United States Region 7 EPA 907/9-86-003
Environmental Protection 726 Minnesota Ave. May, 1986
Agency Kansas City, KS 66101
Environmental Review
vxEPA Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Proposed Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for
Eastern St. Charles
County, MO
including:
Duckett Creek Sewer District
St. Peters Sewer District
St. Charles Sewer District
Portage des Sioux Sewer District
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 661Q1
OFFICE OF
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
TO: ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Proposed Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for Eastern St. Charles County, Missouri.
This EIS includes the proposed facilities for the Duckett
Creek, St. Peters, St. Charles, and Portage des Sioux Sewer
Districts. The document is submitted pursuant to Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(Public Law 91-190). All comments received, both oral and
written, on the draft EIS are responded to in the final EIS.
All changes and additions to the draft EIS have been included
in the final. EIS.
The Environmental Protection Agency will not take actions
toward these proposed projects for 30 days following the pub-
lication of the Notice of Availability of this document in the
FederalRegister* At the termination of that no action period,
thisAgencywill issue a Record of Decision (ROD) affirming the
recommended alternatives and allowing the projects to proceed
toward completion. The date of issuance of the ROD is antici-
pated to be July 28, 1986. Additional copies of this document
are available for public review at the following locations;
Kathryn M. Linnemann Branch Library
2323 Elm Street
St. Charles, Missouri
Spencer Road Branch Library
425 Spencer Road
St. Peters, Missouri
Additional information on the document or the review
period may be obtained from Thomas Lorenz at the above address,
or by phoning (913) 236-2823 or (FTS) 757-2823.
Sincerely yours,
Morris Kay
Regional Administrator
Attachment
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
EASTERN ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
June 1986
APPROVED BY:
^Morris Kay, Regional Administrator
Consultants
WAPORA, Inc.
Rosslyn, Virginia
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The eastern portion of St. Charles County is experiencing significant
population growth and urbanization. As a result of past and projected growth
in this area, improvements in wastewater collection and treatment facilities
are necessary. In addition, some existing wastewater treatment plants have
not been able to meet effluent limitations specified in their National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits due to hydraulic overloads,
system deterioration, and related factors. Some areas currently served by
onsite wastewater treatment systems also need improved wastewater management
systems since many existing systems are not providing an adequate level of
treatment to safeguard public health.
In order to develop a plan for increasing wastewater treatment capacity
and capabilities, as well as provide adequate collection facilities, a waste-
water facilities planning study was initiated in 1981. The facilities plan-
ning area includes the cities of St. Charles and St. Peters, the Village of
Portage des Sioux, and unincorporated portions of eastern St. Charles County
(See Figure 1-1, page 1-2). The facilities planning consultant, Sverdrup &
Parcel and Associates, Inc., developed and evaluated alternatives which would
correct existing pollution problems and provide necessary improvements in the
wastewater management systems in the planning area.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Federal
agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions (e.g., funding of waste-
water treatment and collection facilities) significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment..." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
has developed its own regulations (40 CFR Part 6) for the implementation of
the EIS process. Pursuant to these regulations, USEPA Region VII determined
that an EIS was required for this facilities planning effort.
-------
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
Eight preliminary alternatives for collection and treatment of wastewater
in the planning area were identified by the facilities planner. These alter-
natives involved eight interceptor sewer system configurations that would
transport wastewater from the six sewer service subareas within the planning
area to various sewage treatment plants (STPs). For each municipal STP to be
utilized under these eight preliminary alternatives, various treatment and
disposal options were evaluated. These eight preliminary alternatives were
then screened by the facilities planner, with input from the Citizen Advisory
Committee, to select four alternatives for detailed evaluation. Screening
factors included costs, environmental constraints, reliability, flexibility,
and implementability.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EIS/FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
As stated, four "action" alternatives (Alternatives 3, 6, 7, and 8) were
evaluated with respect to costs and non-monetary considerations as well as the
No Action Alternative. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed and Alter-
native 6 had the lowest total present worth cost of $46.0 million. The three
other alternatives were approximately 3 to 12 percent more costly based on
their total present worth cost.
Non-monetary factors used in comparing the detailed alternatives included
reliability, environmental effects, floodplain infringement, energy use,
public approval, implementation capability, contributions to goals, and
expandability. Environmental consequences from the construction and operation
of the four final "action" alternatives and the No Action Alternative were
presented in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIS.
In both the EIS and 201 Facility Plan, Alternative 6 was recommended as
the most cost-effective system that would satisfy both the needs and require-
ments of the Duckett Creek Planning Area and fulfill environmental and regula-
tory requirements. Alternative 6 consists of expanding the Mississippi River
and Spencer Creek STPs, constructing new facilities at the Missouri River and
Duckett Creek STPs, and upgrading the existing wastewater collection and
ii
-------
transmission system. Further, construction would begin in the riear future,
and various stages of the overall plan would be implemented at different times
during the 20-year planning period.
Recommended Vastewater Collection and Conveyance Facilities
Under the recommended alternative, four major interceptor routes are
proposed: (1) South Plant to the Harvester-Dardenne site; (2) Spencer Creek
STP to the Mississippi River; (3) Boschertown lagoon to the Missouri River
STP; and (4) St. Charles Trails STP to 1-70.
Wastewater flows pumped from the South Plant service area would be inter-
cepted by a gravity sewer. The sewer line would follow Dardenne Creek to a
pumping station north of the Harvester-Dardenne STP, where the wastewater
would be pumped to the Harvester-Dardenne pumping station. The Harvester-
Dardenne pumping station would pump both the South Plant and the Harvester-
Dardenne service area flows to a new 5 mgd Duckett Creek STP. Once the down-
stream treatment facilities are constructed, the interim South Plant would be
eliminated. Treated effluent from the Spencer Creek STP would be pumped into
the Mississippi River. The force main would follow Spencer Creek and then
extend northward, across the floodplain, to the Mississippi River.
The Boschertown interceptor would extend from the Boschertown lagoon to
the Missouri River STP. Gravity sewers would be used with an intermediate
lift station. This interceptor would eliminate the Boschertown lagoon and the
Hutchins, Riverview, Princess Jodi, and Bedford pumping stations.
The Missouri River interceptor stops at 1-70. An extension of this sewer
line would eliminate the St. Charles Trails STP, Timbercrest and Heatherbrook
lagoons, Riverview Hills septic tank and sand filter, and Heatherbrook pumping
stations numbers 1 and 2. The alignment of the sewer line would extend from
the St. Charles Trails STP along Taylor Branch, and then follow the MK&T
Railroad to the existing Missouri River interceptor.
111
-------
Recommended Wastewater Treatment Facilities
• Mississippi River STP — The Mississippi River STP would be expanded
from a 5.5 mgd to a 7.0 mgd facility. The existing unit processes would be
maintained; however, expansion or replacement of certain items would be
required. A new effluent pumping station would be required. Currently, when
the Mississippi River is at high stage, wastewater effluent must be pumped
through an empty activated carbon filter to provide enough head to allow
gravity flow to the river. The new pumping station would contain three cen-
trifugal sewage pumps and would pump effluent through a force main to the
river.
• Missouri River STP — The Missouri River STP would be expanded from a 3
mgd primary facility to a 5 mgd secondary system. The plant was built in 1966
and most of the mechanical equipment would require replacement. An oxidation
ditch system is proposed to provide secondary treatment. The existing sludge
handling system at the Missouri River STP currently is not used; however, the
building could be modified to house the new sludge dewatering equipment.
Dewatered sludge cake would be trucked to the Mississippi River STP for
incineration.
• Duckett Creek STP — The 1 mgd Duckett Creek package plant would be
replaced by a 5 mgd treatment facility. None of the existing equipment would
be used at the new plant. Oxidation ditches would provide secondary treat-
ment. Waste activated sludge would be thickened in a gravity thickener prior
to stabilization in two aerobic digesters. The digested sludge would then be
dewatered by two belt filter presses.
Final disposal of dewatered sludge would be by land application, when
possible. Sufficient (30-day) cake storage facilities and alternate sludge
disposal methods, including landfilling, would be necessary. The proposed
plan includes onsite storage, land application of sludge to the greatest
extent possible, or landfilling of sludge cakes. Final application sites
currently are not known, but would be selected during the project design
stage, and would be subject to site-specific review and approval at that time.
Sludge disposal facilities and equipment would include a sludge storage
shed for the dewatered cake, and a land application truck and a feeder tank
truck would be required for farmland subsurface injection. Sludge cake would
be produced when land application is not feasible and stored until it could be
applied to land or until storage capacity is reached, whereupon the sludge
would be hauled to a landfill for final disposal.
• Spencer Creek Plant — The Spencer Creek STP would require upgrading
from a 3.0 mgd extended aeration plant to a 4.0 mgd contact stabilization
plant. Much of the existing equipment was installed in 1980 and could be
utilized in this upgrading plan. Effluent would be pumped to the Mississippi
River rather than discharged to Spencer Creek, as currently practiced. The
Spencer Creek plant could, as an option, be upgraded to meet advanced treat-
ment standards and discharge to Spencer Creek. To handle sludge, a gravity
thickener would be added prior to aerobic digestion. Two new digesters would
replace the original digester. Digested sludge would be dewatered by two belt
filter presses housed in a new sludge handling building.
IV
-------
The City of St. Peters has been investigating land application of sludge
because the existing sludge handling method (lagoon) is not acceptable. The
City of St. Peters has acquired a sludge application vehicle and is now land
applying sludge from both their water and wastewater plant. The use of a
landfill also was considered as an alternate sludge disposal method. A
flexible system, including storage facilities for dewatered sludge cake, would
also be required.
• Portage des Sioux Plant — The Portage des Sioux STP would be upgraded
to a secondary facility. However, it is recommended that an extended aeration
package plant be constructed in lieu of the 1978 selection of a rotating
biological contact plant.
• Onsite Systems — In the planning area, there are three general classi-
fications of existing onsite system areas: (1) developments along the
Mississippi River and in the floodplain that are serviced by individual
shallow wells and onsite systems; (2) the upland portion of the planning area;
and (3) residences in areas with karst topographic features, mainly around
Taylor Branch. The final facilities plan concludes that the use of onsite
systems in densely populated areas in the upland portions of the planning area
(area 2), and further development in the karst areas (area 3), should be dis-
continued as interceptors are constructed.
Although the residences currently served by onsite systems in the
Mississippi River floodplain (area 1) were originally recommended (in the
draft facilities plan) to be served by centralized collection and treatment
facilities where the density of residences was sufficient, it subsequently has
been determined that these floodplain communities cannot afford the cost of
collection and transmission systems for treatment of wastewater at the nearest
centralized facility. As such, a centralized collection system for the major
floodplain communities was not considered implementable. Instead, it is
recommended that St. Charles County develop a plan that could mitigate
problems without being capital-intensive. The proposed plan recommends the
following measures:
(1) establishment of a centralized management agency responsible for
planning and supervising the upgrading and maintenance of onsite
systems;
(2) a public education program on proper septic tank and absorption
field operation;
(3) emphasis on the need for community wells to replace individual
shallow wells;
(4) consideration of cluster systems;
(5) consideration of holding tanks for riverfront properties; and
(6) flow conservation practices and devices to reduce the load on exist-
ing onsite systems.
-------
The continued use of onsite systems in the upland areas also would still
be necessary for numerous residences because interceptor sewers are not and
will not be located sufficiently close to provide service. Sufficient data
currently are not available to ascertain whether or not continued use of
onsite systems in these areas would be technically feasible if centralized
management and systematic upgrading of failing systems onsite were to be
implemented. Regardless of the final wastewater management options selected
for the respective "problem areas," implementation of an onsite management
district is recommended for those residences that would not be served by
centralized alternatives.
• Private Systems — Two wastewater treatment facilities, the Tee Kay
lagoon and the Martell lagoon, serve isolated communities in the South Plant
service area. Interceptors are not yet available because of high costs re-
lated to low population density. As the population increases, interceptors
would be extended to these outlying areas, and it is recommended that these
lagoons should be eliminated. Meanwhile, strict enforcement of KPDES permits
should reduce the impact that these lagoons may have on water quality in the
planning area.
• Small Systems Outside the Planning Area -- It is recommended that
pollution to upper Dardenne Creek by small treatment plants located just
outside the planning area could be reduced by strict enforcement of NPDES
permits conditions. The Weldon Spring Elementary School and Safari Campground
each have treatment plants that may affect Dardenne Creek water quality.
Eventually, these areas should be eliminated as interceptors are constructed.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Environmental impacts of the recommended alternative generally are ex-
pected to be beneficial, particularly with regard to surface and groundwater
quality. The recommended alternative would replace or upgrade currently
inadequate centralized wastewater treatment plants and provide more suitable
collection and treatment systems for small communities with problems resulting
from failing septic tanks and other small treatment facilities. For the
floodplain areas currently using onsite systems, the recommended plan provides
for better technical guidance (via a central management agency) in siting,
operating, and maintaining onsite systems which will help mitigate problems
without being capital intensive.
Some adverse impacts also are associated with the recommended alterna-
tive; however, they generally are localized in nature and of relatively short
duration. Such impacts include temporary loss of vegetation (woody and
herbaceous), erosion, sedimentation, disruption to riparian and roadside
VI
-------
vegetation and associated fish and wildlife habitats, and temporary displace-
ment of certain species of wildlife during sewer line construction in rural
areas. Local traffic disruptions, safety hazards, noise, and fugitive dust
caused by construction activities in the more developed areas also will occur.
Temporary interruptions of farming operations and other local services also
may occur although these and other adverse impacts can be minimized through
use of effective mitigative measures.
There is also potential for longer-term impacts that include impacts on
archaeological resources, user charges, land use changes, and operational-
related odors and noises. Cost impacts of collection and treatment systems to
residents of the planning area always exist, despite efforts to reduce costs
and the opportunity for Federal grant assistance. Officials and citizens of
these affected communities have actively participated in the planning of
wastewater management facilities for their areas and their views are con-
sidered and reflected in the recommended alternative. For a more detailed
discussion of impacts of the recommended alternative, refer to Section 2.4 of
this Final EIS.
AGENCY DECISION AND REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES
The EIS and facilities planning process were performed concurrently and
in close coordination to ensure that the most cost effective, environmentally
acceptable alternative was selected. This EIS analysis has determined that
the environmental benefits of the recommended alternative (Alternative 6)
outweigh the adverse environmental effects. Therefore, EPA intends to provide
further federal funding for this project, subject to all other review and
approval requirements of EPA's Construction Grants Program, as well as the
requirements of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).
As previously identified, various adverse impacts would be associated
with all proposed action alternatives. Many of these adverse impacts must be
reduced significantly by the application of mitigative measures. These miti-
gative measures consist of a variety of legal requirements, planning measures,
and design practices. The extent to which these measures are applied will
vxi
-------
determine the ultimate impact of the particular action. During subsequent
design and construction phases of the proposed project, EPA, in cooperation
with MDNR, will be responsible for seeing that recommended measures are taken
to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The principal required mitigative
measures are summarized below:
Mitigation of Construction Impacts
Anticipated construction-related impacts are primarily short-term and
result from land-disturbing activities at the STP sites or along the routes of
proposed wastewater collection and conveyance lines. Specific mitigation
measures recommended for reducing dust generation, subsidence, erosion, and
sedimentation include:
• frequent street sweeping;
• prompt road repaving;
• prompt reseeding, landscaping, and restoration of vegetation;
• regrading and compacting of trenches to prevent subsidence;
* minimizing areal requirements of grading and excavation;
» removing topsoil and stockpiling it whenever possible before grading
begins;
• applying appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
runoff and sedimentaton during and after construction;
• developing stabilized drainage systems; and
• establishing a firm construction schedule that is coordinated with
clearing and grading activities.
Any interceptors proposed in or near wetlands or floodplain areas could
have significant impacts on bottomland vegetation which provides valuable
wildlife habitat. Any such facilities should be aligned to avoid these areas
or disturb as little area as possible. Minimizing the width of construction
corridors through these areas is recommended. These corridors should be
regraded to natural contour and replanted with native vegetation. The
Missouri Conservation Commission should be consulted in this regard and can
help to provide for natural replanting.
Vlll
-------
Construction-related disruption in planning area communities should be
minimized through considerate contractor scheduling and appropriate public
announcements. State and County highway department regulations concerning
roadway disruptions should be rigorously adhered to. Special care must be
taken to minimize disruption of access to frequently visited establishments.
Announcements should be published in local newspapeers and broadcast from
local radio stations to alert drivers to temporary traffic disruptions on
primary routes. Street closing and blasting schedules also should be
announced by flyers delivered to each affected household, or by another appro-
priate technique. Construction schedules also should be coordinated with the
farm planting/harvesting cycles in order to reduce disruptions to farming
operations.
To avoid or minimize damage to roadways, planning routes for heavy con-
struction equipment and materials must ensure that surface load restrictions
are considered. Trucks hauling excavation spoil to disposal sites or fill
material to the STP sites should be routed along primary arterials to minimize
the threat to public safety and to reduce disturbance along residential
streets. Also, to minimize exhaust emissions and noise from construction
equipment, proper equipment operation and maintenance procedures must be
followed.
Known archaeological sites located within or near proposed interceptor
rights-of-way have been inventoried by pedestrian survey. Two sites, located
partially within the construction corridors, should be avoided. If it is not
possible to avoid these sites, subsurface testing would be necessary to deter-
mine their eligiblity for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places. If a site is found eligible, the extent of adverse effect must be
assessed, and activities, such as data recovery, must be carried out to miti-
gate adverse impacts in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Also, if any
additional cultural resources are found during construction, the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) must be notified immediately.
Mitigative measures also may be required near the Findett Corporation
hazardous waste site which could affect, or be affected by, construction of
proposed interceptor lines in this general vicinity. Any environmental
-------
analyses, mitigative measures, and remedial actions that may be required in
this area will be determined by the EPA Superfund Program for hazardous wastes
clean-up. The implementation of remedial actions at the site will not occur
until after EPA completes a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
of the Findett site. The grantee should monitor this study and determine its
status or results prior to any construction in this general area.
Mitigation of Operation Impacts
Adverse impacts related to the operation of the proposed wastewater
collection systems and treatment facilities should be minimal if the facili-
ties are designed, operated, and maintained properly. Aerosols, gaseous
emissions, and odors from the various treatment processes must be controlled
through responsible operation and maintenance procedures. Above-ground pumps
should be enclosed and installed to minimize sound impacts.
Special care must be taken to control chlorination and effluent concen-
trations of chlorine residuals at the Spencer Creek and Mississippi River STPs
to minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic biota in receiving streams, since
chlorination of wastewater can result in the formation of halogenated organic
compounds that are potentially carcinogenic. Plans for chlorination systems
should provide for continuous monitoring of chlorine residuals (with visual
and audible alarms) to ensure that chlorine concentrations remain within
design limits.
Once specific sites are selected for sludge application, potential
adverse impacts to soil and groundwater resources will be mitigated through
grant conditions required by the state including: (1) analysis of sludge on a
quarterly basis, (2) groundwater monitoring for wastewater treatment facil-
ities in excess of 5 mgd, and/or (3) groundwater monitoring if sludge applica-
tion rates exceed 2 dry tons per acre per year. Where groundwater monitoring
is required, the primary pollutant of interest is nitrates; however, monitor-
ing for other constituents (e.g., heavy metals, priority pollutants) may be
required if there is an industrial wastewater contributor to the system.
These ongoing measures will serve to minimize adverse impacts of sludge
application operations.
-------
Operation impacts resulting from power failures could include sewer
backups and localized flooding in the collection system; biological system
upsets at the STP; stagnation of waters; and mechanical problems in the treat-
ment facility. To mitigate the potential for such problems, secondary power
sources are required to enhance system reliability.
Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
Some secondary impacts are expected to occur from implementation of any
of the action alternatives, including the recommended alternative. Effective
zoning, health, and water quality regulations and enforcement will minimize
these impacts. Local growth management planning also would assist in regulat-
ing the general location, density, and type of growth that occurs, which would
serve to minimize the potential for adverse impacts due to changes in popula-
tion and land use.
-------
DUCKETT CREEK FINAL EIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS xii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background of Facilities Planning 1-1
1.2 Background and Issues of the EIS 1-5
1.3 Organization of Final EIS 1-7
2.0 EIS STUDY SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 Environmental Setting... 2-1
2.2 Wastewater Treatment Problems/Need for Action 2-9
2.3 Description of Alternatives Including the Recommended
Alternative 2-11
2.3.1 No Action 2-13
2.3.2 Alternatives 2-15
2.3.3 Alternative 6 (Facility Plan and EIS Recommended
Alternative) 2-16
2.3.4 Alternative 7 2-17
2.3.5 Alternatives 2-18
2.3.6 Comparison of Final System Alternatives 2-18
2.3.7 Description of Recommended System Alternative 2-21
2.4 Environmental Consequences of Recommended Alternative.... 2-37
2.5 Issues and Comments in Response to the Draft EIS 2-44
2.6 Additional Considerations Since the Draft EIS 2-45
3.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DRAFT EIS 3-1
4.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND EPA RESPONSES 4-1
4,1 Written Comments and Responses 4-1
4.2 Responses to Public Hearing Comments 4-24
APPENDICES
Key Correspondence (Missouri River Levee System (L-15) Project
Status Report
Mailing List for Final EIS
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Evaluation of costs for the four final alternatives 2-20
2-2 Facility plan recommended alternative construction
cost estimates 2-31
2-3 Facility plan recommended alternative annual operation
and maintenance cost estimates 2-32
2-4 Preliminary calculation of user charges 2-34
4-1 Index of written public comments on the Draft EIS 4-2
4-2 Index of verbal public comments received at the public
hearing on the Draft EIS, May 9, 1985 4-3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1-1 Location of planning area 1-2
2-1 Alternative 6 2-22
3-9a Findett site map 3-3
3-9b Findett study area 3-4
Kill
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of Facilities Planning
The planning area addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement (BIS)
is located in eastern St. Charles County in eastern Missouri approximately 25
miles west of St. Louis (Figure 1-1). The planning area is generally bounded
by the Mississippi River on the north, State Highway 94 on the east, the
Missouri River on the south, and US Highway 40 and County Highway C on the
west. It includes the upper Mississippi River — Salt River Basin watersheds
of Dardenne, Spencer, Sandfort, Cole and Boschert creeks, and the Lower
Missouri River Basin watersheds of Duckett Creek and Taylor Branch. The plan-
ning area includes the cities of St. Charles and St. Peters, the Village of
Portage des Sioux as well as unincorporated portions of St. Charles County.
The planning area is located in the Dissected Till Plains section of the
Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The northern portion of the planning
area, i.e., north of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, constitutes a broad,
generally level floodplain area of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. The
southern portion of the planning area contains gently rolling upland areas
with dissected river valleys and includes almost all of the population of the
planning area.
