.80 3.60
Total Monthly
Residential 10.00 7.80
Land Disposal
at St. Croix
Without
Federal
Funding
1,181,000 1,
40,000
--
708,600(6050
472,400(40%)
36,000
4,000
40,500
4 ,"500
5.40
6.10
11.50
System CAS System RBC System tor
Falls for Taylors Falls Taylors Falls
With
Federal
Funding
,181,000 988,000 985,000
40,000 36,000 27,000
--
885,800(75%) 741,000(75%) 738,800(75?)
148,200(15%) 147,800(15%)
295,300(25%) 98,800(10%) 98,500(10%)
36,000 26,100 21,100
4,000 6,900 5, ,00
25,300 7, '.00 7,400
1 , 100 2 , 000 ? ,000
5.40 9.90 8.10
3'80 2.80 2.80
9-2() 12.70 10.90
Pond Land Disposal
System for System for
Taylors Falls Taylors Falls
1,164,000 1,584,000
18,000 21,000
__
873,000(75%) 1,346,400(85%)
174,600(15%) 142,600( 9%)
116,400(10%) 95,000( 6%)
14,200 16,600
3,800 4,400
8,800 7,200
2 ,300 1 ,900
5.40 6.30
3.30 2.70
8.70 9.00
Annual Residential User
Charge
120.00
108.00
The distribution of capital costs is determined as follows.
For Taylors Falls MN, Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, the capital cost distribution is.
757 x total cost = Federal cost
25% x total cost = State cost
10/; x total cost = Local cost
For Taylors Palls MN, Alternatives 6 and 9, the land app1 uat ion alternatwus, tht
distribution is-
85% x total cost = Federal tost
9% x total cost = StuTte cost
6% x total cost = Local cost
ap it.il
For .ill pro ] f cts in St. Cro Ix Falls WI , Al ternat ives
60%
40%
, 2, md 7, the capita 1 cost distribution is:
total cost = State cost
total cost = Local cost.
For the Regional Alternatives 7, 8, and 9, the cost a 1 located to each iommunity was based on
the community's waste flow. The cost allocation was determined as follows.
74% x total cost = St. Croix Falls share
26% x total cost = Taylors PaMs share.
The Interstate State Park contributes signif leantly to each community's waste flow and therefore
is considered separately. For each community, commerclal and mdust r ial flows are intluded in
the residential share. In Taylors Falls the residential share is 79%; the Interstate State
Park share is 21%. In St. Croix Falls the residential share is 90%; the Interstate state Park
share is 10%.
Residential user charges are based on 1980 estimated populations and est imated number of persons
per household. In Taylors Falls the 1980 population is estimated to be 655 with 2,98 persons per
household. The number of households therefore is estimated to by 220. In St. Croix Falls, the
i960 population is estimated to be 1643 with 2.95 persons per household. The number of households
therefore is estimated to be 357.
E-5
-------
Alternative 7
Regional Conventional WWTP
at St. Croix Falls
Without
Federal
Funding
2,113,000
62,000
With
Federal
Funding
2,113,000
62,000
Alternative 8
Regional Stabilization
Pond System Near Taylors Falls
Without
Federal
Funding
2,660,000
31,000
With
Federal
Funding
2,660,000
31,000
Alternative 9
Regional Land Disposal System
Near Taylors Falls
Without
Federal
Funding
3,651,000
23,000
With
Federal
Funding
3,651,000
23,000
St. Croix Falla(74%) Taylors Falls(26%) St. Croix Falls(74%) Taylors Falls(26%) St. Croix Falls(74%) Taylors Falls(26%)
1,563,600
45,900
1,563,600
45,900
549,400
16,100
1,968,400
22,900
1,968,400
22,900
691,600
8,100
2,701,700
17,000
2,701,700
17,000
949,300
6,000
1,172,300(75%) 412,100(75%)
1,489,800(75%) 518,700(75%)
2,296,400(85%) 806,900(85%)
938,200(60%)
625,400(40%) 390,900(25%)
41,300
4,600
53,600
6,000
41,300
4,600
33,500
1,500
82,400(15%) 1,181,000(60%)
54,900(10%) 787,400(40%) 492,100(25%)
12,700
3,400
4,100
1,100
20,600
2,300
67,500
7,500
20,600
2,300
42,200
1,900
103,700(15%) 1,621,000(60%)
69,200(10%) 1,080,700(40%) 405,300(15%)
6,400
1,700
5,200
700
15,300
1,700
92,700
10,300
15,300
1,700
34,800
1,500
85,400( 9%)
57,000( 67.)
4,700
1,300
4,300
1,100
6.20
6.20
4.80
3.10
2.40
2.30
2.30
1.80
5.00
11.20
134.00
1.60
6.40
77.00
13.20
6.30
9.40
4.40
3.40
E-6
-------
Table E-2. Annual user fees for a family of four for the nine alternatives
for St. Croix Falls,'Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
St. Croix Falls Taylors Falls
Alternative 1 $208
Alternative 2 $232
Alternative 3 $236
Alternative 4 $207
Alternative 5 $173
Alternative 6 $177
Alternative 7 $275.
Alternative 8 . $259 $103
Alternative 9 $308 $ 87
E-7
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 750-913
------- |