This portion of St. Charles County is currently experiencing significant
population growth and urbanization due to a number of factors including:
• Improved transportation access between the planning area and St. Louis
• Existence of large amounts of vacant buildable land suitable for resi-
dential and commercial development
• Pro-growth planning policies to facilitate population growth
• Siting of major new employment centers in nearby areas.
The history of wastewater facilities planning in St. Charles County in
the last 12 years is as follows:
1972 - St. Charles County voters created a countywide Regional
Sewer District (RSD). The formation of a RSD was opposed
by the cities of O'Fallon and St. Peters.
1-1
-------
CO
0>
O>
c
"c
c
<0
S o
u. o
-------
1976 - St. Charles County Voters defeated a county bond
issue to financially support the RSD.
1978 - The Duckett Creek Sewer District came into existence
as an operating entity following the purchase of two
private treatment facilities.
1978 - The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC),
the regional 208 planning agency, adopted a 208 plan
which recommended a regional treatment system to
serve 0'Fallen, St. Peters, St. Charles, and the
unincorporated areas between these communities.
1979 - The Missouri Clean Water Commission (CWC) reviewed
and certified the EWGCC 208 plan. Strong opposition
to this plan was expressed by O1 Fallen, Lake St.
Louis, and St. Peters as well as the St. Charles
County Municipal League.
1979/
1980 - Federal regulations require the Governor of Missouri
to designate management agencies for implementing 208
plans. The EWGCC 208 plan did not, however, make any
recommendations on management agencies. For this
reason, the CWC ordered the local governments in St.
Charles County to reach a consensus concerning man-
agement agencies by 1 January 1980. In response to
this mandate, the local governments in St. Charles
County banded together to form the St. Charles County
Waste water Management Board (WMB). The WMB recom-
mended to the CWC on 28 December 1979 the following
management agencies for implementing wastewater faci-
lities plans: (1) Wentzville; (2) O'Fallon/Lake St.
Louis; and (3) Duckett Creek/St. Peters/St. Charles.
The CWC endorsed this management strategy for St.
Charles County, and transmitted this recommendation
to the Governor.
April - The Governor certified the St. Charles County manage-
1980 ment agencies to the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
May - USEPA accepted the state's 208 certification, in-
1980 eluding management agencies to St. Charles County.
January - St. Peters, St. Charles, and the Duckett Creek Sewer
1981 District agreed upon a local consultant for preparing
a facilities plan on the "eastern" subregional area.
July - A Step 1 planning grant was awarded by USEPA for the
1981 facilities plan with the Duckett Creek Sewer District
serving as the lead agency.
1-3
-------
December - USEPA determined that an EIS was required on the
1982 plan and issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an
EIS.
At present, public wastewater treatment facilities are operated by St.
Peters, St. Charles, Portage des Sioux, and the Duckett Creek Sewer District.
In addition, there are several private and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities in the planning area. A detailed discussion of the existing cen-
tralized collection and treatment systems in the planning area is contained in
Section 2.1 of the Draft EIS.
The primary impetus for facilities planning in the planning area is the
high population growth which the area is experiencing. As additional growth
occurs, improvements in wastewater collection and treatment capability and
capacity will be necessary. In addition, some of the facilities in the plan-
ning area currently have difficulties in meeting the effluent limitations
specified by their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (KPDES)
permits because of hydraulic overloads, system deterioration, and related fac-
tors. Further, some portions of the planning area are currently served by
onsite wastewater treatment systems, some of which are not providing an ade-
quate level of treatment to safeguard public health. Therefore, consideration
must be given to upgrading inadequate onsite systems or providing centralized
collection systems in these currently unsewered areas.
Facilities planning in the planning area was initiated in December 1981.
The facilities planning consultant, Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
developed eight (8) preliminary alternatives for the planning area for cor-
recting existing pollution problems and for providing necessary improvements
in wastewater collection and treatment capability and capacity. An Infiltra-
tion/Inflow (I/I) analysis also was performed. Following analysis of the
eight preliminary alternatives, four (4) alternatives were selected for
detailed engineering analysis on the basis of cost-effectiveness, probable
environmental impact, implementability, and related factors. A more detailed
discussion of the alternatives and the screening process used to eliminate
preliminary alternatives from further analysis is contained in Section 2.4 of
the Draft EIS.
1-4
-------
This EIS is being prepared concurrently with the facilities plan. Prior
to the development of the Draft EIS, an Environmental Setting Report was
prepared which summarized the existing natural and manmade environment of the
planning area. This report was used by the facilities planning consultant in
the development of the preliminary alternatives and in the screening process
used to identify alternatives suitable for in-depth evaluation. The draft
facilities plan was completed in November 1983 and has been reviewed by USEPA
and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Following this
review, a final facilities plan was prepared and submitted during October
1984. The final facilities plan addresses the comments provided by USEPA and
MDNR on the draft facilities plan; the final plan is currently undergoing
agency review. The Draft and Final EISs are based on information in the final
facilities plan and will be submitted for public and agency comment. Follow-
ing the close of a 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS, this Final EIS was.
prepared and identifies the action(s) which USEPA regards as most suitable,
from an environmental, economic and legal standpoint.
1.2 Background and Issues of the EIS
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Federal
agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment..." In addition, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality (CEQ) has established regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) to
guide Federal agencies in determinations of whether or not Federal funds or
Federal approvals would result in a project that would significantly affect
the environment. USEPA has developed its own regulations (40 CFR Part 6) for
the implementation of the EIS process. In accordance with these regulations,
USEPA Region VII determined that an EIS was required for this facilities
planning effort. EPA therefore issued a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS
on the subject facilities plan and retained WAPORA, Inc, as a consultant.
The purpose of this EIS is to provide federal, state, and local decision
makers and the concerned pubic with sufficient information on the environ-
mental, economic, and technical impacts of the various alternatives to make
sound wastewater management decisions. Participants in the wastewater plan-
ning process during the past 2 years have included: the cities of St. Peters
1-5
-------
and St. Charles, the village of Portage des Sioux, the Duckett Sewer District,
the State of Missouri, USEPA, Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. (facili-
ties planning consultant), WAPORA, Inc. (EIS consultant), and other Federal,
state, local, and private agencies and organizations. A citizens advisory
committee (CAC) composed of local officials, local residents, and representa-
tives of a number of local interest groups was formed to provide input into
the planning process and has met at key decision points during the project.
In particular, the CAC provided valuable input into the selection of alterna-
tives considered most suitable by detailed engineering analysis. A public
hearing on the draft facilities plan also was held on February 15, 1984. An
additional public hearing on the Draft EIS was held on May 9, 1985 in St.
Charles to discuss its conclusions and recommendations, and to solicit public
comments. This Final EIS revises the Draft EIS as a result of public and
agency comments, and responds to all written and verbal comments received on
the Draft EIS.
During the course of preparing the EIS, the following issues were deter-
mined to be of significant concern and thus received emphasis in the EIS:
• Induced population growth and associated indirect impacts on:
floodplains
wetlands
- potable water supplies
hazardous areas
recreational lands
prime and unique agricultural areas
fish and wildlife habitat areas
threatened and endangered species
historic and archaeological sites
• The effects of effluent discharges on the water quality of the Missouri
and Mississippi rivers and their tributaries from hydraulically over-
loaded centralized wastewater treatment facilities as well as malfunc-
tioning on-site systems.
• The development of a user charge system acceptable to a population that
is currently being served by numerous systems with varying user
charges.
• The development of alternatives which satisfy the needs of numerous
public and private entities with facilties that have widely ranging
treatment capabilities, capacities, and design periods.
1-6
-------
• The development of an equitable plan for compensating private utilities
and public entities that have facilities which could be transferred to
regional or subregional systems; however, compensation to the owners of
private utilities is not grant eligible.
• Construction impacts, including disruption of traffic flows with
attendant impacts on existing land uses, local businesses, and resi-
dents' commuting patterns.
1.3 Organization of Final EIS
This Final EIS focuses on responding to comments received on the Draft
EIS and summarizes and updates information previously presented. The
Executive Summary presents a brief synopsis of the proposed facilities plan
alternatives, environmental consequences, EPA's decisions, and recommended
mitigation measures. Section 1.0 provides a historical overview of facilities
planning and the EIS process and presents the organization for the Final EIS.
Section 2.0 summarizes the major EIS sections, and includes a synopsis of the
issues and comments on the Draft EIS, but does not repeat the full text of the
Draft EIS. Section 3.0 presents revisions to the Draft EIS in the form of
errata. Section 4.0 includes the written and verbal public hearing comments
on the Draft EIS and EPA's responses. The Draft EIS document should be
consulted for additional details and references as required.
1-7
-------
2.0 EIS STUDY SUMMARY
2.1 Environmental Setting
Location and Topography
The planning area is located in eastern St. Charles County, Missouri and
encompasses the lower Dardenne, Spencer, and Duckett Creek watersheds. The
planning area includes the City of St. Charles, the City of St. Peters, and
the Duckett Creek Sewer District. The planning area is situated between the
Missouri and Mississippi rivers immediately west of the confluence of the two
rivers. Topographically, the planning area is divided into two different
areas, an upland area and a floodplain area.
The majority of the population in the planning area is in the upland
portion which contains hilly uplands with rolling to steep slopes and rounded
divides. Areas of karst topography exist between Spencer Creek and Sandfort
Creek near 1-70 and between Duckett Creek and Taylor Branch. Karst topography
is characterized by a rugged landscape with dissolution of the underlying
limestone.
A broad floodplain area exists in the northern portion of the planning
area and contains agricultural uses, scattered residential and industrial
developments, and extensive waterfowl habitat in low-lying wetlands, sloughs,
and oxbows.
The land surface is nearly level to flat. Wastewater collection and
treatment primarily is provided by the three participating authorities and, in
some areas, by private utility districts that serve a single subdivision. The
floodplain area currently is not served by centralized wastewater collection
and treatment systems.
Air Quality
St. Charles County is located within the metropolitan St. Louis Inter-
state Air Quality Control Region. Carbon monoxide (CO) is the most pervasive
2-1
-------
air pollutant. More than 75% of the CO emitted in the St. Louis metropolitan
area comes from motor vehicles. The area bordered by 1-270 and the
Mississippi River is not in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for CO. Data collected at the nearest monitoring station in
St. Ann indicates a trend toward lower CO concentrations.
All of the St. Louis metropolitan area is designated as nonattainment
area for ozone. Ozone in the lower atmosphere is a major component of photo-
chemical smog. In addition, the St. Louis metropolitan area has not met the
secondary NAAQS standard for total suspended particulates, and the downtown
area of the city has not attained the primary standard. Particulates include
dust, soot, and fly ash. The major sources of particulates in the St. Louis
area are coal combustion, construction activities, automobile exhaust, agri-
cultural activities, industrial processes, and traffic on unpaved roads.
Geology and Soils
St. Charles County is characterized by several types of geologic history
including Paleozoic deposition and erosion, the advance and retreat of
Pleistocene glaciers, and deposition of alluvium from major river systems.
The bedrock of the area consists of Mississippi and Pennsylvania-aged
sedimentary rocks under the uplands. Pleistocene and recent-aged deposits
overlie the bedrock except at some outcrops. In the upland areas, glacial
till, loess, and occasional alluvium are present. In the floodplain, alluvium
overlies the bedrock. Bedrock formations consist of limestone, chert, dolo-
mite, shale, and sandstone.
The soils in the planning area are mostly silts and clays although some
sands are present in the floodplain areas. The soils generally exhibit low to
moderate permeability, depending on the clay content, except in portions of
the floodplain areas where sandy soils with high permeabilities are present.
The depth to the seasonally high water table generally is between 2 and 6 feet
in the upland areas, except in the low-lying areas along the stream bottoms
where the water table is less than 2 feet from the surface. In the floodplain
areas, the depth to the seasonally high water table generally ranges from 0.5
2-2
-------
to 3 feet. The primary constraints to the use of onsite wastewater treatment
systems in the planning area are wetness, periodic flooding, and slow percola-
tion.
The St. Charles County soil survey estimates that about 5% of the plan-
ning area soils have slight limitations, 8% have moderate limitations, and the
remaining 87% are rated as having servere limitations for the use of onsite
wastewater treatment systems. The facilities planner's preliminary estimate
is that there are approximately 11,000 residences in the planning area utiliz-
ing onsite systems.
Water Resources
The planning area is located immediately west of the confluence of the
Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Of the 150 estimated square miles in the
planning area, 12.8% is in the Lower Missiouri River Subbasin (a subbasin of
the Missouri River Basin), and 87.2% is in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
As a result of the planning area's location near the confluence of two of the
nations largest rivers, the small streams within the planning area are antici-
pated to have negligible influence on downstream receiving water quantity and
quality. Six named creeks of low or intermittent flow provide surface water
drainage in the planning area. Tributaries to the Mississippi River are
Spencer Creek, Cole Creek, Sandfort Creek, and Dardenne Creek. Duckett Creek
and Taylor Branch drain into the Missouri River to the south.
Urbanization has proceeded at a high rate in the planning area over the
last decade and may have a significant influence on flow characteristics of
these small streams, especially Spencer and Duckett creeks, because of their
small drainage areas.
Dardenne Creek is classified as a "water quality limited stream" by the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Presently, the Duckett Creek
Sewer District's Harvester-Dardenne STP discharges to a tributary of Dardenne
Creek. A recent study conducted by the MDNR, concludes that the Harvester-
Dardenne discharge be eliminated and that the St. Peters STP be upgraded to
include nitrification facilities.
2-3
-------
The Mississippi and Missouri rivers are designated for use as a drinking
water supply, industrial uses, commercial fishing, boating, aquatic life,
irrigation, and livestock water supply. The Mississippi River is also de-
signated for body-contact recreational activities.
According to the 208 planning study, Dardenne Creek and its tributaries
are subject to pollution from point sources, nonpoint sources, and undersized
or failing onsite systems. Duckett Creek is subject to non-point source
runoff from both rural and urban sources.
Nine of the 16 wastewater treatment plants in the planning area with
effluent discharges had BOD and/or TSS concentrations in excess of their KPDES
permit limits for one or more of the reporting periods from October 1981
through September 1982. Furthermore, a comparison of effluent discharge flow
rates, with both average and 7-day Q2s for the small streams, shows that the
facility discharges may greatly exceed the estimated stream flows. During
periods of low stream flow in Dardenne, Spencer, and Duckett creeks, effluent
discharges would account for a majority of the flow volume in those streams.
Groundwater in the planning area occurs in the underlying alluvium and
bedrock aquifers. The alluival aquifers underlying the Mississippi and
Missouri rivers are the primary sources of groundwater. The quality of
groundwater in the alluvium is variable, but generally has high iron and
manganese concentrations and high total dissolved solids. Water in bedrock
wells is used minimally for public water supplies. Private water supplies,
including several subdivisions and mobile home parks, use bedrock and alluvial
wells. The quality of the water in the bedrock aquifers is highly variable,
with the quality being poorer near the Mississippi River. High iron, chloride
or fluoride concentrations are the most frequently encountered problems. In
addition, radionuclides in some bedrock wells exceed the state recommended
maximum standard.
Sensitive Environmental Resources
The sensitive environmental resources that occur in the planning area are
prime agricultural lands, floodplains, and wetlands.
2-4
-------
Approximately 45% of the St. Charles County meets the soil requirements
for prime farmlands. Most of the farmland is located in the Missouri River,
Mississippi River, and Dardenne Creek floodplain areas.
Flooding occurs on nearly all of the bottomlands of the Mississippi and
Missouri rivers and on many of the smaller streams in the planning area,
particularly during the spring season. No flood control reservoirs exist in
the planning area; however, several creeks have undergone channel modification
to reduce the flood potential and the Missouri River is almost completely
controlled by an extensive reservoir system in its headwaters area. In addi-
tion, St. Charles County has adopted a floodplain ordinance that complies with
the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Wetlands occur predominantly in the northern half of the planning area in
the Mississippi River and Missouri River floodplains. Most of the wetlands
are emergent palustrine type and are extremely valuable for a diversity of
wildlife in the planning area.
Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology
Important aquatic habitats in the planning area include the Mississippi
and Missouri rivers, the numerous small streams which disect the planning area
from north to south, and several small lakes and ponds. The Mississipi River
is a productive fishery with carp, buffalo and sunfish being the most import-
ant species. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macroinvertebarates are also
found in the rivers and lakes. Diatoms are an important constituent of slow
flowing streams and the Mississippi River. However, overall phytoplankton
abundance is limited by high levels of turbidity in area streams.
Four major terrestrial land cover types that occur in the planning area
are forest, agricultural, wetlands, and urban/residential. Bottomland forests
and unforested bottomlands exist along the floodplains of the Missouri and the
Mississippi rivers and along sections of major streams.
The southern half of the planning area contains oak-hickory forests. The
forest areas support a variety of birds, turtles, snakes, squirrels, opossum,
2-5
-------
mice, and white-tailed deer. The bald eagle is the only Federally listed
endangered species that frequents habitats in the planning area.
Land Use
The existing land use in the planning area is influenced primarily by
natural features, i.e., floodplains, steep slopes and stream courses, and by
transportation routes. The cities of St. Charles and St. Peters developed
adjacent to the railroads which extended across the county and linked the St.
Louis area with the western plains.
The major natural feature that affects land use in the planning area is
the broad floodplain area of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. The flood-
plain is demarcated by the steep bluff line that differentiates the upland
portions of the planning area from the nearly level, lowland portions of the
planning area. The bluff line also represents the boundary between urban
development and the open space, agricultural uses of the floodplain. Within
the upland areas, development also is limited in some areas by steep slopes
that are present in the watersheds of the smaller tributary streams. Eighty-
five percent of the planning area is non-urbanized with the next largest land
use being residential which occupies about 10% of the total area.
Land use within the planning area is regulated by St. Charles County, and
the cities of St. Charles, St. Peters, and Portage des Sioux. Zoning and
subdivision ordinances are the means of land use regulation used. The
majority of the upland portion of the planning area is zoned for residential
use while the floodplain portion primarily is in floodplain zoning as required
by the National Flood Insurance Program.
The Golden Triangle area which includes land that is within the service
areas of the cities of St. Charles, St. Peters, and the Duckett Creek Sewer
District is projected to experience moderate increases of about 2-4% per year
in residential, commercial, and industrial land use.
The City of St. Peters anticipates annexation of about 4,000 acres by the
year 2000. Most of the residential growth will occur in undeveloped areas.
2-6
-------
Within Spencer Creek and Dardenne Creek watersheds, most commercial growth
will occur along 1-70 and the Missouri highway corridors. The most extensive
area of industrial growth will be in the northwest portion of St. Peters
called the Arrowhead Industrial Park.
The City of St. Charles expects that the majority of future development
will be in the area south of 1-70. This area is planned for low density
residential development with neighborhood commercial centers along Highway 94
and at the intersection of the major collector roadways.
Population
St. Charles County has both the highest growth rate and the greatest
absolute population increase between 1970 and 1980 of the eight counties that
comprise the St. Louis metropolitan area. The population increases experi-
enced in St. Charles County and the two planning area cities between 1970 and
1980 primarily are the result of in-migration; 70.9% (36,289 persons) of St.
Charles County's population increase was due to net in-migration while natural
increase (births over deaths) accounted for the remaining 29.1% (14,864 per-
sons. The increasing attraction of this area for residential development is
further borne out by information from the 1980 Census on housing age. Nearly
half (49.0%) of the year-round housing units in St. Charles County were con-
structed from 1970 to March 1980. In St. Peters, the amount of new resi-
dential construction in the last decade is even more significant; 93.5% of
that City's 5,286 housing units were built from 1970 to March 1980. In the
City of St. Charles, 31.6% (14,344) of the housing units were built over the
same period.
Based on population projections which are discussed more fully in Section
3.2.2.3 of the Draft EIS, St. Charles Service Area is expected to increase
from 55,100 in 1985 to 89,800 in the year 2005. St. Peters is expected to
increase from 21,200 to 43,000, and the Duckett Creek Service Area expected
growth is approximately 42,500 to 60,850.
2-7
-------
Cultural Resources
St. Charles is one of the oldest communities in Missouri. Most of the
historic resources included on the National Register in St. Charles County are
within the community of St. Charles. There are no prehistoric sites in St.
Charles County currently listed on the Register. However, a number of Paleo-
Indian sites have been found in Missouri on terraces and bluffs adjacent to
stream channels and floodplains and it is possible that interceptor sewers may
traverse such areas. Avoidance of adverse impacts on cultural resources will
require the development of a well organized management plan.
Economics and Financing
The total employment in St. Charles County increased at a higher rate
than the County's population between 1970 and 1980. Total employment in-
creased by 83.8% during the 1970s while the population increased by 55% during
the same period. In the St. Louis SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area) employment levels decreased by 21% during the 1970s while population
levels decreased by only 2.3%.
In 1980, retail trade, services and manufacturing sectors were the
greatest for both St. Louis SMSA and St. Charles County. In recent years,
layoffs in the auto industry and other large manufacturers have contributed
significantly to the number of unemployed in the St. Louis area. Bonded
indebtedness ranges from approximately $6.5 million for the City of St.
Charles to over $12 million for St. Peters. Correspondingly, St. Peters has a
substantially higher debt per capita, $766 versus $52 and $31 for the County
and St. Charles, respectively. The residents of St. Peters also pay more
property taxes per capita ($59) than the County ($27) and St. Charles ($43).
The Duckett Creek Sewer District is a quasi-governmental agency that is
responsible for its own financial accounting. During 1981, the District
received revenues of $772,820 composed largely of sewer service charges
($567,743) and -connection fees ($111,718). After budgeted transfers of some
of the revenues to other funds, the total revenues received by the District in
1981 were $511,937. Expenditures during 1981 totalled $455,864 of which
2-8
-------
$315,894 was spent for operation, $88,561 for administration, $43,114 for
general expenditures, and $8,295 for emergency expenditures.
Community Services
Community services (police and fire protection, energy, and health care)
are adequate to meet the needs of the planning area. With the rapid popula-
tion growth occurring in St. Charles County, additional educational facilities
will be required in the short-term.
Solid waste disposal is a growing concern for the planning area. Capa-
city studies of the two major landfills serving St. Charles County indicate
that the West Lake Landfill achieved design capacity in 1983 while the Fred
Weber Landfill should remain active until 1988. The St. Charles Planning
Department has identified four new potential solid waste disposal sites.
Federal, state and county highways, the St. Louis Airport, the St.
Charles County Airport, and the private St. Charles Airport provide the major
transportation routes for residents of the planning area. No passenger rail
service is available. The availability of adequate transportation will con-
tinue to be an important factor in the development of the planning area.
2.2 Wastewater Treatment Problems/Need for Action
Centralized as well as onsite wastewater collection systems are presently
being utilized in the Duckett Creek Facility Planning Area; however, most of
the sewage is collected and treated by centralized systems. A majority of the
communities in the planning area have a centralized collection system(s) or
jointly share a system with a neighboring community(ies). Other private col-
lection systems are used primarily in rural areas where the population density
is too low to warrant construction of sewers.
The Duckett Creek Facility Planning Area is located in eastern St.
Charles County (Figure 1-1). The population of the planning area was esti-
mated at 103,400 in 1983 and is projected to be 193,700 by year 2005. The
planning area includes the Upper Mississippi River—Salt River Basin water-
2-9
-------
sheds of Dardenne, Spencer, Sandfort, Cole, and Boschert creeks and the Lower
Missouri River Basin watersheds of Duckett Creek and Taylor Branch, along with
the City of St. Charles' Missouri River Service Area.
Approximately 56% of the 96,000-acre planning area is under the jurisdic-
tion of three sewer authorities: the Duckett Creek Sewer District, the City of
St. Charles, and the City of St. Peters. Portage des Sioux maintains a separ-
ate sewer system. Most of the heavily populated areas of the planning area
are sewered, with the exception of a few subdivisions. Rural residents and
isolated communities predominantly use septic tanks. Much of the planning
area is undevelopable floodplain.
Wastewater generated in the planning area is primarily domestic sewage
although there are some industrial and commercial discharges. Currently,
there are 16 domestic wastewater treatment facilities and six industrial
facilities. The industrial discharges include filter backwash water and lime
sludge lagoon decant from three water treatment plants; cooling water, floor
and sink drains washwater, steam condensate, and boiler blowdown from an
organic chemical manufacturer; cooling water from a metal casting operation;
and truck washdown water from a concrete plant.
The eastern portion of St. Charles County is experiencing significant
population growth and urbanization. As a result of past and projected growth
in this area, improvements in wastewater collection and treatment facilities
are necessary. In addition, some existing wastewater treatment plants have
not been able to meet effluent limitations specified in their National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits due to hydraulic overloads,
system deterioration, and related factors. Some areas currently served by
onsite wastewater treatment systems also need improved wastewater systems
since many existing systems are not providing an adequate level of treatment
to safeguard public health.
In order to develop a plan for increasing wastewater treatment capacity
and capabilities, as well as provide adequate collection facilities, a waste-
*
water facilities planning study was initiated in 1981. The facilities
planning area includes the cities of St. Charles and St. Peters, the Village
2-10
-------
of Portage des Sioux, and unincorporated portions of eastern St. Charles
County, The facilities planning consultant, Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates,
Inc., developed and evaluated several alternatives which would correct exist-
ing pollution problems and provide necessary improvements in wastewater col-
lection and treatment capability and capacity.
2.3 Description of Alternatives Including the Recommended Alternative
Eight preliminary alternatives for collection and treatment of wastewater
in the planning area initially were developed. These alternatives involved
eight interceptor sewer system configurations to transport wastewater from the
six sewer service subareas within the planning area to various sewage treat-
ment plants (STPs). Elements common to each alternative included the eventual
abandonment of five STPs and six pump stations. The five STPs to be abandoned
include: Highway 94-South STP, St. Charles Trails STP, Heatherbrook Lagoon,
Boschertown Lagoon, and Riverview Hills Septic Tank. Sewage pumping stations
to be abandoned included: Riverview Drive, Bedford Mobile Park, Princess Jodi
Mobile Park, Hutchins Metals, Heatherbrook No. 1, and Heatherbrook No. 2.
Depending on the alternative selected, the following STPs would be either
abandoned, expanded, or upgraded: Mississippi River STP, Spencer Creek STP,
Harvester-Dardenne STP, and Missouri River STP. For each municipal STP to be
utilized under the eight preliminary alternatives, various treatment and
disposal options were considered by the facilities planner. These eight
preliminary alternatives were further screened in order to select four alter-
natives for detailed evaluation. Screening factors considered were: costs,
environmental constraints, reliability, flexibility, and implementability.
The respective rankings of each of the eight preliminary alternatives based on
these evaluation criteria were presented in Table 2-10, page 2-83 in the Draft
EIS.
The four wastewater management alternatives selected for detailed analy-
sis in the facilities plan involve the continued use of either three or four
v
municipal STPs throughout the 20-year planning period, while the Highway
94-South STP would become an interim treatment facility under each alterna-
tive. Specific descriptions of these final four "action" alternatives and the
"no action" alternative are presented in the following sections. Public
views, non-monetary factors, and economic factors for each final alternative
2-11
-------
were compared to arrive at the recommended alternative. In the draft facili-
ties plan, an analysis of the four final action alternatives (Alternatives 3,
6, 7, and 8) was performed using EPA's CAPDET program. Special attention was
given to types of activated sludge systems and sludge handling methods. In
some cases, the costs derived by computer assistance were refined.
Engineering considerations and site-specific conditions weighed heavily
in the selection of sludge handling options for the four action alternatives.
Two filter presses and an incinerator are currently in operation at the Mis-
sissippi River Plant. The sludge handling equipment at the plant has adequate
capacity to accommodate additional loads resulting from population growth in
the planning area during the 20-year design period. The incinerator at the
Mississippi River Plant can also handle sludge from the Missouri River Plant.
In the facilities plan, a determination was made that it was more cost-
effective to transport dewatered sludge from the Missouri River Plant to the
Mississippi River Plant, than to construct a sludge handling facility at the
Missouri River Plant. Filter presses were selected as the best dewatering
method at the Missouri River Plant.
Although disposal of sludge incinerator ash could continue onsite at the
Mississippi River Plant, disposal of the ash in a sanitary landfill would
eventually be necessary. All costs in the analysis assumed disposal of ash in
a landfill.
Belt filter presses were recommended for sludge dewatering at the Spencer
and Duckett Creek plants. Belt filter presses are cost-effective for plants
of this size and are simple to operate and maintain. Final disposal of the
sludge, derived primarily from residential versus industrial sources, would
preferably be by land application as a soil conditioner; however, landfilling
costs are essentially the same as land application. In the facilities plan
analysis, all cost estimates assumed were for land application of digested
sludge, although no comprehensive final sludge disposal plan was presented in
the facilities plan.
The selected wastewater management option for the floodplain areas should
be the most cost-effective and implementable of the available options. The one
option investigated in the facilities plan was conventional gravity sewers.
2-12
-------
Because this option is high in cost and involves a long-term commitment to
maintaining these communities, other options such as onsite treatment systems,
that have lower costs and a lower level of service were investigated. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) policies discourage construction
and maintenance of residences in areas subject to frequent flooding. Flood
insurance rates are based on flooding frequency and are established to dis-
courage residential development in floodplains. The insurance program is
intended to replace the need for "disaster" funding (through which individuals
previously repaired their residences following floods) by discouraging devel-
opment in flood-prone areas. Because other Federal programs likewise are
attempting to discourage residential development in areas subject to frequent
flooding, no significant investments in infrastructural improvements can be
recommended.
To improve the effectiveness of wastewater management planning in these
floodplain areas, establishment or expansion of an onsite wastewater manage-
ment district to direct and oversee onsite system improvements should be
strongly considered. This management district or agency should provide
evaluations and supervision specifically for onsite system construction and
maintenance so that the public health of the residents of the area is not
jeopardized. The upgrading of existing onsite systems would not provide a
level of protection equivalent to centralized sewers, but centralized man-
agement and upgrading of failing onsite systems in particular, would result in
improved operations and reduced potential health risks. Flooding events would
remain as major problem periods with onsite systems, although the centralized
alternatives also could be rendered inoperable during major floods.
Brief descriptions of each of the alternatives selected for detailed
evaluation, including the "No Action" alternative are presented below.
2.3.1 No Action
The "No Action" Alternative implies that no Federal, state, or local
funds would be provided to build and/or upgrade wastewater management systems.
Problems identified in Section 2.2 would be expected to remain unsolved, and
as a result, new problems likely would develop during the 20-year planning
period.
2-13
-------
Within the City of St. Charles, the Missouri River STP is not meeting
secondary effluent limitations specified in the NPDES permit established for
the facility. The plant is currently overloaded, therefore, the likelihood of
bypassing raw sewage to area streams, as a result of increased 1/1 during
storm events, would increase. Both the St. Charles Trails STP and the Hea-
therbrook Lagoon have not consistently met their established NPDES effluent
limitations. It is unlikely that effluent limitations could be attained for
both facilities unless some corrective action is taken. The consequences of
no action would be to further degrade area stream water quality due to the
discharge of inadequately treated wastewater.
Within the City of St. Peters, the Spencer Creek STP does not con-
sistently meet its NPDES effluent limitations for TSS. Based on the results
of a wasteload allocation analysis for lower Dardenne Creek, it is expected
that the STP will be required to remove ammonia in order to continue dis-
charging effluent to Dardenne Creek. Due to existing facility design, the STP
is not capable of providing ammonia removal and an effluent pump would be
required to convey effluent to the receiving stream during heavy rainfall
events.
Within the Duckett Creek Sewer District, the Harvester-Dardenne STP,
Highway 94-South STP, and Boschertown Lagoon have little, if any, excess
capacity for increased wastewater flows resulting from projected future devel-
opment. Based on the wasteload allocation analysis for lower Dardenne Creek,
both the Harvester-Dardenne STP and Highway 94-South STP would be required to
remove ammonia if they continue to discharge effluent to Dardenne Creek. Due
to existing design, neither STP is capable of removing ammonia from waste-
water. Without any modifications, these three treatment plants are expected
to be hydraulically overloaded, resulting in further degradation of the
effluent and water quality of the receiving stream.
Areas served by onsite sewage treatment systems which have experienced
problems, would be expected to continue to have problems under the no action
alternative. These problems would result in the continued degradation of
local area streams, as well as present a potential health hazard.
2-U
-------
2.3.2 Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would involve the continued use of the Spencer Creek STP,
Duckett Creek STP, Missouri River STP, and Mississippi River STP. Each STP
would treat wastewater conveyed from their respective service areas (see Table
2-8c and Figure 2-6 in the Draft EIS).
The Highway 94-South STP would initially be expanded and upgraded to a
0.5 million gallons per day (mgd) treatment plant. The plant would be
operated until the interceptor system is constructed in 1989, which would
transport wastewater from the South subarea to the Spencer Creek STPs.
The Spencer Creek STP would be expanded to a 7.5 mgd secondary treatment
plant. The existing treatment plant would be converted to a contact stabili-
zation activated sludge plant. An effluent chlorination system, effluent
pump, and outfall to the Mississippi River would be constructed. Selected
sludge treatment and disposal options would require construction of gravity
thickeners and an aerobic digestion system and installation of belt filter
presses to dewater the sludge. Dewatered sludge would be disposed of by land
application.
The existing Duckett Creek STP would be replaced by a new 1.0 mgd second-
ary treatment plant constructed on the existing plant site. The new facility
would be an oxidation ditch activated sludge system with effluent discharged
to Duckett Creek. New sludge treatment units would consist of gravity
thickeners, anaerobic digesters, and belt filter presses. Sludge would be
disposed of by land application.
The Missouri River STP would be expanded and upgraded from a 3.0 mgd
primary facility to a 5.0 mgd secondary treatment plant. The selected liquid
treatment and disposal options would include the expansion of the existing
primary treatment system and construction of an oxidation ditch system.
Treated effluent would continue to be discharged by gravity to the Missouri
River. The selected sludge treatment and disposal options include construc-
2-15
-------
tion of gravity thickeners and the addition of belt filter presses for sludge
dewatering. The dewatered sludge would be hauled to the Mississippi River STP
for incineration.
The Mississippi River STP would be expanded from a 5.5 mgd to a 7.0 mgd
secondary treatment plant. The plant would continue to consist of a primary
sedimentation, step aeration activated sludge system, with chlorinated
effluent flowing by gravity to the Mississippi River. Existing sludge treat-
ment facilities would continue to be utilized. Sludge facilities would con-
sist of gravity filters, filter presses, and an incineration system. Disposal
of incinerator ash would continue onsite but would eventually be sent to a
sanitary landfill.
2.3.3 Alternative 6 (Facility Plan and EIS Recommended Alternative)
Alternative 6 is the facilities plan and EIS recommended alternative.
Alternative 6 would involve the continued use of the Spencer Creek STP,
Duckett Creek STP, Missouri River STP, and Mississippi River STP. The Highway
94-South STP would be operated until the interceptor system that would trans-
port wastewater from the South Subarea to the Duckett Creek STP is con-
structed. The Spencer Creek STP would be upgraded, as described for Alterna-
tive 3. However, under Alternative 6, the plant would be expanded to a 4.0
mgd facility and the effluent would be pumped to the Mississippi River.
The existing Duckett Creek STP would be replaced by a new 5.0 mgd second-
ary treatment plant constructed on the existing plant site. The selected
liquid treatment/disposal options are the same as those described for Altern-
ative 3. The only difference between the selected sludge treatment/disposal
options under Alternatives 3 and 6 is that sludge stabilization would be by
anaerobic digestion in Alternative 3 rather than by aerobic digestion in
Alternative 6. The Missouri River STP would be expanded and upgraded as
described under Alternative 3.
2-16
-------
The Mississippi River STP would be expanded and upgraded to a 7.0 mgd
secondary treatment plant. The expansion and upgrade scheme is similar to
that described under Alternative 3. The only major difference between Alter-
native 3 and 6 is that under Alternative 3, effluent would flow by gravity
rather than be pumped to the Mississippi River.
2.3.4 Alternative 7
Alternative 7 would involve the continued use of the Duckett Creek STP,
Missouri River STP, and Mississippi River STP.
The Highway 94-South STP would be abandoned when the interceptor system
is constructed to convey wastewater to the Mississippi River STP. One major
difference between the previously described "action" alternatives and Alter-
native 7, is that the Spencer Creek STP would be abandoned in 1995 under
Alternative 7 rather than remain operational throughout the 20-year planning
period as under the former alternatives. The Spencer Creek STP would become a
pump station and wastewater would be pumped to the Mississippi River STP for
treatment.
The Duckett Creek STP would be replaced by a new 3.5 mgd secondary treat-
ment plant constructed on the existing plant site. The treatment plant scheme
would consist of the same treatment/disposal options for wastewater and sludge
that was developed in Alternative 6. The Missouri River STP would be expanded
and upgraded as described under Alternative 3.
The Mississippi River STP would be expanded and upgraded to a 12.0 mgd
secondary treatment plant. The upgrade scheme is similar to that described
under Alternative 6. The only major difference between Alternative 6 and
Alternative 7 is that under Alternative 7, sludge is aerobically digested,
while under the Alternative 6, sludge is not digested.
2.3.5 Alternative 8
Alternative 8 would involve the continued use of the Spencer Creek STP,
Duckett Creek STP, Missouri River STP, and Mississippi River STP.
2-17
-------
The Highway 94-South STP would be abandoned when the interceptor system
is constructed to convey wastewater to the Spencer Creek STP. The Spencer
Creek STP would be upgraded, as described for Alternative 3. Under Alterna-
tive 8, the plant would be expanded to a 5.0 mgd facility. The Duckett Creek
STP would be replaced by a new 3.5 mgd facility, as described for Alternative
7. There is no difference between the Duckett Creek STP replacement plant
developed under Alternatives 7 and 8. The Missouri River STP would be
expanded and upgraded to 5.0 mgd as described under the other "action" alter-
natives .
The Mississippi River STP would be expanded to a 7.0 mgd facility, as
described under Alternative 6. There is no difference between the Mississippi
River STP expansion developed under Alternative 6 and Alternative 8.
2.3.6 Comparison of Final System Alternatives
This section presents preliminary construction, operation and maintenance
costs for the four final sewage conveyance and treatment alternatives identi-
fied in previous sections. Economic analyses were based on a 20-year design
period. Projected wasteloads and flows for the year 2005 were used to size
sewer lines, pumping stations, and treatment facilities. A discount rate of
8% over a 20-year period was used during facilities planning to determine
present worth and uniform annual equivalent costs for the economic analysis.
Cost estimates were only one of the factors used in the detailed evalua-
tion of alternatives. Non-monetary factors such as environmental, reliabil-
ity, flexibility, and implementability were also considered. This section
briefly addresses each of these factors.
• Cost-Effectiveness Analysis--A summary of CAPDET costs for comparison
purposes is shown in Table 2-1. Project operation and maintenance costs are
shown for each of the four final action alternatives. Present worth values
are also presented. The values shown in the table do not include costs for
facilities that are common to all alternatives.
• Non-Monetary Factors—Non-monetary factors used in comparing alterna-
tives included reliability, environmental effects, floodplain infringement,
energy use, public approval, implementation capability, contribution to goals,
and expandability. Environmental consequences from the construction and
operation of the four final action alternatives and the no action alternative,
were discussed in detail in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIS.
2-18
-------
Floodplain infringement would result from the construction of any of the
four final alternatives. Alternatives 3, 6, and 8 would require force main
easements from the St. Peters STP site to the Mississippi River discharge
point. Alternative 7 would require force main easements from the St. Peters
STP site to the St. Charles Mississippi River STP. Each alternative also
would require limited land acquisition at existing treatment plant sites, some
of which are in the floodplain. Impacts of the various alternatives upon
wetlands and floodplains were discussed in Section 4.2.1.6 of the Draft EIS.
A primary energy analysis using CAPDET output and engineering estimates
for each of the alternatives was performed. Alternative 7 would have lowest
energy use. This primarily is due to converting the treatment plant at St.
Peters to a pumping station. The pumping station would use much less energy
than an activated sludge plant. Also, with Alternative 7, the St. Charles
Mississippi River STP sludge incinerators and filter presses would be replaced
by aerobic digesters and belt filter presses, saving additional energy.
Alternatives 6 and 8 are comparable to Alternative 3 which requires slightly
less energy due to a lower pumping head at the Harvester-Dardenne pump system.
Pumping wastewater to the St. Peters collection system would result in the use
of smaller pumps rather than pumping over a ridgeline to the Duckett Creek
STP, as'would be required in Alternatives 6 and 8.
• Implementability—Implementability refers to the political and admini-
strative actions that are required for an alternative to be successful. For
example, implementability is difficult when more than one agency must
cooperate. Implementability is also difficult if voters are reluctant to
authorize a regional sewer district.
Implementation of each alternative is a key issue because of political
impacts on the three existing sewer agencies. Alternatives 3 and 8 combine
the St. Peters and Duckett Creek service areas, while leaving St. Charles with
its existing service areas. Alternative 7 combines the St. Peters and St.
Charles service areas. The City of St. Charles has expressed opposition to
any plan to serve other than their existing service area with their treatment
facilities. St. Charles has sized their facilities for future growth and does
not wish to subsidize wastewater treatment for other areas. With Alternative
6, each agency would retain its current service areas, and this alternative is
supported by the Duckett Creek Sewer District, and the cities of St. Peters
and St. Charles.
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-1
EVALUATION OF COSTS FOR THE FOUR FINAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative (Million $)
3 6 7 8
PROJECT COST
1. Treatment 34.4 34.0 31.3 36.2
2, Transmission 10.8 7.4 19.3 7.9
3. Total 45.2 41.4 50.6 44.1
ANNUAL O&M COST
1. Treatment 1.69 1.66 1.64 1.74
2. Transmission 0.11 0.18 0.23 0.15
3. Total 1.80 1.84 1.87 1.89
TOTAL PROJECT COST 45.2 41.4 50.6 44.1
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH* 51.4 46.0 50.5 47.3
APPROXIMATE LOCAL SHARE
1. Duckett Creek Sewer District
Capital 4.10 8.25 5.05 5.90
O&M 0.34 0.66 0.54 0.60
2.
3.
St. Charles
Capital
O&M
St. Peters
Capital
O&M
9.04
0.90
11.12
0.66
9.04
0.80
4.43
0.38
12.61
0.92
9.27
0.41
9.04
0.80
8.54
0.49
The present worth analysis uses an 8% discount rate over a 20-year
planning period and considers salvage value of equipment for the staged
construction of the projects.
These values are for comparative purposes only. Several project items
that are common to all alternatives are not included in the cost figures.
Absolute costs may be higher than those indicated in the table.
Source: Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. (1984)
2-20
-------
-------
All four final alternatives would contribute to the goal of reducing
pollution in the planning area. Each wastewater treatment option considered
in the facilities plan is capable of meeting effluent limitations. The abili-
ty to expand wastewater treatment and collection/conveyance facilities in the
future is an important consideration in ranking service area and treatment
plant alternatives. Generally, for all alternatives, the proposed treatment
facilities could be readily expanded. Alternatives with extensive pumping,
such as Alternative 7 (where flow pumped from St. Peters to the Mississippi
River Plant), would be more difficult to expand. Finally, public opinion is
not expected to differ substantially among the four final alternatives consid-
ered in the facilities plan; all action alternatives generally should be ac-
ceptable to the public.
2.3.7 Description of Recommended System Alternative
Following a detailed evaluation of each of the final action and no action
alternatives, a recommended alternative was selected. The intent of this
section is to summarize the components associated with the recommended alter-
native. A discussion of the proposed plans for onsite systems, private sys-
tems, and small systems outside the planning area also are discussed and cost
estimates for all of the proposed improvements are presented.
In the facilities plan and the EIS, Alternative 6 was selected as the
most cost-effective system that would satisfy both the needs and requirements
of the Duckett Creek Planning Area and fulfill environmental and regulatory
requirements. Alternative 6 consists of expanding the Mississippi River and
Spencer Creek STPs, constructing new facilities at the Missouri River and
Duckett Creek STPs, abandoning the Highway 94-South and Harvester-Dardenne
STPs, and upgrading the wastewater collection and transmission system. Fur-
ther, construction also would begin in the near future and various stages of
the overall plan would be put into effect at different times during the 20-
year planning period. The implementation schedule is presented in Figure 2-14
on page 2-100 of the Draft EIS.
Wastewater Collection and Conveyance Facilities
The proposed gravity interceptors, force mains, and pumping stations re-
quired for Alternative 6 are illustrated in Figure 2-1. Four major intercep-
tor routes are proposed: (1) South Plant to the Harvester-Dardenne site; (2)
Spencer Creek STP to the Mississippi River; (3) Boschertown lagoon to the
Missouri River STP; and (4) St. Charles Trails STP to 1-70.
2-21
-------
-------
Wastewater flows pumped from the South Plant service area would be inter-
cepted by a gravity sewer. The sewer line would follow Dardenne Creek to a
pumping station north of the Harvester-Dardenne STP where the wastewater would
be pumped to the Harvester-Dardenne pumping station. The Harvester-Dardenne
pumping station would pump both the South Plant and the Harvester-Dardenne
service area flows to the new 5 mgd Duckett Creek STP. Once the downstream
treatment facilities are constructed the interim South Plant would be elimi-
nated. Effluent from the Spencer Creek STP will be pumped into the
Mississippi River. The force main would follow Spencer Creek and then run
northward, across the floodplain, to the Mississippi River.
The Boschertown interceptor would run from the Boschertown lagoon to the
Missouri River STP. Gravity sewers would be used with an intermediate lift
station. This interceptor would eliminate the Boschertown lagoon and the
Hutchins, Riverview, Princess Jodi, and Bedford pumping stations.
The Missouri River interceptor stops at 1-70. An extension of this sewer
line would eliminate the St. Charles Trails STP, Timbercrest and Heatherbrook
lagoons, Riverview Hills septic tank and sand filter, and Heatherbrook pumping
stations numbers 1 and 2. The alignment of the sewer line would run from the
St. Charles Trails STP along Taylor Branch, and then follow the MK&T Railroad
to the existing Missouri River interceptor.
Wastewater and Sludge Treatment Facilities
* Mississippi River Plant
The Mississippi River STP would be expanded from a capacity of 5.5 mgd to
7.0 mgd. The existing unit processes would be maintained; however,
expansion or replacement of certain items would be required. The
mechanically-cleaned bar screen installed in 1968, would be replaced by a
similar piece of equipment during the planning period. The existing raw
sewage pumps would be replaced with centrifugal type pumps, sized for
peak flow.
The aerated grit chamber also would be replaced. The existing blowers
could be used with the new, smaller grit chamber. It may be possible to
modify the existing grit chamber or salvage the grit dragout system;
however, these decisions should be made during final design.
2-23
-------
Three existing primary clarifiers were recommended to be supplemented by
two additional clarifiers of similar size and design. Two additional
clarifiers are necessary to comply with State design guidelines on over-
flow rates at peak flow.
The existing aeration tanks can handle the additional waste load. Deten-
tion times would be shortened, but should not pose a problem. The exist-
ing blowers also are adequate. One additional final clarifier would be
required. One additional clarifier would be sufficient to meet State
guidelines for peak flow overflow rates. The existing chlorination
system is inadequate and a contact chamber and additional chlorine feed
equipment capacity would be required. All of the sludge handling equip-
ment was determined to have sufficient reserve capacity to meet future
needs.
A new effluent pumping station would be required. Currently, when the
Mississippi River is at high stage, effluent wastewater must be pumped
through an empty activated carbon filter to provide enough head to allow
gravity flow to the river. The new pumping station would contain three
centrifugal sewage pumps and would pump effluent through a force main to
the river.
The entire plant requires an alternate source of electrical power for
emergency conditions. This would be provided by generators or two sepa-
rate commercial power feed lines. The City of St. Charles is having this
situation studied and should have emergency power for their treatment
plants soon.
• Missouri River Plant
The Missouri River STP would be expanded from a 3 mgd primary facility to
a 5 mgd secondary system. The plant was built in 1966 and most of the
mechanical equipment would require replacement. The Missouri River STP
would require a mechanical bar screen to remove trash from the wastewater
to protect equipment and prevent interference with downstream treatment
processes.
The two existing sewage pumps would be replaced by three new centrifugal
pumps. A new pumping station would be constructed to house the new pumps
and mechanical bar screen. It is proposed that the existing detritus
tank be replaced by a new aerated grit chamber.
Two additional primary clarifiers would be needed to supplement the two
original primary clarifiers. The mechanical equipment in the existing
clarifiers also would need to be replaced, but the concrete tanks should
be salvageable.
An oxidation ditch system is proposed to provide secondary treatment.
Two parallel ditches would be required with return sludge pumping. An
intermediate primary effluent lift station also would be needed to pump
to the oxidation ditch system and allow gravity flow to the Missouri
River.
2-24
-------
Two final clarifiers would be required following the oxidation ditches.
Some of the solids that are removed would be returned to the oxidation
ditches, while the remaining solids would be sent to the sludge handling
system. The existing sludge handling system at the Missouri River STP
currently is not used; however, the building could be modified to house
the new sludge dewatering equipment.
A gravity thickener is proposed to thicken primary and secondary sludge
prior to dewatering with two new filter presses and associated chemical
conditioning equipment. The filter presses, similar to those used at the
Mississippi River STP, would be housed in the existing sludge building.
Once the sludge is dewatered, the cake would be trucked to the
Mississippi River STP for incineration.
Changes in the existing yard piping would be required along with modifi-
cations to the existing buildings. Also, as mentioned for the
Mississippi River Plant, an emergency power source would be required for
operational reliability. Most laboratory work would still be performed
at the Mississippi River STP. Provisions for simple onsite tests would
be made.
• Duckett Creek Plant
The 1 mgd Duckett Creek package plant would be replaced by a 5 mgd treat-
ment facility. None of the existing equipment would be used at the new
plant. A mechanically-cleaned bar screen, integral with a new raw sewage
pumping station and control and maintenance building, would be the first
step in the treatment process. Three centrifugal sewage pumps would be
used to lift the sewage for gravity flow through the treatment plant.
Next, an aerated grit chamber would be used to remove sand and heavy
inorganic solids from the wastewater. Bypass provisions and a Parshall
flume to measure the flow would also be provided.
Two oxidation ditches, operated in parallel, would provide secondary
treatment and aeration rotors would provide the necessary oxygen. Two
final clarifiers would be required to remove solids from the wastewater
prior to discharge to Duckett Creek. A sludge pumping system would
recycle activated sludge to the oxidation ditches. Waste sludge would be
conveyed to the sludge handling system.
Waste activated sludge would be thickened in a gravity thickener prior to
stabilization in two aerobic digesters. The digested sludge would then
be dewatered by two belt filter presses. The belt filter presses and
chemical conditioning equipment would be housed in a sludge treatment
building.
Final disposal of dewatered sludge would be by land application, when
possible. Sufficient (30-day) cake storage facilities and alternate
sludge disposal methods, including landfilling, would be necessary. Most
of the farms that could utilize wastewater sludge are located in the
Mississippi River and Missouri River floodplains. Availability of pri-
vate sites for land application of sludge may be difficult to ascertain.
Farm demand may vary, and odor problems, spreading/application problems,
or any adverse publicity could disrupt the working arrangement. A more
flexible system was therefore proposed. The proposed plan includes
2-25
-------
onsite storage, land application of sludge to the greatest extent pos-
sible, or landfilling of sludge cakes. Final application sites currently
are not known, but would be selected during the project design stage.
Sludge disposal facilities and equipment would include a sludge storage
shed for the dewatered cake and a land application truck and a feeder
tank truck would be required for farmland subsurface injection. Sludge
cake would be produced when land application is not feasible and stored
until it could be applied to land or until storage capacity is reached,
whereby the sludge would be hauled to a landfill for disposal.
A process control and laboratory building also would be required. In
addition, an alternate power source for emergency situations would be
necessary. Two separate commercial power feed lines would be provided.
• Spencer Creek Plant
The Spencer Creek STP would require upgrading from a 3 mgd extended
aeration plant to a 4.0 mgd contact stabilization plant. Much of the
existing equipment was installed in 1980 and could be utilized in this
upgrading plan.
The raw sewage screw pumps and bar screens are in good condition and
could accommodate wastewater flows to the year 2005. A new aerated grit
chamber is proposed for removal of sand and heavy inorganic solids. The
existing aeration tank would be modified by converting it to a smaller
contact stabilization unit with diffused aeration. This process would be
more energy efficient than extended aeration with surface aerators.
The existing final clarifiers would be able to handle any additional
flows. The return sludge pumping system also would have adequate reserve
capacity to handle the additional sludge. Whereas any discharge to the
Mississippi River requires chlorination during summer months, a contact
chamber and chlorination system would be added. The effluent pumping
station would have three centrifugal sewage pumps which should eliminate
back-up of the gravity effluent line and flooding problems experienced by
the plant during wet weather. Also, pumping the effluent to the
Mississippi River would eliminate the need for nitrification, which would
be required if discharge to Spencer Creek was continued.
To handle sludge, a gravity thickener would be added prior to aerobic di-
gestion. Two new diffused air digesters would replace the original
digester, which uses a 40-hp surface aerator. Digested sludge would be
dewatered by two -belt filter presses housed in a new sludge handling
building.
The City of St. Peters has been investigating land application of sludge
because the existing sludge handling method (lagoon) is not acceptable.
In this regard, the City has acquired a sludge application vehicle and is
now applying sludge from both their water and wastewater plants. The use
of a landfill also is being considered as an alternate sludge disposal
method. A flexible system, including storage facilities for dewatered
cake, also is required.
2-26
-------
The Spencer Creek STP has a 500-KW electric generator sufficient for
standby power during emergency situations. The existing laboratory also
is sufficient and would require no upgrading.
* Portage des Sioux Plant
The Portage des Sioux STP would be upgraded to a secondary facility.
However, it is recommended that an extended aeration package plant be
constructed in lieu of the 1978 selection of a rotating biological con-
tact plant.
Onsite Systems
There are three general classifications of existing onsite system areas:
(1) developments along the Mississippi River and in the floodplain that are
serviced by individual shallow wells and onsite systems; (2) the upland por-
tion of the planning area; and (3) residences in areas with karst topographic
features, mainly around Taylor Branch. The final facilities plan concludes
that the use of onsite systems in densely populated areas in the upland por-
tions of the planning area (area 2), and developments in karst topography
(area 3), should be discontinued as interceptors are constructed. Local ordi-
nances exist that can require individual discharges to connect to the sewer
system when interceptor lines become available.
Although the residences currently served by onsite systems in the
Mississippi River floodplain (area 1) were originally recommended (in the
draft facilities plan) to be served by centralized collection and treatment
facilities where the density of residences was sufficient, it has subsequently
been determined (by the facilities planner) that these floodplain communities
cannot afford the cost of collection and transmission systems for treatment of
sewage at the nearest centralized facility. As such, a centralized collection
system for the major floodplain communities was not considered implementable.
Instead, a plan was proposed that could mitigate problems without being
capital-intensive. The proposed plan would include the following measures:
» Establishment of a centralized management agency that would institute
programs for upgrading and maintaining onsite systems;
• A public education program on proper septic tank and absorption
field operation;
• Emphasis on the need for community wells to replace individual
shallow wells;
2-27
-------
• Clustering homes to small onsite systems;
• Holding tanks for riverfront properties; and
• Flow conservation practices and devices to reduce the load on
existing onsite systems.
This EIS concurs with these recommendations for the unsewered areas based on
several factors:
• Approximately 50% of the residences are occupied seasonally;
• The groundwater contamination potential is limited because the perme-
ability of the soils is low;
• Contamination of shallow wells, specifically from failing onsite sys-
tems, was investigated and available evidence suggests deficient well
construction and floodwater contamination as being the problems rather
than onsite systems (by telephone, Roger Dunacik, St. Charles County
Health Department, to WAPORA, Inc. 19 April 1984);
• The investment in infrastructure in areas that flood frequently should
be kept to a minimum so that the residences can be phased out; and
• The onsite system wastewater management option would likely be less
costly than the centralized option for the floodplain areas, although
the cost comparisions were not developed in the facilities plan.
The continued use of some onsite systems in the upland areas also would be
necessary for numerous residences because interceptor sewers are not and will
not be located sufficiently close to provide service. Sufficient data have
not been presented in the facilities plan to ascertain whether or not con-
tinued use of onsite systems in these areas would be technically feasible if
centralized management and systematic upgrading of failing systems were to be
implemented. Regardless of the final wastewater management options selected
for the respective "problem areas," implementation of an onsite management
district would be required for those residences that would not be served by
centralized alternatives.
Private Systems
Two wastewater treatment facilities, the Tee Kay lagoon and the Martell
lagoon, serve isolated communities in the South Plant service area. Intercep-
tors are not yet available due to cost related to low population density. As
2-28
-------
the population grows, interceptors would be extended to these outlying areas
and the facilities plan recommends that these lagoons should be eliminated.
Meanwhile, strict enforcement of NPDES permits should reduce the impact that
these lagoons may have on water quality in the planning area.
Small Systems Outside the Planning Area
The draft facilities plan indicates that pollution to upper Dardenne
Creek by small treatment plants located just outside of the planning area
could be reduced by strict enforcement of NPDES permits conditions. The
Weldon Spring Elementary School, Francis Howell High School, and Safari Camp-
ground each have treatment plants (lagoons) that may affect Dardenne Creek
water quality. Eventually, these areas should be eliminated as interceptors
are constructed.
Summary of Costs
Construction cost and operation and maintenance cost estimates for the
selected wastewater collection systems and treatment facilities are presented
in Tables 2-2 and 2-3, respectively. Costs are provided for both the 1985 and
2005 design years. The 1985 costs include those facilities that are necessary
to handle existing sewage flows. The 2005 costs include capacity to support
the population growth during the 20-year planning period. The 1985 design
costs determine the amount of the project costs that are grant eligible. This
is discussed in more detail in the following section. For Portage des Sioux
and the Mississippi floodplain, sewage flows are not anticipated to be signi-
ficantly different in the future, so the 1985 and 2005 costs are the same.
The total estimated 2005 construction cost for the facilities plan recommended
alternative (Alternative 6) was $34,314,800, while the total estimated annual
(2005) operation and maintenance cost was $2,863,400 in June 1984 dollars.
Consumer Cost
An acceptable user charge system to determine the service charges to con-
sumers for support of the wastewater treatment facilities will be developed
during the final design stage. Service charges ideally should be structured
2-29
-------
so each user pays the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as capi-
tal costs, for the wastewater treatment and disposal system in proportion to
its wastewater contribution, although capital costs are not required to be
assessed proportionately by EPA regulations.
Preliminary calculations for user charges are presented in Table 2-4 for
each sewer agency. User charges are calculated for design years 1985 and
2005. Calculations for 1985 include debt service for only those projects
underway during 1985. Calculations for 2005 include all projects. Annual
debt service pays the local capital cost of improvements and is based on an
annual interest rate of 10% for a 20-year payment period. Annual O&M costs
include the cost to run the existing and proposed facilities as well as exist-
ing debt service. The annual user charge is calculated by dividing the total
annual cost by the projected number of users. Costs are in June 1984 dollars.
2-30
-------
TABLE 2-2
FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
(June 1984 Costs)
A.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
DUCKETT CREEK
Duckett Creek Plant
Boschertown Interceptor
South Interceptor
Harvester-Dardenne Interceptor
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST:
2005
Design
$10,788,700
385,000
2,520,100
1,275,800
$14,969,600
1985
Design
$ 8,803,000
374,000
2,289,100
1,152,000
$12,618,100
B. ST. CHARLES
(1) Missouri River Plant
(2) Mississippi River Plant
(3) Missouri River Interceptor
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST:
C. ST. PETERS
$ 7,039,000
2,899,000
1.616,000
$11,554,000
$ 5,811,000
1,034,000
1,511,000
$ 8,356,000
(1) Spencer Creek Plant
(2) Effluent Pipe (Force Main)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS:
D. PORTAGE DES SIOUX
$ 4,595,000
2.371.000
$ 6,966,000
$ 1,535,000
1,858,000
$ 3,393,000
2005 & 1985
Design
(1) Portage des Sioux Plant
(2) Portage des Sioux Transmission System
(3) North Area Transmission System
(4) Northeast Area Transmission System
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST:
$ 511,400
214,700
146,300
141,400
$1,013,800
Source: Adapted from Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. (1984)
2-31
-------
TABLE 2-3
FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COST ESTIMATES
(June 1984 Costs)
A. DUCKETT CREEK 2005 Design
(1) Duckett Creek Plant - $ 394,000
(2) Transmission System (1, 2, & 3) 203,000
(3) Remaining Facilities (4) 86,000
(4) Administrative 183,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST: $ 866,000
B. ST. CHARLES
(1) Mississippi River Plant $ 585,000
(2) Missouri River Plant 359,000
(3) Transmission System (5) 8,000
(4) Remaining Facilities (6) 99,000
(5) Administration 329,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST: $1,380,000
C. ST. PETERS
(1) Spencer Creek Plant $ 353,000
(2) Transmission System (7) 2,000
(3) Remaining Facilities (8) 113,000
(4) Administration 117,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST $ 585,000
2-32
-------
Table 2-3 (concluded).
D. PORTAGE DBS SIOUX 2005 Design
(1) Portage des Sioux Plant $ 25,800
(2) Transmission System 6,600
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST: $ 32,400
Notes:
1. Includes Harvester-Dardenne, South, and Dardenne pump stations
2. Includes Harvester-Dardenne and Dardenne pump station force mains
3. Includes South interceptor
4. Includes existing sewers and pump stations
5. Includes Missouri River Interceptor (Phase III)
6. Includes building maintenance, existing sewers, and pump stations
7. Includes Spencer Creek Plant effluent line to the Mississippi River
8. Includes existing sewers and pump stations
Source: Adapted from Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. (1984)
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-4
PRELIMINARY CALCULATION OF USER CHARGES
(June 1984 Costs)
• DUCKETT CREEK SEWER DISTRICT
Local share of capital cost
Annual debt service (1)
Annual O&M cost (2)
Total annual cost
1985
$6,323,000
149,000
1.022,000
$1,171,000
2005
$6,323,000
743,000
1,460.000
$2,203,000
Projected users
ANNUAL USER CHARGE
10,800
$108
19,000
$116
• CITY OF ST. CHARLES
Local share of capital cost
Annual debt service (1)
Annual O&M cost (2)
Total annual cost
$3,869,000
91,000
1.665,000
$1,756,000
$6,695,000
787,000
1.605.000
$2,392,000
Projected users
ANNUAL USER CHARGE
18,300
$96
29,900
$80
• CITY Of ST. PETERS
Local share of capital cost
Annual debt service (1)
Annual O&M cost (2)
Total annual cost
$5,709,000
134,000
340.000
$ 474,000
$5,709,000
671,000
616.000
$1,287,000
Projected users
ANNUAL USER CHARGE
9,400
$50
16,200
$79
2-34
-------
Table 2-4 (concluded).
• CITY OF PORTAGE DES SIOUX
Local share of capital cost
Annual debt service (1)
Annual O&M cost (2)
Total annual cost
1985
$ 405,400
23,800
32.400
$ 56,200
2005
$ 405,400
47,600
32.400
$ 80,000
Projected users
ANNUAL USER CHARGE
200
$281 (3)
230
$348 (3)
(1) Based on a 10% annual interest rate and a 20-year payment period
capital recovery factor = 0.1175). Assumes 20% of the bonds are
issued during 1985.
(2) Includes O&M, debt service, and other costs of the existing system
and O&M of proposed improvements.
(3) Assumes that 50% of the bonds are issued in 1985. Annual user
charges, if North Area and Northeast Area Transmission
System projects are not constructed, are estimated at $242/yr for
1985 and $266/yr for 2005.
Source: Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. (1984)
2-35
-------
The annual user charges that are presented are preliminary values. Vari-
ous methods of financing are available, as discussed in section 2.3.4.7, page
2-116 of the Draft E1S and additional charges for items such as bond coverage
are not included. Additional receipts such as from industrial contributors,
connection fees, special fees, or taxes can be used to offset capital costs,
thus lowering the annual debt service, which, in turn, lowers the annual user
charge. Numerous financing alternatives are possible for each sewer agency
and the number of different combinations would make them difficult to present.
For this reason, the approach was taken to identify the major components in
the user charge determination and to present a preliminary baseline annual
user charge for each agency to adjust according to its particular financing
capabilities or other needs.
2.4 Environmental Consequences of Recommended Alternative
Some beneficial and adverse impacts can be expected from the construction
and operation of the various wastewater collection and treatment alternatives
considered for the planning area. Impacts of the recommended alternative
(Alternative 6) will generally be beneficial particularly with regard to
surface and groundwater resources. The recommended alternative would replace
or eliminate inadequate wastewater treatment plants and provide suitable
collection and treatment systems for communities with problems of failing
septic tanks systems.
The most significant potential environmental consequences of the recom-
mended wastewater management alternative are summarized in the following
paragraphs. The reader is referred to Section 4.0 of this Draft EIS for a
more thorough and detailed discussion of environmental consequences. The
environmental effects are classified as either primary or secondary impacts.
Primary impacts result directly from the construction and/or operation of the
proposed project. Short-term primary impacts generally occur during construc-
tion, while long-term primary impacts occur throughout the life of the project
and generally result from the operation of the proposed facilities. Secondary
impacts or indirect effects of the project, occur principally from changes in
population and land use that induce further actions or effects.
2-36
-------
Primary Impacts
Primary impacts would result from construction, operation, and fiscal
requirements of the recommended alternative (Alternative 6).
Construction Impacts — Construction impacts are related primarily to
land-disturbing activities, such as site clearing and excavation, that will
occur at STP sites and along proposed sewer line collection and interceptor
routes. Soil exposed during construction will be subjected to accelerated
erosion until it is stabilized by revegetation or other means. Storm water
runoff from construction sites will transport eroded soil into stream channels
and drainageways where sedimentation will occur. Adverse impacts resulting
from construction-related erosion and sedimentation include: nutrient and
other pollutant inputs to streams; possible crop damage and interruption of
agricultural activities; possible siltation, clogging of road culverts, and
localized flooding where drainageways are filled with sediment; and damage to
structures, roads, and ditches.
Increased sedimentation resulting from facilities construction could
degrade surface water quality. Adverse surface water quality impacts would
include increased nutrient inputs, increased turbidity, and siltation; how-
ever, these impacts would vary in magnitude and duration depending on the
extent of rainfall during construction, the length of the sewer lines, the
placement of lines in relation to drainageways, and the effectiveness of
mitigation measures used to reduce runoff and sedimentation.
Adverse surface water quality impacts would likely result in a short-term
decrease in aquatic productivity. However, severe erosion and sedimentation
from sewer line construction are not expected since mitigation measures, such
as sedimentation ponds and other erosion prevention techniques (hay, mats,
etc.), will be required provisions in construction permits and grant awards.
Therefore, adverse impacts on aquatic life are expected to be temporary and
insignificant.
Construction activities would result in impacts to terrestrial biota to
varying extents. Construction of interceptor lines would result in temporary
2-37
-------
losses of vegetated areas during initial earth moving operations. Disruption
of backyard vegetation and the presence of construction equipment and noises
would cause temporary displacement of most vertebrate species and mortality of
a few of the smaller, less mobile species. Revegetation and cessation of
construction activities would allow re-establishment of animals in disturbed
areas.
Proposed sewers and force mains generally would be located parallel to
and contiguous with existing road rights-of-way and stream corridors. A strip
of approximately 20 feet of roadside vegetation would be removed during sewer
line construction along county road rights-of-way, and a strip of approximate-
ly 20 to 40 feet would be disrupted for placement of force mains. This would
disrupt some hedgerow/fencerow vegetation and associated animal life in both
residential and agricultural portions of the planning area.
The dominant land cover types along the proposed wastewater collection
lines are residential, commercial, and agricultural. Small woodlots border
the collection line routes at scattered locations; second-growth roadside
shrub vegetation would likely be destroyed. Most birds, mammals, reptiles,
and amphibians that reside on or near the proposed collection line routes are
expected to relocate in adjacent areas during construction, however, less
mobile animals would incur some mortality from construction. The proposed
project is not expected to impact any threatened and endangered species or
their habitat, therefore no further consultation is required under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Expansion of existing STPs under the recommended alternative would re-
quire the purchase of only minimal additional land (10 acres for Duckett Creek
STP) outside present plant boundaries. Therefore, construction of new facili-
ties at the plants is not expected to affect or change existing land use in
the immediate vicinity of the STPs. It is possible, however, that current
land use and certain future land uses potentially could be affected, to an
unknown extent, by increasing treatment capacities or abandoning existing
treatment facilities.
Proposed interceptor line routes which are parallel to stream courses
2-38
-------
and/or road rights-of-way are predominantly in areas currently used for agri-
culture or low density residential development. Construction impacts would
include crop damage, temporary disruption of farm operations, and compaction
of soils during construction and backfilling activities. Wetland acreages
directly affected by new interceptor line construction and plant expansions
were not quantified because information for all final alignments was not
available. However, acreages are expected to be small and discontinuous;
therefore, impacts are not expected to be significant*.
Truck traffic associated with the construction of wastewater collection
and treatment systems would increase traffic congestion and disrupt local
traffic patterns, particularly in urban areas. Temporary road closures during
excavation, grading, and backfilling along roadways would modify vehicular
traffic patterns and inconvenience motorists. The temporary closure of some
roads also would inconvenience permanent residents and result in increased
traffic congestion on adjacent roadways.
Under the recommended alternative, no known cultural resources would be
affected by expansion of the existing STPs, however, three prehistoric sites
and one multicomponent site were located within or adjacent to proposed inter-
ceptor line rights-of-way. If these sites cannot be avoided, further testing
would be necessary to determine their eligibility for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places. If a site is found eligible, then the
agency must assess the degree and extent of adverse effect and plan activi-
ties, such as data recovery in consultation with the State Historic Preserva-
tion Officer and the Council on Historic Preservation to mitigate any adverse
impacts.
Operation Impacts -- Operation impacts are primarily related to effects
from the elimination or rehabilitation of failing onsite wastewater management
systems and the discharge of higher quality wastewater treatment effluent from
upgraded facilities to area streams. These activities are expected to improve
stream and groundwater quality within the planning area.
In Dardenne Creek, current water quality standards for un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen and dissolved oxygen are being violated for several miles
2-39
-------
below both the Harvester-Dardenne and Spencer Creek STPs. Water quality data
indicate that tributaries of Dardenne Creek are severely polluted due to
wastewater effluent discharges from both STPs. Implementation of the recom-
mended alternative would eliminate the present discharges to Dardenne Creek
from the Harvester-Dardenne plant and the Spencer Creek STP, and thereby would
reduce the pollutant loadings to Dardenne Creek.
Under the recommended alternative, dissolved oxygen and total suspended
solids concentrations should improve in upper Dardenne Creek and lower
Harvester Creek due to the closure of the Harvester-Dardenne STP since this
would eliminate wastewater effluent currently being discharged into Dardenne
Creek. The expansion and increased treatment efficiency of the new Duckett
Creek STP as proposed in Alternative 6, should improve water quality in
Duckett Creek downstream from the Duckett Creek STP outfall. Upon completion
of all plant modifications, the improved stream water quality conditions
should result in an increased diversity and abundance of aquatic biota.
Stream conditions also should improve throughout the Dardenne Creek system as
water quality improves from more efficient wastewater collection systems for
outlying residential areas that were previously dependent on small plants or
onsite systems. With improvements in the siting, operation, and maintenance
of onsite systems in general, surface water quality is expected to improve in
these areas.
Land uses within the rights-of-way of wastewater conveyance lines would
be affected temporarily when maintenance or repairs are performed on sections
of the sewer lines. Periodic excavation and filling also would disturb vege-
tation and soil along conveyance lines. The release of low-level odors and
aerosols from STPs and the awareness that potentially hazardous and/or malodo-
rous gases could be released from these plants, may adversely affect future
land uses adjacent to the facilities.
Operations of existing and planned centralized wastewater treatment
plants, sewer lines, and ancillary facilities should have minimal adverse
impacts on groundwater resources in the planning area. Proper operation and
maintenance procedures should minimize the potential for groundwater con-
tamination due to spills or leakage of untreated or partially treated wastes.
2-40
-------
Primary dangers of groundwater contamination would be associated with leakage
along sewer lines and around sewage lagoons, and leachate from sludge storage
and/or application sites. Any sewer lines located near floodplain areas could
pose potential problems unless properly constructed and maintained. Ground-
water quality in floodplain areas and downstream from all existing treatment
plants is expected to improve under the recommended alternative. Water qual-
ity in alluvial aquifers should remain high or improve with more effective
wastewater treatment in the planning area.
The continued use of inadequate onsite systems and the future use of new
onsite systems (if not properly sited and maintained) has the potential to
cause groundwater contamination problems, especially in those localized areas
developed in floodplains where individual alluvial wells are the source of
potable water. New developments in these parts of the planning area should
consider cluster systems, where suitable, and mound systems in areas of high
water levels. Increasing development in floodplain areas and development of
more water supply wells as potable water sources also could cause migration of
contaminants from waste treatment areas to these wells.
Direct impacts on existing wetlands and floodplains from operation and
maintenance activities associated with the recommended alternative are ex-
pected to be minimal. Any new interceptor lines located in or near floodplain
areas will be underground and should not degrade the quality of floodplain and
wetland resources during the operational phase. Maintenance work requiring
redisturbance of floodplain areas is expected to be very infrequent and of
short duration.
Implementation of the recommended alternative should not impose a signif-
icant financial burden on residents in the service areas. This is suggested
by a high growth rate, relatively high income levels, a relatively young
population which suggests fewer people on fixed incomes (6% of residents are
over 65 years old in St. Charles County compared to the state percentage of
13.2%), and commercial growth in the planning area. As indicated in Table 2-1,
Alternative 6, the recommended alternative, was determined to be the most cost
effective (lowest total project cost) among the four final action alterna-
tives. Table 2-4 provides a breakdown of local user charges by jurisdiction.
2-41
-------
The reader also is referred to Section 4.2.3, page 4-20 of the Draft EIS for
the detailed fiscal analysis.
Secondary Impacts
Within the facility planning area, factors other than the availability of
centralized wastewater treatment are heavily influencing population growth.
St. Charles County is currently experiencing significant population growth and
urbanization due to a number of factors, including:
• Improved transportation access between the planning area and
St. Louis;
• Existence of large amounts of vacant buildable land suitable for resi-
dential and commercial development;
• Pro-growth planning policies that serve to facilitate population
growth; and
• Siting of major new employment centers in nearby areas.
Given these factors and recent trends in the demography and urbanization of
the area, population growth appears to be an assumed condition and would not
result only from the expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore,
the recommended alternative would have more impact on where growth may occur
rather than on absolute population growth.
Land use impacts associated with the recommended alternative are pri-
marily related to any changes from agricultural uses to urban uses, i.e.,
residential, commercial and/or industrial uses. Due to the availability of an
expanded central collection system, growth would tend to concentrate or occur
first in those areas where centralized sewage services are available. Without
development of the recommended alternative, there would be more reliance on
onsite systems for wastewater treatment. Therefore, development would be more
likely to be dispersed. With a concentration of development in areas with
centralized sewer services, changes in land use and growth may be more orderly
and impact less total land area.
2-42
-------
2.5 Issues and Comments in Response to the Draft EIS
The primary issues and comments in response to the Draft EIS are detailed
in Section 4.0 of the Final EIS. The primary areas of concern are summarized
below:
• Concern about the effects of sewage overflows and malfunctioning on-
site systems on surface water and groundwater resources.
• Concern about how land application of sludge would be performed.
• Concern about treatment and disposal of toxic waste products that enter
the municipal treatment plant.
• Concern about the impact of wastewater treatment facility construction
on existing farm operations and the policy for compensation for damages
or lower crop yields.
• Concern about expediting the approval of the EIS in order to take
advantage of available Federal funding and initiate the construction of
much needed wastewater management facilities.
• Concern about following the proper procedures for mitigation of project
impacts on cultural resources.
• Concern about the effects of proposed wastewater treatment and collec-
tion facility improvements on state highway rights-of-way and state
highways themselves.
• Concern about the indirect effects of the proposed project including
induced development and its effect on wetlands, floodplains, and other
fish and wildlife habitats.
• Concern about project impacts on existing recreational lands developed
or acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) monies.
2-43
-------
• Concern about compliance with. Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended.
• Concern about potential impacts from the Findett Corporation hazardous
waste site on proposed project activities, and vice versa.
• Concern about the cumulative impacts on floodplain and wetland re-
sources as a result of improved wastewater management facilities and
the L-15 levee project under evaluation by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
• Concern about the local share of cost for St. Peters' proposed facili-
ties.
2.6 Additional Considerations Since the Draft E1S
In the period between the Draft EIS and Final EIS, consideration was
given to an alternative site for construction of the proposed new 5 mgd
Duckett Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility identified by the Duckett Creek
Sewer District in cooperation with their facility planning consultant,
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. The alternative site occupies a more
upland location approximately 1,300 feet to the northwest of the existing
floodplain site. A site visit was conducted by EPA and MDNR personnel and a
public meeting was held near the alternative site on November 13, 1985 to
present the alternative to the public and to receive comments. Following
review of information received at the meeting and considerable discussions
with the grantee and MDNR, EPA has determined that the alternative site is not
impleraentable.
The Agency recognizes the need to implement a solution to the Duckett
Creek Sewer District's wastewater treatment problems in a timely manner. The
unlikelihood of being able to construct a facility at the upland site without
a long delay brought on by litigation, and as yet unquantified archaeological
impacts, eliminates the upland site as a practicable alternative to the flood-
plain site.
2-44
-------
Factors bearing upon the decision to eliminate the upland site from
further consideration are as follows:
• Archaeology - The proposed upland site was registered (#23SC51) in the
early 1950s with the State as the "type" site for the Archaic Culture
for eastern Missouri. A preliminary archaeological survey of the
Gronefeld site, also known as the upland site, funded by EPA and com-
pleted in January 1986, indicated the proposed construction would
impact areas which demonstrate the possibility of containing signifi-
cant archaeological deposits. The survey revealed the presence of
artifacts from both Archaic and Woodland societies. The presence of
Woodland artifacts indicates the possibility that subsurface features
(storage pits and possibly graves) may be directly affected by the
proposed construction. Evaluation and possibly the salvaging of arti-
facts and human remains would be an added expense and delay to the
timely implementation of a solution to the Sewer District's presently
growing problems. The same archaeological survey examined the flood-
plain plant site and the borrow material site. Both sites were devoid
of archaeological features.
• Water Quality - The Harvester-Dardenne Treatment Plant is presently
hydraulically overloaded. It is currently receiving wastewater at the
rate of 150 percent of design capacity. Because of the loading, the
plant often exceeds its discharge permit limitations. These conditions
have led to sludge deposits in Dardenne Creek. The creek has been
designated "Water Quality Limited" by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources. There have also been numerous complaints about
water quality from residents living in the neighborhood of the receiv-
ing stream.
The current operating strategy is to pump up to 200,000 gallons per day
(gpd) of untreated waste to the Duckett Creek plant, which has 300,000
gpd of excess capacity. This solution is only temporary because both
service areas continue to connect new hook-ups at a fast rate. The
long-range solution as identified in the State-approved facility plan
is to decommission the plant and pump all of the Harvester-Dardenne1 a
2-45
-------
wastewater to the new Duckett Creek plant. In the interim, Dardenne
Creek continues to be degraded at an increasing rate.
• Aesthetics - Numerous local residents have filed complaints with the
County Commissioners about objectionable odors and noise levels result-
ing from the existing Duckett Creek plant. The Duckett Creek Sewer
District has responded by saying the odor and noise would be eliminated
by the construction of the new plant. Local residents have unanimously
expressed their opinion that they do not want the new treatment plant
built closer to their homes than the existing plant. The upland site
would be approximately 1,000 feet closer to established residential
areas and would, therefore, have a potential for higher odor and noise
impacts to the residents.
• Opposition - Numerous sources of opposition to siting the new plant at
the upland site exist. Strong opposition to the upland site was
expressed by approximately 250 residents living in the vicinity of the
upland site at a public meeting on November 13, 1985. Subsequent to
that meeting, the County Commissioners received 122 letters and 510
petition signatures urging them not to build on the upland site. Many
of the letters threatened suit to recover alleged property value
losses. The owner of the upland site (Armin Gronefeld) has retained an
attorney and has stated he will not sell the upland site to the Sewer
District. County Commission members, in a meeting with the EPA
Regional Administrator on January 27, 1986, stated they did not want to
initiate condemnation proceedings against the landowner. The Sewer
District and the County Commission have withdrawn their support from
the upland site. They have estimated that if the upland site was the
selected site, the resulting litigation would take a minimum of three
years to resolve.
In contrast, the floodplain site is (1) available for purchase, (2)
supported by the County Commission, Sewer District, and the area resi-
dents, and (3) has been carefully evaluated during the Environmental
Impact Statement process. It is overwhelmingly supported as the most
practical location for the Duckett Creek treatment plant expansion.
There are no threats of litigation involving this site.
2-46
-------
The Agency recognizes the immediate need of the Duckett Creek Sewer
District to rectify existing wastewater treatment problems that are continuing
to grow at an alarming rate. The Agency fully understands the impacts asso-
ciated with the construction of the proposed facility at the floodplain site.
The extent of those projected impacts are disclosed in the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements for Eastern St. Charles County, Missouri. The
MDNR has approved the final Facility Plan for the Eastern St. Charles County
planning area, which included the siting of the new Duckett Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant at the floodplain site. Because of the reasons presented
above, EPA believes that construction of the new Duckett Creek plant at the
upland site could not be accomplished in a timely manner. It is EPA's posi-
tion, therefore, that it is in the best interest of the environment and the
community to designate the upland site as noniraplementable and, therefore,
eliminate it from further consideration.
2-47
-------
The Agency recognizes the immediate need of the Duckett Creek Sewer
District to rectify existing wastewater treatment problems that are continuing
to grow at an alarming rate. The Agency fully understands the impacts asso-
ciated with the construction of the proposed facility at the floodplain site.
The extent of those projected impacts are disclosed in the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements for Eastern St. Charles County, Missouri. The
MDNR has approved the final Facility Plan for the Eastern St. Charles County
planning area, which included the siting of the new Duckett Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant at the floodplain site. Because of the reasons presented
above, EPA believes that construction of the new Duckett Creek plant at the
upland site could not be accomplished in a timely manner. It is EPA's posi-
tion, therefore, that it is in the best interest of the environment and the
community to designate the upland site as nonimplementable and, therefore,
eliminate it from further consideration.
2-48
-------
3.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DRAFT EIS
This section contains revisions made to the Draft EIS based on new or
more complete information, or errors and omissions identified through the
public review process. The following changes to the Draft EIS have been
incorporated as errata and are either editorial or clarifying in nature, and
are relatively minor. Consequently, the affected pages in the Draft EIS have
not been reprinted in full. The changes listed below are hereby incorporated
into the Draft EIS. With respect to the page and paragraph numbering,
paragraph 1 is considered to be the first full paragraph on a page.
Revision
Comment No.
Page iv, paragraph 1, line 1: Delete "...St. Charles..."
and replace' it with "...St. Peters..."
W-12
Page xv, paragraph 1, line 4: After "The Weldon Spring W-13
Elementary School..." add "...Francis Howell High School,..."
Page xxiii, paragraph 3, line 2: After the word "improve"
add parenthetically "(i.e., increase and decrease,
respectively)..."
EPA Review
Page xxix, paragraph 2, line 2: Delete "...Duckett Creek
Sewer District..." and replace it with "...grantee,..."
W-14
Page 2-7, Table 2-2: Under the bullet for the "City of St.
Peters," place double asterisks (**) after "Old Town,"
"Country Hill No. 1," "Country Hill No. 2," and "Missouri
Cities Dardenne Creek." Add the double asterisk under the
single asterisk at the bottom of the table and note after
the double asterisk "No longer in service."
W-15
Page 2-86, paragraph 1, line 1: Delete "...St. Charles..."
and replace it with "...St. Peters..."
W-12
3-1
-------
Revision
Comment No.
Page 2-87, paragraph 2, line 2: Change "...1.0 mgd..." to
"...0.5 mgd..."
EPA Review
Page 2-87, paragraph 3, line 1: Change "...an..." to
EPA Review
Page 2-112, paragraph 2, line 4: After "The Weldon Springs
Elementary School..." add "...Francis Howell High School,..."
W-13
Page 2-125, paragraph 2, line 2: Delete "...Duckett
Creek Sewer District..." and replace it with "...grantee,...11
W-14
Page 3-63, paragraph 1: Add the following new paragraph W-10
after paragraph 1 under "Industrial," "Of potential interest
may be the Findett Corporation industrial site which is within
the planning area (see Figures 3-9a and 3-9b) and is included
in Group 7 of EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) for sites
proposed for cleanup of hazardous wastes. The recycling of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is known to have occurred at
the Findett site and PCB contamination has been confirmed;
however, the full areal extent and concentrations of PCB con-
tamination are not currently known. No determination has been
made as to whether or not any contaminants have migrated beyond
the Findett property boundary although site investigations are
continuing. When the outcomes of these studies are known, a deter-
mination can be made as to what extent site conditions affect
the proposed project and vice versa.
Page 4-7, following first partial paragraph at the top of the W-10
page: Insert the following new paragraph before section 4.2.13
"Surface Water," "In section 3.2.1.1 (Existing Land Use) of the
EIS, it was noted that the Findett Corporation site, a hazardous
waste site proposed in Group 7 of EPA's National Priorities List
(NPL) of hazardous waste clean up sites, is located within the
3-2
-------
51
i!
3-3
-------
Figure 3-9b
Findett Study Area
3-4
-------
Responses Comment Ko.
201 planning area (Mississippi Subarea, St. Charles planning W-10
jurisdiction, 1.5 miles north of 1-70). Although proposed (cont'd.)
project plans do not call for any construction of new inter-
ceptor lines in the vicinity of the Findett site, an existing
interceptor line is located about 1 mile from the site. EPA
is now negotiating with the Findett Corporation relative to the
remedial site investigation, therefore, the extent of potential
contamination of soils and/or groundwater beyond the Findett
site boundary currently is not known (Personal communication,
by telephone, Diana Bailey, EPA, and D. Keith Whitenight, WAPORA,
Inc., June 19, 1985). To avoid any risk of working in, disturb-
ing, and transporting and disposing of potentially contaminated
soils (during possible interceptor line maintenance activities),
the grantee should consult with EPA, Region VII prior to schedul-
ing any maintenance activities in this area in order to deter-
mine the status and results of the remedial site investigations
at Findett. If off-site contamination is confirmed, the extent
to which it affects any proposed sewerline maintenance activities
in the area must be ascertained by the grantee and precautions
taken as appropriate prior to any line maintenance work."
Page 4-8, line 10 from the top: Change "propertly" to EPA Review
"properly."
Page 4-9, between paragraph 2 and paragraph 3: Add the W-9
following new paragraph, "With regard to threatened and
endangered species, it was determined that the bald eagle's
range includes parts of the planning area although there is
no designated critical habitat in the project area at this
time. The proposed project is not expected to impact any
diurnal perches, roost sites, food sources, or other pre-
ferred habitat of the bald eagle, therefore no further
consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.
3-5
-------
Responses Comment No.
Page 4-9, paragraph 4, line 4: Add "direct" in between the W-7
words "of" and "damage..."
Page 4-10, first partial paragraph at top, lines 1 and 2: W-7
Delete the sentence, "Affected wetland acreages are insigni-
ficant" and replace it with, "Wetland acreages directly
affected by new interceptor line construction and plant
expansions under the four final action alternatives are
expected to be small (cannot be quantified accurately
until final alignments are known)."
Page 4-10, section 4.2.1.7, "Land Use," following paragraph 2: W-6
Add the following new paragraph, "With regard to impacts to
existing public outdoor recreational lands in the planning
area, including those assisted through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) program, no acquisition of these
lands or conversion of existing recreational uses to other
uses is proposed as a direct result of constructing any of
the four final action alternatives."
Page 4-18, under section 4.2:2.6, paragraph 1: Delete lines W-8
1 and 2 and replace them with the following new paragraph,
"Direct impacts on existing wetlands and floodplains from
operation and maintenance activities associated with any of
the four action alternatives are expected to be minimal. Any
new interceptor lines located in floodplain areas will be
underground and should not degrade the quality of floodplain
and wetland resources during the operational phase. Main-
tenance work requiring redisturbance of floodplain areas is
expected to be infrequent and of short duration.
Page 4-29, section 4.4.2, paragraph 1, line 10: Add the W-5
following, "Previously undeveloped areas (e.g., floodplain
areas) may receive more development pressure as more effec-
3-6
-------
Responses Comment No.
tive centralized and decentralized wastewater treatment W-5
methods are implemented. Any increased development in these (cont'd.)
areas will alter the existing land use and therefore could
indirectly impact some existing wetlands or other wildlife
habitat. It is expected, however, that impacts from land use
changes will be more concentrated and predictable, and thus
more controllable (e.g., via local land use controls) than
would have otherwise occurred under the no action alternative."
Page 4-34, paragraph 2, line 5: Add the following after W-l
..."sites,..." "...then in accordance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act,..."
Page 4-34, paragraph 2, line 6: After the sentence ending W-l
with "...Historic Places." add the following, "If a site is
found eligible, then the agency must assess the degree and
extent of adverse effect and plan activities, such as data
recovery in consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer and the Council to mitigate adverse effects in
accordance with the regulations contained in 36 CFR Part 800."
3-7
-------
-------
4.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND EPA RESPONSES
The Draft EIS on proposed wastewater management facilities for eastern
St. Charles County was published by EPA and made available to the public in
late March 1985- The Draft EIS was provided to various Federal, State, and
local agencies, concerned individuals, and interest groups. The public hear-
ing on the Draft EIS was held in St. Charles, Missouri on May 9, 1985. In
addition to the public comments received at the hearing (a transcript of the
hearing is presented herein), a number of comment letters were received and
are included in this section of the Final EIS.
4.1 Written Comments and Responses
The alphanumeric designations (W-l, W-2, etc,) along the right margin of
the comment letters identify specific written comments for which responses are
given. The (W) designation indicates it is a written comment while the
numeric (1, 2, 3, etc.) designation indicates the sequence of the comment.
The responses are presented at the end of all the comment letters and are
assigned alphanumeric designations (R-l, R-2, etc.) which correspond to the
respective written comments. Similarly, designations (H-l, H-2, etc.) are
marked in the right hand margin of the public hearing transcript identifying
verbal comments for which responses (R-l, R-2, etc.) also are provided follow-
ing the full hearing transcript. Where the public hearing comments were
similar to the written comments, the hearing responses refer the reader to the
written comment response. Indexes of all written and hearing (verbal) com-
ments received on the Draft EIS are presented in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2,
respectively.
4-1
-------
ta
(H
H
•P
A
VI
Q
O
5
d
o
M
•P
01
§
O
u
u
•d
iH
*3
P«
d
0)
i i
•H
^
t4"4
O
X
0)
"d
r-t
•
rH
1
^^
01
.Q
A
H
d
•rl W
• s*}
o
55 .H
'd B
% D
0
O
^f
1
+^
U
•H
^
0
(0
•H
d
o
•rH CO
U
§ g«
O -H -
o *> d
<9 O
Vl U 00
0 4) d
M M *H
»> V) W
'O 0^ "8
^! r^
A
g
•H
iH
,
1-4
pj
O
O
l/^
ao
rH
_ J
^^
•H
Vl
•§*
00
rH
rH
^
^^
|
^f
T>
Q
00
d
•H -rl
W 1
i
00
i
*»j
00
d
•iH
4J
.
%
0)
4J
,
3
•ri
•r4
O
tfl
M
E
d
>H
rH
*£j
00
3
At
U
X!
»
>
^j
IT)
oo
en
^
S
o
i— i
>*
i
d
0
•rl -rl
M Vl
Ul 3
•rl O
i M
§ OT
O -H
U S
C3 **
0 >»
•H •«->
« U
t5 d
o o
ft CO
M Vl
d 01
(0 (+H1
Vi (44
H 01
l->
J3
•*J
rH rH
rH 1
I -^
^^
0 U
•H 01
Vl rr*>
Ol O
4J M
d OH
M
f-H
0) A
*5 d
^H fi
0 o -3
*J U O
d -H d
ig -
+3 W r-l
0} ^M
ft O "
.^
• U-f ftp* jfl
D 0 0
IH
<44
3
jX]
(4
0
d
•H
£
A
r"l
•rl
ot
Jj
C/]
10
00
2
>v
S
^^
1
rH
m i
i *
^
rH
|
*»^
•H
Vl
M 3
M O
4) CO
4^ tO
4) -rl
04 S
• M
i j B5
rA ^4
01
i,fc j ^j
0 01
eu
>»
o w
ot
»
0>
M
M
00
4J
r"i
o
S3
t
te
iH
Vl
A
U
trt
OO
,_4
^
s
fta^
3
J3
CM rH
rt 4.
i*
*c
p^
1
sj
1+4
o
01
u
,
•rl 4J
A U
M
•a d
M O
•H M
d M
•H 01
S **^
*o *w
< 0)
4-2
-------
Table 4-2. Index of verbal comments received at the
public hearing on the Draft EIS, May 9, 1985
Page No. in
Hearing Agency, Organization, Final
Comment No. Name Individual EIS
H-l thru H-6 Richard E. Bone Citizen 4-55 through
4-60
H-7 and H-8 Joe Nichols Duckett Creek Sewer District 4-61
4-3
-------
Advisory HtCEiVtu
Preservation Eis/404 BRANCH
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809
Washington, DC 20004
APR i 3 1385
Mr. Edward Vest
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
REF: Draft EIS; Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Eastern St.
Charles County, MO
Dear Mr. Vest:
The Council has reviewed the referenced Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) with respect to potential impacts on historic and
cultural properties. We note that studies have been undertaken to identify
properties that may be affected by the proposed treatment facilities.
These studies have concluded that no historic properties will be affected
by expansion of sewage treatment plants but that rights-of-way for proposed
new sewers contain several archeological sites and one multi-component
site.
We are pleased to see that studies have been undertaken at an early stage
of planning. However, the DEIS does not reflect an accurate awareness of
the proper planning for these historic properties. Section 4.5.1 (page
4-34) correctly states that the properties should be tested to determine
their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. However,
it seems to conclude that this testing and determination are sufficient to
mitigate adverse effects. Determining the eligibility of a site is merely
an initial step in the responsibility of a Federal agency pursuant Co
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. If a site is found
eligible, an agency then has a responsibility to assess the degree and
extent of adverse effect and to plan activities, such as data recovery, in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Council
to mitigate adverse effects. The entire procedure is set out in the
Council's regulations, 36 CFR Part 800 (copy enclosed).
W-1
4-4
-------
He hope that: the EIS and EPA's schedule for this project will accurately
reflect the planning needs for historic properties that are prescribed by
law. If we can be of any assistance in this matter, please contact Michael
Quinn at (202) 786-0505.
astern Division
if Project Review
4-5
-------
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
St. Louis Area Office, Region VII
210 North Tucker Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
April 25, 1985
Mr. Ed Vest
Chief, Environmental Impact
Section
Environmental Protection Agency
726 Minnesota
Kansas City, KS 66101
Dear Mr. Vest:
PR :!
E1S/404 BRANCH
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Eastern St. Charles
County, Missouri
The Draft has been reviewed by this office and was found to
be satisfactory in meeting the spirit and intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1961.
This determination was made on the basis of the following consi-
derations: (1) HUD's areas of review responsibility in accordance
with NEPA; and (2) HUD's activities in Eastern St. Charles County
that might be affected by the proposed action. In this regard there
was found no apparent adverse environmental impact on any HUD housing
or community development activities.
This is indeed a sobering and well prepared Environmental
Impact Statement. Governmental agencies, public officials, and the
citizenry of eastern St. Charles County should read carefully and
heed carefully the scope of the existing wastewater issues. The
challenges are exhilarating.
Wastewater management alternatives are clearly explained and the
statement outlines the basic systems to adequately serve the area.
Failure to move forward in solving these wastewater problems will
in all likelihood mean only greater expense at a later date.
The statement provides the means to coordinate and evaluate
existing wastewater systems. It also outlines the most usable
designs and components for the lowest cost by avoiding needless
duplication, providing for the connection of portions of systems, and
considering the areas of greatest and least growth.
W-2
4-6
-------
The challenges outlined in the draft statement are not unique to
St. Charles County; they are confronted by rapidly expanding counties
throughout the nation. Nor are they .challenges which the County can
solve by itself; the co-operation of all levels of government and of
all residents will be required.
Adequate wastewater collection and treatment systems are the most
vital facilities necessary for orderly development; these features
are among the strongest available means to shape and guide quality
growth in a desirable way. Fortunately, for the eastern portion of
St. Charles County, there are effective wastewater systems which can
provide effective solutions to the environmental concerns in sight.
The project area has both the potential and the capacity to provide
for what it must have in its own safety interest.
We are pleased to be of assistance in this review process. For
the entailed processing of HUD subdivision environmental assessments
in St. Charles County, we would appreciate receiving a copy of the
Final Statement.
Sincerely,
W-2
Walter L. Eschbach
Environmental Officer
4-7
-------
EAST-WEST GATEWAY
COORDINATING COUNCIL
100 SOUTH TUCKER BOULEVARD
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63102
314 421-4220 618 274-2750
Board t>1 Directors
CHAIRMAN
Jerry F.Costello
SI. CUr Courty BMfl)
VICE CHAIRMAN
HughMcCane
FnMdnCaviy
TREASURER
Robert Cohn
3t.UuiiCa««gr
GeneMcNary
County EnKUDM
Nelson Hagnausr
ClWninn
MMMnCounlrBoM
Vincefit C. Schoemehl, Jr.
Carl Officer
MOW
CUY oi EMI Si uxt*
Ralph Krodlnger
•WfMori coo«iy
Harry R.RaiChert
Monn»Cour«»
Richard Green
Paul Schuler
fmmtn.aaOHivan
IMIM OBuneN e( M*yon
Roger C. Zimrnermann
ftwttiKt. St. UU*Cov*y
GaryMackey
Thomas E. Zych
fntlan. Bo«a oi
William Walihes
PumngCoimluliin
Carl E, Malhtas
ChUmon
BtSUH Pntlopnwil Agvicy
Robert N. Hunter
ClwlEnginw
GeneMcCormick
onoor
M tit Ti mtporuttn
JohnA.Peteer
tfOffic*
atfanntaecn
Michael T.Wbelffer
Dne»
.mdCannuMyOTlin
REGIONAL CITIZENS
Charles Billups
Anabein Calkins
Or. James R. Buck
Darby Tally
David M. Witter
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Las Sterman
An Equal
Opportunity Employer
April 26, 1985
Mr. Morris Kay
Regional Administrator
726 Minnesota
Kansas City, KS 66101
Dear Mr. Kay:
RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities
for Eastern St. Charles County, Missouri
The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, in its capacity as
the designated regional clearinghouse, has completed the review
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Eastern St. Charles County.
This document was reviewed by the Board of Directors at its
meeting on April 24, 1985, at which time the following comments
were approved:
1.
2.
3.
The EIS satisfies all federal EIS requirements of Sec-
tion 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (Public Law 91-190). The EIS is also consistent
with EWGCC's population andland use projections.
Alternative 6 meets all state and local water quality
goals, since many small facilities will be phased out.
All study area effluent will be discharged to the
Missouri/Mississippi Rivers, virtually eliminating all
discharges to small streams which will significantly
improve water quality in these streams.
The proposed Alternative is consistent with the State
208 Water Quality Plan since it was measured against
the State's 208 sub-regional plan (Alternative 7) and
found to be more cost-effective. This cost analysis is
the proper procedure and role of the Facility Planning
Process for updating 208 Water Quality Plans.
RECEIVED
W-3*
4-8
MAY 1 11985
EIS/404 BRANCH
THE ST. LOUIS AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
-------
As a part of our review process, we have notified interested
or affected parties of this document and no comments have been
received.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel
free to contact Mr. Michael Coulson of our staff.
SipncerelyV'
Director
cc: Ms. Lois Pohl
4-9
-------
EUGENE 1. FELDHAUSEN, chairman
Suit! 430
109JO Ambuudor Dr.
KwiUl CHy 64153
CARL E. YATES, Vice Chairman
f, O. Box 3737 G.S,
Sprinfflcld 65BOB
WM. F. SCHJERHOLZ, Member
P. O. Box 31000
D« Pern 63131
HELEN T. SCHNARE. Member
1701 P«rk Am.
St. Cbvln 63301
PAUL L. EBAUGH, Member
p. o. BOX sat
Ctpt GirtrdMU 63701
C R. JOHNSTON, Membtr
P. O. Box 658
J«ffenon City 65102
May 10, 1985
MISSOURI
HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ROBERT N. HUNTER, c*i>/ Engineer
BRUCE A. RING, Chief Countel
L. V. MCLAUGHLIN. Ast't. Chief Engineer
MARI ANN WINTERS. Secretory
P. O. Box 270
Jeffenoit City, Mloouri 65102
T*t«phoni (314) 751-J551
GENERAL: Application No. 85050015
A-95 Review
1 0 1985
DIVISION OF
BUDGET AND PLANNING
Ms. Lois Pohl
Coordinator of Local & Regional Planning
Division of State Planning & Analysis
State Capitol Building
P.O. Box 809
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Dear Ms. Pohl:
The draft environmental impact statement by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency for proposed water treatment facilities
for eastern St. Charles County involving the Duckett Creek,
St. Peters, St. Charles, and Portage de Sioux sewer districts
indicates an effect upon state highways in the area.
The applicant should be informed that the location of utilities,
public or private, on state highway righr.-ot'-way, and the condi-
tions of occupancy of such right-of-way, arc under the control of
the Highway and Transportation Commission. Detail plans for the
work affecting state highways should be approved by our District
Office at 329 South Kirkwood Road in Kirkwood before advertising
any of the work for bids.
Very truly yours,
W-4
L. V. Me Laugh 11n
Assistant Chief Engineer
A-95 Review Agent
4-10
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
175 WKST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
May 14, 1985
ER-85/579
Mr. Morris Kay
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Dear Mr. Kay:
r,:-,;:vEu
i- DRAMCH
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities for
Eastern St. Charles County, Missouri and offers the following
comments.
General Comments
The statement adequately describes the existing fish and wildlife resources
and evaluates general project construction impacts. We were pleased to find
that the environmental consequences were identified in terms of direct and
indirect impacts, and also in short-term and long-term impacts. We suggest,
however, that a more detailed discussion be provided regarding the Indirect
and long-term impact the project will have on land use changes in the
floodplain. Specifically, while project construction may not directly
impact wetland and other valuable fish and wildlife habitat, the potential
for urbanization in the floodplain is a reality that should be documented.
This issue is of particular importance, as is indicated in the DEIS, the
lack of wastewater treatment capacity has, to date, been a factor in
limiting such development in the floodplain.
W-5
The maps furnished with the review document are not in sufficient detail to
enable a definite determination of which, if any, of these areas may be
affected. Therefore, all of the areas In the vicinity of the project which
received Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) matching assistance are
listed below:
McNair Park (Projects 29-00085, 132 and 470), City of St. Charles
Boonslick Park (Project 29-00726), City of St. Charles
St. Peters City Park (Project 29-00578)
YMCA Park (Project 29-00709), City of St. Peters
St. Peters Sports Center (Project 29-01072, Element L), City of St.
Peters
W-6
4-11
-------
Prongue Tract Acquisition (Project 29-00869), near Elm Point Creek
Spencer Creek - Laurel Park Acquisition (Project 29-01147), near Spencer
Creek
The project sponsor should consult with Hr. Stephen L. Powell, Director,
Recreation Grants, Department of Natural Resources, Post Office Box 176,
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101, to determine the potential conflicts with
Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act (Public Law 88-578, as amended). Section
6(f)(3) requires that no property acquired or developed with assistance
under this section be converted to other than public outdoor recreational
uses without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
The final statement should include the details of any proposed Section 6(f)
conversion, including the full proposed replacement package.
Please contact the Regional Director, Midwest Region, National Park Service,
1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 (telephone: FTS 864-3431 or
commercial: 402-221-3431) for technical advice pertaining to potential
Section 6(f) involvement.
Specific Comments
Page 4-10, First Paragraph
The sentence "Affected wetland acreages are insignificant" should be
quantified and specifically attributed to acres affected by project
construction. >The amount of wetlands that are at risk by future
development are substantial in size and of considerable importance to
recreational and regional economic development interests (waterfowl
hunting clubs, etc.).
Page 4-18, Part 4.2.2.6
The statement regarding "no effect" on wetlands and floodplains needs to
be supported in text, and appears to be contrary to the statement made on
page 4-10.
To facilitate compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, federal agencies are required to obtain from the Fish and
Wildlife Service information concerning any species, listed or proposed to
be listed, which may be present in the area of a proposed action.
Therefore, we are furnishing you the following list of species which may be
present in the concerned area:
Endangered
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
There is no designated critical habitat in the project area at this time.
The scope and nature of the subject project indicates that diurnal perches,
roost sites, food sources, or other preferred habitat will not be affected.
Therefore, the project will not affect the bald eagle. This precludes the
W-6
W-7
W-8
W-9
4-12
-------
need for further action on this project as required under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Should this project be' modified
or new information indicates endangered species may be affected,
consultation should be reinitiated.
Section 4 of the draft statement does not contain a reference to the
project's impact on threatened endangered species. He recommend that an
affect determination statement similar to the one provided above be included
in the final document.
W-9
Addendum
The DEIS does not mention that a major contaminant site is located within
the planning boundaries. The Findett Corporation site is in Group 7 of the
EPA National Priorities List (NFL). From the plates supplied with the DEIS,
there appears to be an existing interceptor sewer line going through the
Findett property. There is also a pump station in the vicinity. To date it
has not been determined if there is any off-site movement of contaminants
(PCB's). With this uncertainty issue, if there is to be any disturbance of
soils that could potentially contain PCB's, then the DEIS should address
this issue. For example. Figures 2-4, 2-5, 2-8, and 2-10 indicate that
construction is proposed for locations immediately downstream of the Findett
Corporation site. This construction and the Findett site Itself are located
in a flood prone area, according to Figure 3-6. Therefore, due to the risk
of working in, disturbing, and moving contaminated soils, the DEIS should
adequately address this NFL site and its relationship to the potential new
sewer construction.
Additionally, the DEIS does not identify a proposed major levee project
(Levee L-15) affecting the planning area that is presently being studied by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District. Our stated concerns
regarding the wastewater project's potential for Inducing the floodplain
development would be compounded with the subsequent completion of the levee
project. Thus, the cumulative impacts of these federal projects need to be
adequately addressed in a subsequent document.
In order to implement a solution to our concerns at the earliest possible
time, you may contact Mr. Joe Tieger, Field Supervisor, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 705 Hltt Street,
Columbia, Missouri 65211, (314) 875-5374 or (FTS) 276-5374.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIS and look forward to
continued coordination.
Sincerely yours,
< V
W-10
W-1 1
^ti^^^^A'
•S " — f -It
Sheila Minor Huff ''
Regional Environmental Officer
4-13
-------
CITY OF ST. PETERS
CITY HALL MEXICO ROAD AT VENTURE DRIVE ptrrrlVEU
P.O. BOX 9 ST. PETERS, MISSOURI 63376 Ktv-»-
(314) 928-1800 i^y ,J
May 17' 1985 cleM04 BRANCH
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Mr. Edward Vest
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
KE: Draft E.I.S.
Proposed Wastewater Treatment
Facilities - Eastern
St. Charles County, Missouri
Dear Mr. Vest:
In behalf of the City of St. Peters, I am responding to the opportunity
afforded us to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
identified above. The document dated March, 1985, was provided the City
prior to the May 9 public hearing at St. Charles. Having been very
active in the plan development, via the Citizens Advisory Committee,
I regret that a Board of Aldermen meeting on the same night of the
public hearing prevented me from making comments in person.
The Draft E.I.S. appears to be well written and quite thorough. From
our standpoint, only a few minor comments are in order.
1. On page iv of the Executive Summary, it is stated that the Spencer I W~12
Creek STP is in St. Charles. This is in error as the plant is in I
St. Peters. This same error is repeated on Page 2-86.
2. On page xv, under Small Systems Outside Planning Area, I feel the I
Francis Howell High School Lagoon should be mentioned also. It is near I W— 1 3
the two facilities named and is much larger. '
3. On page xxix, under Alternative Available to EPA and Alternatives I
Available to Other Agencies, why are Cities of St. Peters and St. Charles I VV-14
not included with Duckett Creek Sewer District? This same comment would I
apply to Page 2-125.
4. On page 2-7, four of the listed seven pump stations have been out of I
service for approximately two years. They are: Old Town, Country Hill I W —15
Number 1, Country Hill Number 2 and Missouri Cities Dardenne Creek. |
5. On page 2-118, table 2-16, the City would like to be on record that
we are not in agreement with respect to the calculations for Local Share
of Cost for St. Peters proposed facilities. Establishment of water
quality standards now for Spencer Creek may have an impact on the agency{s)
final decision in this regard. The possibility of proceeding with advanced
treatment in lieu of an effluent pipe to the Mississippi River may have a
significant affect on the final sharing of costs.
4-14
THE CENTER OF DYNAMIC GROWTH IN ST. CHARLES COUNTY
W-16
-------
Mr. Edward Vest
May 17, 1985
Page Two
The City looks forward to the total completion and acceptance of the
201 Facility Plan and Environmental Impact Statement in the near
future to allow us to move forward quickly with design of our improve-
ments.
Should there be any questions or should additional information be
required of us at this point in time, please do not hesitate contact-
ing me.
Earl F. Holtgraewe, P.E.
Director of Engineering
City of St. Peters
cc: Robert Irvin, City Administrator
Ron Redder, Missouri D.N.R.
Robert Harbour, Sverdrup & Parcel
Joe Nickols, Duckett Creek Sewer District
EFH/lmd
4-15
-------
John Ashcroft
Governor
State of Missouri
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
Post Office Box 809
John A. Pfelzer Jefferson City Perry M. McGinnis, Director
Commissioner 65102 Division of Budget and Planning
May 28, 1985
Mr. Edward Vest, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Dear Mr. Vest:
Subject: 85050015 - Draft EIS - Proposed Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for Eastern St. Charles County, MO
The Missouri Federal Assistance Clearinghouse, in cooperation
with state and local agencies interested or possibly affected,
has completed the review on the above project application.
We are enclosing the comments received for your consideration
and appropriate action. The remaining agencies involved in
the review did not have comments or recommendations to offer
at this time.
A copy of this letter is to be attached to the application
as evidence of compliance with the State Clearinghouse
requirements .
Sincerely,
VV~ 1 7
J
Lois Pohl, Coordinator
Missouri Clearinghouse
LP: cm
Enclosure
i
cc: East-West Gateway Coordinating Council
RECEIVED
4-16 E\sMOA BR*NCH
-------
Response to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Comment
Letter Dated April 18, 1985
Response #1 (R-l) - The Section 106 procedures have been expanded and clari-
fied as requested.
*
Response to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Comment Letter
Dated April 25, 1985
Response #2 (R-2) - Comment noted. Response not required.
Response toEast-West Gateway Coordinating Council Comment Letter
Dated April 26. 1985
Response #3 (R-3) - Comments noted. Response not required.
Response to Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission Comment Letter
Dated May 10. 1985
Response #4 (R-4) - Your comment is acknowledged; it is understood that any
design plans which potentially could affect the state highway system should be
sent to the District Office for review and comment prior to advertizing for
bids.
Response to U.S. DPI, Office of Environmental Project Review Comment Letter
Dated May 14. 1985
Response #5 (R-5) - We agree that the potential for future urbanization in the
floodplain is a reality. We further believe that this growth is inevitable
and will occur with or without the provision of adequate wastewater treatment.
The intent in providing adequate wastewater management for the planning area
is to accommodate planned growth and development and not to induce or encour-
age currently unplanned development. With the implementation of the recom-
mended alternative (Alternative 6), planned future development should occur in
a more orderly and less dispersed manner than under the No Action Alternative.
Also, it should be made clear that now, under the recommended alternative, no
4-17
-------
centralized wastewater treatment facilities or new interceptor lines are
proposed for the Mississippi River floodplain communities in the planning
area. Although the draft facilities plan proposed sewering these areas, the
final facilities plan determined that such a plan was not cost-effective
(i.e., affordable) and thus was judged not implementable. Instead a plan for
the floodplain communities is proposed that provides for less capital-
intensive decentralized wastewater management solutions including considera-
tion of the following:
• Establishment of a centralized management agency that would institute
programs for upgrading and maintaining on-site systems;
• Emphasis on the need for community wells to replace individual shallow
wells;
• Clustering homes to small on-site systems;
• Holding tanks for riverfront properties; and
• Flow conservation practices and devices to reduce the load on existing
on-site systems.
One other clarification is in order. Figure 2-9 on page 2-72 of the
Draft EIS graphically illustrates the proposed recommended alternative
(Alternative 6). A proposed effluent outfall pipeline is shown to extend from
the Spencer Creek plant to the Mississippi River. The line will be carrying
treated effluent from the Spencer Creek STP and discharging it to the
Mississippi River. As such, no tie-ins to this line from any adjacent devel-
opment will occur.
Response #6 (R-6) - Consultation with local officials (Mr. Joe Nichols, St.
Charles County, Mr. Earl Holtgraewe, City of St. Peters, and Mr. Keith Devalt,
City of St. Charles) was made to determine whether any of the listed proper-
ties that have been acquired or developed with assistance under Section
6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act would be converted to other than public outdoor
recreational uses as a result of the proposed project. By reviewing the
locations of the listed properties and comparing these with the proposed
locations of wastewater treatment and collection facilities, it was determined
that none of the park properties would be affected with the possible exception
of the Prongue Tract. If the Prongue Tract is affected, it would only involve
4-18
-------
an easement to allow placement of an underground collection line. No acquisi-
tion or conversion of existing recreational lands is proposed; however, the
final determination is the responsibility of the National Park Service (NFS)
in cooperation with Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). If any
replacement lands are determined to be necessary, the grantee will work
directly with the NFS and MDNR to reach an equitable settlement.
Response #7 (R^ll - The precise areal extent of wetlands affected directly by
proposed project construction was not calculated because the exact locations
of interceptors lines have not been finalized. However, the total acreage is
expected to be small due to the need for only minimal (10 acres) additional
acreage for expansion of existing sewage treatment facilities, and the revised
plan to drop centralized treatment and collection facilities for the flood-
plain communities. We agree that the amount of wetlands that could be
affected indirectly as a result of future development is greater; however, the
influence of the recommended alternative itself in inducing growth and urbani-
zation in the floodplain areas is expected to be low and was discussed pre-
viously under "Response #1." Furthermore, the discussion on Page 4-10,
Section 4.2.1.6 was limited to direct impacts to wetlands and floodplain from
construction activities only.
Response #8 (R-8) - This "no effect" statement on page 4-18 refers to direct
impacts on wetlands and floodplains from operating any of the final four
action alternatives. The statement on page 4-10 was referring to direct
construction-related impacts on these resources.
Response #9 (R-9) - We agree that Section 4.0, Environmental Consequences,
should include a determination as to the project's impact on threatened and
endangered species. This determination statement has been added to Section
4.2.1.5 of the Draft EIS, and is contained in Section 3.0, "Revisions to Draft
EIS," in this Final EIS.
Response #10 (R-10) - The EIS has been modified to address the status of the
Findett Corporation site and its relationship to the proposed project. It
should be noted that under the recommended alternative (i.e., Alternative 6,
Figure 2-9 in Draft EIS) no construction activities are proposed for locations
4-19
-------
downstream of the Findett site. If fact, three of the four alternatives
referred to in your comment letter on the Draft EIS (i.e., Figures 2-4, 2-5,
and 2-8; Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, respectively) were not included in the four
final action alternatives. The other alternative mentioned in your letter
(Figure 2-10 or Alternative 7) was one of the final four action alternatives
but was not selected as the recommended alternative in the facilities plan and
EIS. However, we agree with your concern regarding the relationship of this
proposed NPL site and the recommended alternative (Alternative 6). As stated
in Section 3.0 "Revisions to Draft EIS," this relationship will be ascertained
following the results of the ongoing remedial site investigations at Findett
and any additional safety precautions will be developed accordingly.
Response #11 (R-ll) - The status of the Levee Unit L-15 project was discussed
with Mr. Don Hammond, Study Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City
District. The L-15 study area consists of the combined Missouri River and
Mississippi River floodplains from St. Charles, Missouri downstream to the
Mississippi River and from just upstream of Portage des Sioux downstream to
the Missouri River. The Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers published an
announcement in October 1984 concerning the initiation of the L-15 study.
Study Status Reports were published during May 1985 and December 1985, and a
public workshop meeting was held on July 2, 1985 in Orchard Farms, Missouri
(see Appendix).
The construction of Levee Unit L-15 was authorized by the Flood Control
Act of 1944. The levee unit was further studied during the early 1970's and
the project was classified inactive after the study because there was strong
opposition to future development that could occur with 100-year protection,
and because the risk of catastrophic failure associated with lower levels of
protection was considered unacceptable. In 1983-84, local interest in flood
protection rekindled and Congress included $250,000 in the Corps' budget for
Fiscal Year (FY) 1985 to review the feasibility of the L-15 project and to
determine the nonfederal cost sharing requirements. Congress appropriated an
additional $210,000 to continue study during FY 1986. A notice of study
initiation and a field trip to St. Charles County began the study in October
1984. Responses from the notice of study initiation were heavy indicating a
high level of interest in the project. The Corps received about 500 comment
4-20
-------
letters which were evenly divided between support and opposition to levee con-
struction. Basically, persons residing east of the Mississippi River ex-
pressed opposition to levee construction, while Missouri residents were nearly
unanimous in support of levee construction. A petition bearing 2,445 signa-
tures in support of levee construction was also received in addition to the
cards and letters.
Common reasons cited for opposition to levee construction were:
(1) Levee construction would increase flood heights on the Illinois side
of the Mississippi River.
(2) Additional commercial and industrial development would be attracted
to the area changing the land use from agricultural to urban. It
was felt by some that this would introduce competition to com-
mercialized communities across the Mississippi, while others sug-
gested that an urban area across the river would be less aestheti-
cally pleasing.
However, both Missouri and Illinois residents now appear to agree
that the area would be best served by protecting the agricultural
character of the area without additional industrialization. In
addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering a pro-
posal to designate a portion of the floodplain areas as a recrea-
tional/agricultural preserve, thus promoting the intent to maintain
the present character, value, and resources of this area.
Initially, the only levee alternative evaluated by the Corps was an
agricultural levee that would provide a 25-year level of flood
protection on two levee alignments. The primary function of the
25-year agricultural levee would be to provide some additional
protection for the agricultural fields that already exist, and not
to protect against an urban design flood. Higher levels of protec-
tion were not evaluated because the impacts associated with induced
flooding that could accompany protection at levels above 25-year
were expected to be unacceptable. Also, to save time and expense,
the benefits and costs for higher protection levels were not cal-
4-21
-------
culated during the preliminary analysis. Although the outlook for
higher levels of protection has not changed, the Corps is required
by regulations (e.g., Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies, and others) to evaluate a wide range of alternatives to
ensure a complete analysis. Consequently, several additional alter-
natives will be studied and documented, including (1) levees that
would provide protection from 25-, 50-, and 100-year floods on four
alignments; (2) construction of ring levees to protect development
subject to flood damage (the nonstructural alternative); and (3) no
action.
The Kansas City District is continuing with the L-15 study based on
a letter of support from the St. Charles County Commission on
November 26, 1985. The District now plans to complete its evalua-
tion of the alternatives during 1986 and to provide Federal, State,
and local government agencies and interested individuals with a
draft report and draft environmental statement for review and com-
ment early in 1987. Following public review, the District would
determine whether or not to recommend construction of any flood
control works for the study area. A final report, including the
District Engineer's recommendations, would be sent to headquarters
for approval during the fall of 1987. If a construction alternative
is recommended and approved, about 4 years of additional detailed
investigations would be required before construction could begin.
The cumulative long-term indirect impacts from the recommended
wastewater management alternative and the L-15 levee project are not
quantifiable at this time; however, although some indirect impacts
are inevitable over the long-term, the recommended wastewater treat-
ment plan is not expected to encourage urbanization in the flood-
plain.
4-22
-------
Responses toCity of St. Peters CommentLetter Dated
May 17. 1985
Response #12 (R-12) - The corrections have been made.
Response #13 (R-13) - The Francis Howell High School Lagoon has been added as
requested.
Response #14 (R-14) - These were apparent oversights; the corrections have
been made.
Response #15 (R-15) - Comment noted.
Response #16 (R-16) - Your comments are noted.
Response to Missouri Office of Administration Comment
Letter Dated May 28. 1985
Response #17 (R-17) - The comments forwarded to us by the Missouri Office of
Administration were copies of comment letters already received from the East-
West Gateway Coordinating Council and Missouri Highway and Transportation
Commission. Responses to these comments are included elsewhere.
4-23
-------
4.2 Responses to Public Hearing Comments
The following responses to oral questions and comments received at the
public hearing on the Draft EIS also have been assigned an alphanumeric
designation (H-l, H-2, H-3, etc.) which, corresponds to the hearing comment
(see hearing transcript which follows).
4-24
-------
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Q •! __ _ ^ _ n» «, __ _^ ^ ^ ^ j^, J—, _ _^ _^ ^
;
4 In re:
5 Environmental Impact Statement
6 Proposed Wastewater Treatment
7 Facilities for Eastern St.
8 Charles County, Missouri
9 ____________________
10 City Council Room
St. Charles City Hall
11 200 North Second Street
St. Charles, Missouri.
12
Thursday, May 9, 1985.
13
The public hearing in the above-entitled matter
14
was convened, pursuant to notice, at 7:00 o'clock p.m.,
15
Kent Johnson presiding.
16
BEFORE:
17
PANEL
18
KENT JOHNSON, Hearing Officer, U. S. EPA, 726
19
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas,
20
Chariman.
21
TOM LORENZ, U. S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas
22
City, Kansas 66101.
23
ROBERT BARBOUR, Sverdrup and Parcel and Asso-
24
ciates, Incorporated, 801 North Eleventh
25
Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
4-25
-------
1 KEITH WHITENIGHT, WAPORA, Incorporated, 6900
2 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, Maryland
3 20815.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4-26
-------
2 HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: I would like to convene
3 this hearing at this time.
4 This is a hearing in reference to the draft
5 environmental impact statement of the proposed wastewater
6 treatment facilities for eastern St. Charles County,
7 Missouri. The draft environmental impact statement
8 includes the Ducket Crrek, St. Peter's, St. Charles and
9 Portage de Sioux sewer districts.
10 This hearing is being held on May 9, 1985, in
11 the City Council Chambers of the St. Charles City Hall,
12 located at 200 North Second Street, St. Charles, Missouri.
13 My name is Kent Johnson. I am with the Environ-
l4 mental Portection Agency. I am with the Office of Regional
15 Counsel. I will be acting as the Hearing Officer in this
16 proceeding tonight.
17 With me are Tom Lorenz from the EPA. He is at my
18 far right. He is also from Region 7, and he is the work
19 assignment manager for the environmental impact statement.
20 Also here is Bob Harbour, with Sverdrup and Parcel
21 and Associates, Incorpirated. He is the second one down
22 to my right. He is the facilities planning consultant.
23 Also here to my immediate right is Keith Whitenigh
24 with WAPORA, Incorporated, and they are an environmental
25 consluting firm, and they consulted on this environmental
4-27
-------
1 impact statement.
2 The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments
3 regarding the draft of this environmental impact statement,
4 and if you wish to make a statement tonight, there are
5 cards at the door, and I believe that everyone that is here
6 has filled one out.
7 This document is being submitted under the
8 provisions of the Natinal Environmental Policy Act, Public
9 Law 91-190, which requires an environmental impact state-
10 ment to be prepared on major federal actions signifi-
11 cantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
12 This hearing is part of that process.
13 Notice of this hearing was published in the
14 Federal Register on April 5, 1985. Notices were also pub-
15 lished in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on April 5, through
16 April 7 of this year. Also published in the St. Charles
17 Journal, beginning on April 5 for three consecutive issues.
18 I understand that publication is every other day.
19 Proofs of publications are on file at Region 7's
20 Regional Office, which is located at 726 Minnesota Avenue,
21 Kansas City, Kansas 66101. These are available for review
22 upon request.
23 All comments on this document must be submitted tc
24 the Environmental Protection Agency within 45 days after
25 the Notice of Availability of this document was published
4-28
-------
l in the Federal Register. In this case, the closing date
2 for submitting comments will be May 20, 1985. Copies of
3 the Draft EIS are available for review at the Katherine M.
4 Linneman Branch Library, 2323 Elm Street, St. Charles,
5 Missouri, and also at the Spencer Road Branch Library,
6 425 Spencer Road, St. Peter's, Missouri. We also brought
several copies of it tonight, so if you don't have one and
would like one, I think we can provide you with one.
As I stated before, while this hearing is being
10 held tonight, written comments can be submitted up until
May 20th, so just because we're having a public hearing
12 tonight does not mean that the comment period closes. That
13 closes on May 20th. If you have written comments, they
should be sent to the attention of Edward Vest, who is the
Chief of the Environmental Impacts Section, 726 Minnesota
16 Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
There aren't going to be any restrictions as to
18 comments made tonight. We would ask that you limit it to
a test of relevance, however, and if you do have a written
20 statement that you're going to read, we'd appreciate if it
you could give us a copy of it, if that's possible.
22 The hearing will be informal. No one making a
23 statement will be sworn in, and there will be no cross-exam-
24 ination of anyone making a statement.
25 Again, we remind you about the cards. If you do
4-29
-------
l want to make a statement, let us know, and I think we will
2 get to everybody who wants to make a statement tonight.
3 Thank you for coming, and right now I'd like to
4 turn over the floor to Mr. Lorenz for this presentation.
5 MR. LORENZ: My name is Tom Lorenz. I am the
6 Work Assignment Manager for the Environmental Impact State-
7 ment that's been prepared on this project.
g What I'd like to address at this point is the EIS
9 process, how it got here, where we're headed with it, to
10 give you an idea of the agenda for this particular document.
11 On October 9, 1982, the Environmental Protection
12 Agency issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental
13 Impact Statement.
14 On November 17 of 1982, a scoping meeting was
15 ] held in this room for the purpose of receiving public com-
16 ment and for denining the scope of the project. During
17 the 201 planning process, the Environmental Protection
18 Agency participated in a full-scale public participation
19 program, in which an advisory committee, a citizens' ad-
20 visory committee was formed, and that committee met on a
21 regular basis and at key points in the project, to discuss
22 any represent the issues as they pertain to the particular
23 communities and individuals represented.
24 In November of 1983, the draft 201 facility plan
25 was completed and submitted to the public, and in February,
4-30
-------
February 15, 1984, a public hearing was held on that 201
facility plan.
In October of 1984, the final facility plan was
3
submitted to the State, and on April 5, 1985, a Notice of
4
Availability of the draft Environmental Impact Statement
5
was published in the Federal Register.
6
On May 9, 1985, which is tonight, we are holding
a public hearing in accordance with the regulations that
8
govern the preparation of an Environmental Impact State-
ment. On May 20, the public review period will clo-e for
that document. The Environmental Protection Agency will
take all oral and written comments concerning the document
and the project, and will prepare responses for those com-
13
ments. Those responses will be addressed in the final En-
14
vironmental Impact Statement, which we anticipate being
15
available around the end of June of 1985.
16
After the final Environmental Impact Statement has
been published and distributed, a 30-day no-action time
lo
period will be allowed to receive comment on that document.
i»?
After that no-action period has closed, a Record of Decision
will be published by the Environmental Protection Agency,
delineating the project, that the Environmental Protection
Agency will be willing to provide public funds in support
23
24 Of'
The legal basis for the Environmental Impact State
25
4-31
-------
merit, as mentioned earlier by the Hearing Officer, is the
2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the amend-
ments to it, Section 511-(C)-(1) of the Clean Water Act, and
o
EPA's NEPA implementing regulations which are in 40 CFT,
Part 6. The Environmental Protection Agency decided that
O
6 the project as it was scoped had the potential to signifi-
cantly affect the quality of the human environment.
g The planning area, or study area, for this parti-
cular project includes the upper Mississippi River, Salt
0 River Basin watersheds of Dardenne, Spencer, Sandtart,
Cole and Boshert Creeks; the lower Mississippi Basin water-
sheds of Duckett and Taylor Branch, the City of St. Charles,
the City of St. Peter's, the Village of Portage de Sioux,
14 and the unincorporated portions of St. Charles County, be-
1K tween the Mississippi River and the Missouri River, east of
10
„ the St. Peter's city limits.
The jurisdictions involved, that will be the
18 sewer districts involved, in the City of St. Charles they
have the Mississippi River sewage treatment plant, the
20 Missouri River sewage treatment plant, Charles Trails sew-
age treatment plant, and the Heatherbrook Lagoon.
22 In the City of St. Peter's the Spencer Creek
23 sewage treatment plant, and in the village of Portage de
Sioux, the community spetic tank system there
25 In the Duckett Creek Sewer District, the Duckett
4-32
-------
Creek sewage treatment plant, the Harvester Dardenne sewage
2 treatment plant, the Highway 94 South plant, and the Boscher
3 town Lagoon. And then there are six privately operated
4 wastewater treatment facilities in the project area.
5 To see where those particular wastewater facil-
6 ities are, we refer you to Figures 1-2 and 2-2 in the hand-
out that you received as you came in.
8 I now turn you over to Bob Barbour, who is the
9 engineer in charge of the facility plan for this project.
10 MR. BARBOUR: Thanks, Tom. As Tom mentioned, my
11 name is Bob Barbour, and I was the project manager on the
12 facility plan for this project. I think Tom has described
the study area and the jurisdictions involved.
This facility plan was funded jointly by the
15 Duckett Creek Sewer District, the City of St. Charles and
16 the City of St. Peter's. The Federal Clean Water Act of
1972 and '77, as amended in 1977, established the goals
of fishable and swimmable waters, and without going into a
19 lot of detail, basically one of the requirements is that
20 there will be secondary treatment for municipal facilities
21 by July of 1988.
22 These Acts also established construction grants,
23 funds available for sewer districts arid municipalities to
24 build wastewater facilities. In any construction grant
25 process, there are three phases, there is the planning phase
4-33
-------
10
1 the design phase, and the construction phase. The 201
2 facility plan is the first phase, and this must be approved
3 before any other phases can proceed with grant funds, either
4 State or Federal.
5 The 201 process includes an assessment of the
6 current situation, revising the existing facilities, waste-
7 water collection and treatment facilities, projection of
8 future conditions over the 20-year design planning life,
9 identification of the wastewater treatment alternatives,
1° and evaluation of these alternatives, including cost-effec-
11 tiveness and selection of a recommended alternative, and
12 then includes implementation arrangements, including cost
13 schedules and operating entities.
14 Another aspect that is required is an environmen-
15 tal assessment. And in this particular project, the environ-
16 mental assessment was split up and an environmental im-
17 pact statement was performed, and that's what the hearing
18 is about tonight.
19 I'm not going to go into any detail on the al-
20 ternatives. They were in the facility plan, and I under-
21 stand Keith Whitenight from WAPORA is going to describe
22 the environmental impact of those alternatives, and discuss
23 them in his section.
24 As Tom mentioned, we did have a full public par-
25 ticipation program, we had an advisory group and they helped
4-34
-------
11
1 us with the selection of alternatives, helped us cull those
2 alternatives from eight down to four, and then helped us
3 with the final selection.
4 I think Tom has mentioned that the final facility
5 plan was published in August, 1984, and has been available
6 since that time. With that, I'm going to turn it over to
7 Keith. •
8 MR. WHITENIGHT: Again, my name is Keith White-
9 night, and I am with WAPORA. We were retained by EPA to
10 assist them in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement.
11 I'm sure, as probably most of you know in this
12 room, the primary reason for initiating this whole waste-
13 water management planning process, including the EIS and
14 facility plan , is the extent of past and future growth, as
15 projected for the Duckett Creek planning area, specifically
16 eastern St. Charles County. This, combined with the fact the
17 a number of treatment plants in the area have not been able to
18 meet effluent limitations, and some malfunctioning of on-
19 site systems in the flood plain areas, has dictated the need
20 to take a hard look at the planning area and come up with
21 some long-term solutions to these kinds of problems.
22 What I'd like to do, and I'll call your attention
23 again to the handout, is I'm going to try to follow the re-
24 maining sections in the handout so if you want to follow
25 through I'll be referring you to maps and various things at
4-35
-------
12
1 different points in time. But the first thing I thought mig
2 be useful, and I won't read each one per se, is the page on
3 EIS issues. There are a number of areas of concern that
4 were identified, I guess initially, during the EIS scoping
5 meeting, and subsequently during the past public partici-
6 pation process.
7 I'd like to just highlight those issues for you.
8 Of course, one of the main ones was the concern surrounding
the population growth and the impacts on various natural
10 and manmade resources that are listed there. You can read
those for yourself. Of course, there is concern regarding
12
14
the effects of discharging inadequately treated sewage, i.e.
13 treated effluent, on water quality and public health in
the planning area.
15 I guess you could group the next three bullets
16 there, and they indicate concerns about the need to develop
a plan that is reasonable, that's cost effective and environ-
1ft
mentally sound, and one that addresses all the problems of
19 the planning area. We've got a number of user jurisdictions
ort
as Tom mentioned, and it was no small effort to look at all
21
those plans and decide what needed to be done.
22
Due to again, the large planning area and the
23
multiple sewer authorities, there was concern expressed
24
initially on the ability to coordinate effectively among
25
all these groups, including EPA and the State, and I think
4-36
-------
13
1 that has been done pretty effectively. I think most of
2 you know that this was something called a piggyback EIS
process, which simply means that the EIS has developed
pretty much concurrent with the facility plan, so there
was a great deal of interaction with Bob's firm and with
6 the public throughout the whole process.
*7
The last bullet there deals with concerns sur-
B
rounding construction-related impacts. They are the normal
g
ones that you would anticipate, the traffic flow disrup-
tions and impacts on existing land uses and local business,
and some of the commuting patterns, which I will go into
that a little bit later in more detail.
13
Of course, there are a number of other issues
that have been voiced. I think most of them you could re-
15
gard as sub-sets of a lot of these more general issues that
ifi
were described.
17
Let me go on now to say a few brief things just
18
about the development of alternatives for those of you that
19
weren't directly involved in the process. Once the waste-
20
water management needs for the planning area were well under
21
stood, and this happened through surveys and a number of
22
studies that were documented in the facilities plan, there
23
was an initial set of eight preliminary alternatives that
24
were developed by Sverdrup and Parcel. I don't go into and
25
describe each one of these, because they've undergone detail
4-37
-------
14
ed description in the past and have been screened and looked
at in great detail, but there are a couple of elements that
are common to all eight of those alternatives, and they
3
are listed here in the handout. They all call for abandon-
4
ment of five sewage treatment plants and six pumping sta-
5
tions, following construction of the new interceptor sewers.
6
And the Highway 94 South treatment plant would serve as an
7
interim facility for each one of the alternatives.
O
These preliminary alternatives were screened and
«/
ranked according to various factors—monetary factors, non-
monetary factors, and environmental considerations. For
those of you that have a copy of the EIS with you, see
Page 283, Table 2-10, which is simply a culmination of that
13
screening process and shows how the alternatives rank in
14
relation to each other.
lo
The CAC carefully looked at these rankings, and
16
ended up recommending that the top four alternatives be
evaluated in more detail. The four alternatives chosen,
18
that were referred to in the facility plan and the EIS, are
1*7
referred to as the final four alternatives, and they are
£V
alternatives 3, 6, 7, and 8, as they were referenced
in these documents.
ftft
I'd like to talk just briefly about these final
Zo
wastewater management alternatives. These also included
the no-action alternative, which is required by law to be
25
4-38
-------
15
1 look at. What I'd like to do is simply highlight each
2 one and refer you to the corresponding figure that is in the
3 handout if you want to see the graphic illustration of how
4 these things compare.
^ First is Alternative 3, the corresponding figure
® is Figure 2-6, which is several pages back. Alternative
7 3 would involve the continued use of the Spencer Creek
8 plant, Duckett Creek, Missouri River and the Mississippi
9 River STPs. Again, as I mentioned, the Highway 94 South
10 plant would serve as an interim facility and would be
11 initially expanded to a 0.5 mgd plant. The Spencer Creek
12 plant would be expanded to a 7.5 million gallon per day
13 contact stabilization activated sludge facility, and
14 the final sludge disposal would be by land application.
15 The existing Duckett Creek plant would be re-
16 placed by a new 1.1 mgd oxidation ditch system, and the
17 final sludge disposal there would again be by land appli-
1 A
cation. The Missouri river plant would be expanded
1Q
from a 3 mgd primary facility to a 5 mgd contact stabili-
20
zation facility, which is a secondary plant. The de-waterec
21 sludge would be hauled, in this case, to the Mississippi
22
River plant for incinceration, and then the ash would be
23 landfilled. .
24
The Mississippi River plant would be expanded
25
from a 5.5 to a 7.0 mgd activated sludge facility, and
'4-39
-------
16
the sludge would be disposed of by incineration and the
2 residual ash, again, would be landfilled.
3 Another plan alternative that was chosen was
4 Alternative 6, which turned out to be the alternative
5 that was recommended in the facility plan as the preferred
alternative. It also has been adopted officially as the
EIS-recommended alternative. The corresponding figure for
this one is Figure 2-9 in the handout. Alternative 6
9 would likewise involve the continued use of the Spencer Cre
Duckett Creek, the Missouri River and Mississippi River
plants. Again, the Highway 94 South plant would be an
12 interim facility, and the Spencer Creek plant would be
13
upgraded from a 3 mgd extended aeration plant {it says
14 extended activation plant in the handout, but it should be
extended aeration activated sludge plant) to a 4 mgd con-
16 tact stabilization facility. The sludge management scheme
17 would be identical to that described for the previous alter
18
native, Alternative 3.
The existing Duckett Creek plant would be replace
20 by a new 5 mgd oxidation ditch activated sludge system, and
21
the sludge would be aerobically digested and the final dis-
22 posal would be by land application. The Missouri River
STP would be expanded to a 5 mgd facility, as described
24
under the Alternative 3 scenario. The Mississippi River
25 plant would be expanded from a 5.5 mgd to a 7 mgd activated
4-40
-------
17
sludge facility, as proposed in Alternative 3, although the
2
1
treated effluent would be pumped instead of flow by gravity
to the Mississippi River.
t>
Another plan alternative is Alternative 7; Figure
2-10 is the corresponding illustration. This would again
D
., involve the continued use of Duckett Creek, the Missouri
D
River and the Mississippi River treatment facilities. The
0 94 South plant would again serve as an interim facility, and
o
Spencer Creek would be abandoned in 1995, rather than remain
%
10 operational throughout the entire 20-year planning period.
In 1995, the plant would then become a pumping
12 station, and wastewater would be pumped to the Mississippi
River plant for treatment there. The Duckett Creek plant
would be replaced by a new 3.5 mgd oxidation ditch acti-
vated sludge system. The sludge management scheme would
be identical to that of the preferred alternative, or
lb
Alternative 6.
18 I left out here the Missouri River plant, but it
19 would be expanded again to a 5 mgd secondary facility, as
20 proposed for Alternative 3.
21 The Mississippi River plant would be expanded and
22 upgraded to a 12 mgd secondary plant. The treatment scheme
23 would be identical to that proposed under the recommended
24 alternative, Alternative 6, and sludge would be aerobically
25 digested, which is slightly different than the other alter-
4-41
-------
18
1 native.
2 The last of the final action alternatives is
3 Alternative 8. The corresponding figure there is 2-11 in
4 the handout. This one would involve again the continued use
5 of Spencer, Duckett, Missouri River and Mississippi River
6 STPs; the Highway 94 South plant would be an interim facil-
? ity again. Spencer Creek would be upgraded to a 5 mgd fa-
8 cility, with the treatment processes being similar to the
9 other alternatives that I described.
in ""
1U The existing Duckett Creek plant would be replaced
11 by a new 3.5 mgd facility, as described under the Alterna-
12 tive 7 scenario. The Missouri River plant would be
13 upgraded to a 5 mgd contact stabilization facility, and that
14 is identical to that proposed under all the other action
15 alternatives.
16 Finally, the Mississippi River plant would be
17 expanded to a 7 mgd activated sludge facility, and that
18 would be identical to the scheme proposed under Alternative
19 6. As I mentioned, EPA is required to consider the no-actio
20 alternative, and just for clarification purposes, this, of
course, would assume no Federal participation on the part
99
" of EPA to build or otherwise upgrade any of the wastewater
OQ
systems in the planning area, and I'll touch a little bit
ftA
more on that later under the environmental consequences.
25 Let me turn ahead now to the EIS and facility plan
4-42
-------
19
1 recommended alternative. They are one and the same, and to
2 arrive at the final four action alternatives, as we call
3 them, and as I just described, they were further screened
4 and evaluated by Bob's firm and by the citizen advisory com-
5 mittee, as well as the public at large, through various pub-
6 lie meetings. I have listed here the primary criteria (fac-
7 tors) that were looked at during that screening. I might
8 draw your attention to the cost comparison. I did include
9 Table 2-12, which I think immediately follows this one,
10 where you can see a breakdown of the costs for the four
11 final alternatives. Basically, the table just shows a com-
12 parison of the costs, an approximate breakdown of the local
13 cost-share by user jurisdiction.
14 Again, Alternative 6 in that table is the recom-
15 mended alternative, and it turns out it is also the most
16 cost effective alternative. Based on these further evalua-
17 tions, Alternative 6 was selected. It was the most cost
18 effective, and it was also determined to be the most envir-
19 onmentally sound.
20 I won't go through and describe the major compo-
21 nents again. They're the same as I described for the Altern
22 tive 6 scenario before, but there are a few other aspects
23 of the recommended plan that I'll highlight for you. There
24 is a 1 mgd interim Duckett Creek facility that has been de-
25 termined to be needed to provide the needed interim capacity
4-43
-------
20
1 until the new 5 mgd facility is constructed, which won't be
2 until '88 or '89, I believe.
3 Portage, the plant there, it's recommended that
4 that would be upgraded to an extended aeration package plant
5 instead of the rotating biological contactor plant which
6 was proposed back in the '78 facilities plan. In terms of
7 on-site systems, and this would affect the floodplain com-
8 munities in the planning area which are now served by the
9 individual on-lot treatment systems, it was determined in
10 the final facilities plan that a centralized treatment and
11 collection system, even for the higher density areas, would
12 not be cost effective, and therefore was determined not
13 implementable. As such, the overall recommended plan, as
14 now proposed includes a much less extensive, less capital
*5 intensive solution for these areas. It would involve a
16 number of things that are discussed in some detail in the
17 facilities plan, but basically it calls for establishment
18 of a central management district that would oversee on-lot
19 systems, additional public education in terms of siting and
^ functioning of septic tanks, and so forth, flow conservation
21 measures, use of community wells, and use of cluster systems
22 or mound systems where they are appropriate. These are the
23 kinds of things that would be far less capital intensive
24 than the centralized treatment.
^ Let me now go into the environmental consequences.
4-44
-------
21
1 Just for clarification purposes, in the EIS we classified
2 the impacts in a number of categories. Most are self-explan
3 atory—construction-related, operation-related, primary
4 and secondary, short-term and long-term. The only ones I
6 might expand on a little bit are primary and secondary.
6 Primary, we are talking about direct effects that occur as a
7 result of construction or operation of the facility. The
8 secondary impacts, we are referring to indirect effects that
9 would be induced from changes, principally in land use and
10
population, that would occur from implementing the project.
11 there is some distinction there that is helpful to know.
12 First, let me talk a little bit about the no-ac-
13 tion alternative and the environmental consequences of
14 that. Again, by no-action, we mean no Federal grand par-
ticipation by EPA, which presumably would mean that the
16 project could not be implemented as proposed. Now in prac-
tice, what normally happens is the whole process comes to
18 a screeching halt, or it certainly is delayed considerably
19 if that kind of an action is taken. The project is normal-
20 ly reevaluated, it's scaled down, there would be alternative
21 financing schemes that would have to be looked at, and in
22 the meantime, literally nothing happens. This could result
23 in a number of undesirable consequences in the case of the
24 Duckett Creek planning area.
25 The existing treatment and collection facilities
4-45
so
-------
22
l that are already overloaded would continue to operate, and
2 they would receive even more wastewater in future, re-
3 suiting in more by-passing or discharging of untreated or
4 partially treated sewage into the area streams.
5 Dardenne Creek also would continue to receive
6 wastewater discharges, which would serve to further degrade
7 water quality in that area. Aquatic resources certainly
8 would be affected adversely, possibly for distances farther
9 downstream than they are now. Sludge handling problems at
10 the existing treatment plants would increase. There would
H be an increased frequency of sewage backups from over-capa-
12 citated pumping stations and interceptor lines, which
13 could result in property damage and potential public health
14 hazards.
I5 In terms of the on-site failures, these would
16 continue to occur to some degree, and the potential for
17 groundwater contamination would still exist. Certainly as
18 future growth would occur in the planning area, which will
19 occur in large part with or without the expanded treatment
20 facilities, at least the growth in the unsewered areas, there
21 would be a lot more dependency on on-lot systems--the indi-
22 vidual septic tank systems. And where the soils have limitec
23 capabilities, or where high water tables occur, certainly
24 there could be groundwater problems that would be aggra-
25 vated there.
4-46
-------
23
1 In addition, the increased lot sizes that would
2 be needed for the individual on-site systems could result
3 in some inefficient use of land and development patterns
4 would tend to be less orderly and more dispersed I think,
5 overall.
6 So, in essence, under the no-action alternative,
7 the municipalities and the sewer districts would be left
8 without any well-defined plan for facility upgrading in the
9 planning area, and I suspect any plant improvements that
10 would be done would be done as stopgap measures to try to
11 resolve an immediate problem, rather than the real intent
12 of this process, which is to come up with some longer term
13 solutions.
14 Next, I'd like to summarize the environmental
15 consequences of the action alternatives, and because of the
16 similarities between those alternatives, impacts really
17 can be grouped for each one of these resource areas. There
18 are some exceptions to that, but by and large the action
19 alternatives will have very similar impacts in these differ-
^
20 ent areas.
21 First is air quality—the adverse impacts on air
22 quality during construction. What I'll try to do is to
23 discuss construction and operation-related impacts for each
24 resource area if you will, and I'll qualify them if it's not
25 clear what I'm talking about. The adverse impacts on air
4-47
-------
24
1 quality during construction should be short-term. They
2 will primarily involve dust emissions, fumes, and noise
3 from construction equipment. Existing STPs are not located
4 in densely populated areas, so the impacts should be largely
5 confined to those residences that are in the immediate vi-
6 cinity of these upgraded facilities.
7 During the operation phase, there is potential
8 for some odors and gases arid aerosols to be released from
the various treatment processes. This is normal. It's
10 fully recognized by the design engineers, and it should be
controlled through proper design, and operation and main-
12 tenance procedures that will be forthcoming.
So, overall, the air quality is expected to improv
1 due to improvements in plant efficiencies throughout the
planning area.
16 In terms of soil erosion and sedimentation,
17 most of these impacts will be of short duration, again. And
18 when I say short duration, I'm talking about the construe-
19
22
tion period—the duration of the construction period.
20 Complete erosion control is not possible. Some
of the impacts that would occur, given that assumption,
will be erosion and sediment leaving active construction
23 sites during stormwater events in particular, i.e., storm-
water runoff events. Nutrients and other pollutants will
tend to get into the streams, certainly in the immediate
4-48
-------
25
1 vicinity of the construction sites.
2 The possibility of limited crop damage and some
3 temporary interruption of agriculture activities, certainly
4 in the vicinity of the interceptor lines, could occur during
5 the construction period. There could be some localized
6 clogging of road culverts, and localized flooding due to
7 drainageways possibly being clogged with sediment. During
8 the operation, the primary impacts to soils would be from
9 the land application of sludge. The impacts, again,
10 would depend on specific soil properties at the land appli-
11 cation sites, which I understand have not been pinpointed
12 yet, so we can't do any detailed impact assessment of a
13 particular site. But it would depend on the soil proper-
14 ties, on the composition of the sludge, and the rate of the
15 sludge application. Again, the design considerations for
16 specific sludge disposal sites would take all these things
17 into consideration.
18 Next would be surface water. Surface water qual-
19 ity would be degraded in the vicinity of the construction
20 sites from again, nutrient inputs, increased turbidity,
21 increases in siltation, and these types of things. However,
22 the impacts would be short-term; they would vary depending
23 on the extent of rainfall that would occur during the con-
24 struction phase. The length and placement of sewer lines cou[Ld
25 affect the magnitude of the impacts. And the effectiveness,
4-49
-------
26
1 again, of the mitigation measures,the erosion control mea-
2 sures and so forth which would be proposed to reduce the
3 runoff and sedimentation, would determine the actual extent
4 of the impact.
5 Again, in terms of surface water, with the aban-
6 donment of the Harvester-Dardenne sewage treatment plant and
7 improvement of the Spencer Creek plant, I think you will see
8 an immediate improvement in water quality in that area, cer-
9 tainly in fecal coliforms and dissolved oxygen and total sus
10 pended solids concentrations. The Dardenne Creek water
11 quality should improve pretty rapidly following those action
12 Adverse impacts to surface waters from the opera-
13 tion of the collection systems and pumping stations are
14 expected to be fairly minimal. Breaks or leaks should be
15 rare after the new systems are installed, so there is no
16 major concern associated with that.
17 With the improvements in the operation and main-
18 tenance of the on-site systems, surface water quality also
19 should improve in the areas served by those types of systems
20 Groundwater resources could be affected in localized
2* areas during construction, particularly construction at
22 pumping stations. In areas where there are shallow wells,
23 shallow wells could be affected.
^ The primary dangers of groundwater contamination
25 during the operation phase would be associated with leaks
4-50
-------
27
1 along the sewer lines, around the sewage lagoons, and pos-
2 sibly any leachate from the sludge storage sites. Again,
3 this will all be taken into consideration during the design
4 stage, and with proper operation and maintenance these types
of impacts should be minimized.
6 Groundwater quality is expected to improve in the
7 floodplain areas and downstream from the existing sewage
8 treatment plants as the wastewater treatment in the planning
9 area improves. However, I might note that the continued
10 use of existing and future use of on-site systems potential-
11 ly could cause groundwater problems if not properly main-
12 tained and sited, particularly in areas where alluvial wells
13 are the source of potable water supplies.
14 Biological resources—here I'll be talking about
15 terrestrial and aquatic biota. During the initial earth
16 moving activities during the construction phase, there wii:
17 be terrestrial impacts, principally from the loss of vegeta-
18 tion. There will be a temporary displacement of verte-
19 brate species—deer, rabbits, this type of thing. There
20 will be some mortality, of course, of some of the less
21
mobile species, the small mammals, and so forth. A lot of
9°
these species will reestablish themselves following reve-
getation pretty quickly, so there should not be a signi-
24
ficant problem there.
25 Particular attention should be paid to planning
4-51
-------
28
1 construction activities in and around the Mississippi River
2 floodplain area to minimize disruption of migratory water-
3 fowl. That is a major area for migrating waterfowl, and
4 some very simple, yet effective techniques like avoiding key
5 periods when the waterfowl are there can minimize those
6 types of impacts.
7 The aquatic productivity also could be adversely
8 affected in localized areas, but the effect should be tem-
9 porary and insignificant.
10 The overall long-term effect is expected to be
11 positive as the water quality improves in the planning area.
12 Construction-related impacts to wetlands and flood
!3 plains will occur primarily from interceptor line construc-
14 tion. Any land-disturbing activities in these types of
15 areas must have a detailed plan to minimize disturbance to
16 floodplains and any existing wetlands. The Fish and Wild-
17 life Service gets involved in this and a number of other re-
18 source agencies, so the mitigation should be adequate to
19 satisfy them. If it is, then the impact should be minimal.
20 The potential also exists for some secondary im-
21 pacts to wetlands, which could occur from future development
22 that might be encouraged as a result of the better waste-
23 water treatment in the area. Again, this gets into the area
24 of local land-use controls and land-use ordinances, dis-
25 couraging development of floodplains for obvious reasons,
4-52
-------
29
l the HUD regs., and so forth.
2 I have combined land-use and demography into one.
3 Significant land-use and demographic changes are really not
expected to occur solely from the impleitienta-tion of any of
5 the action alternatives. It is possible that some current
6 and future land uses could be affected to an unknown extent
by the provision of upgraded treatment facilities (or aban-
8 doning STPs.)
9 Prime farmlands, since only a very minimal addi-
10 tional acreage, I think about 10 acres in the case of the
Duckett Creek plant, will be rquired for expansion, im-
12 pacts on farmland should be minimal. However, construction
13 of the interceptor lines could, in some locations, inter-
14 rupt parts of agriculture operations during the construction
15 The next four categories I have lumped again,
16 economics, public services, transportation, and energy.
Construction activities would benefit the local economy to
some degree through creating a limited number of construc-
19 tion-related jobs, short-term jobs, and it would be the
20 normal purchasing of equipment and materials that could
21 benefit the local economy.
22 Disruption to public services should be minor,
23 and of relatively short duration. There is likely, however,
to be some increase^ in localized traffic, which is going to
25 lead to some localized traffic congestion and some incon-
4-53
-------
30
1 eniences to people that use the affected roadways. This
2 will continue throughout the construction phase, along those
3 roadways that are affected.
4 There would be some temporary increases in demand
5 for local energy resources, ostensibly here I'm talking
6 about gasoline and fuel oil. The overall energy supply,
7 though, is not expected to be affected during the construc-
8 tion or operation phase.
9 In terms of cultural resources, which have a great
10 deal of legislative authority behind them, there was a de-
ll tailed archeological survey done of all the proposed inter-
12 ceptor line corridors and the plant sites. No known cul-
13 ture resources are expected to be affected by expansion of
I4 the existing STPs, per se. However, there were, I believe,
16 four sites located, i.e., archeological sites. They were
16 located in or very near one or more of the proposed inter-
17 ceptor line corridors. If the sites cannot be avoided, ther
18 further testing would be required, by law, to determine
I9 their eligibility for nomination to the National Register
20 of Historic Places, and if the testing indicates that they
21 are eligible, then further mitigation would have to be look-
22 ed into. It may include data recovery, working with the
23 State Historic Preservation Officer, that kind of thing. I:
24 that was done, then the impacts would be minimal.
25 Last, but certainly not the least of concern, is
4-54
-------
31
1 the fiscal-related impacts. I would call your attention
2 to the last two tables in the handout, Tables 2-17 and 4-3.
3 The implementation of the recommended alternative is not
4 expected to impose a significant burden on residents in
5 the service areas. If you look at Table 2-17, really what's
6 shown here is a breakdown by user jurisdiction.of the annual
7 user charges for the current year and for the year 2000.
8 And the following table, which may be a little
9 more revealing, compares or presents the annual user charges
10 as a percentage of median household income, which is the
11 far right column. And you can see there that it ranges
12 from a low of .02 percent for St. Peter's to a high of over
!3 3 percent for the floodplain communities. The latter was
14 judged cost prohibitive, as I mentioned earlier, and that
15 particular centralized treatment for that area was deemed
16 not implementable.
17 The last point I wanted to make was in connection
18 with mitigation of impacts. As indicated, there will be
19 some adverse impacts associated with the proposed plan.
20 However, in order to receive Federal monies, adequate miti-
21 gation measures must be included in the constructions plans
22 and specifications, which are reviewed by the State, and a
23 number of other entities. If properly designed and imple-
24 mented, and these measures would include design, legal mea-
25 sures and planning-related considerations, they should sig-
4-55
-------
32
l nificantly reduce the adverse impacts from the project.
2 For those of you that are interested, I won't go through the
3 detailed listing, but in the EIS there were specific miti-
4 gation measures identified that could be adopted to mitigate
adverse impacts in the various resource areas. I think
that's on Page 4-31.
This concludes my remarks.
8 HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. White-
9 night.
10 . We will now open the floor to persons wishing to
make comments or statements. I have received cards, and
12 there are at least two persons who indicated they would like
13 to be heard, and we will take them alphabetically. Mr.
14 Richard E. Bone, and Mr. Bone, would you mind going up
15 to the mike so we could all hear you.
16 Mr. Bone, let me get some preliminaries. You
17 live at 16 Knight Lane, 0"Fallen, Missouri?
18 MR. BONE: That's correct.
19 HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: And you don't represent
20 any organization, you're just a citizen?
21 MR. BONE: I'm just a citizen, yes.
22 HEARING OFFICER JOHNSONS The floor is yours.
23 MR. BONE: Thank you. During your presentation
24
I noted several questions, and the first question I had is,
25 what percentage of overflow is there into groundwater and
,, 4-56
H-1
-------
33
1 local streams dur to insufficient water treatment facil-
2 ities available? Has that type of an impact been noted
3 during your investigation?
4 MR. WHITENIGHT: The impact has been noted, but
5 I couldn't give you percentage of overflow. I'm trying to
6 recall, I think there was a statistic in the facility plan
7 that estimated the number of failing septic tanks, and I
8 don't recall that statistic. I think we had estimated about
9 5,000 individual on-site treatment systems within the plan-
10 ning area. I can't tell you the percentage of failing sys-
11 terns.
12 MR. BONE: My next question was, how often do on-
13 site failures occur, and what are the results of these fail-
14 ures? As far as the sewage treatment plant is concerned?
15 MR. WHITENIGHT: They occur more frequently during
16 high rainfall events, obviously. Where the soils are inade-
17 quate to begin with, the failing could continue indefinitely
18 The effects from that are either untreated or partially
19 treated sewage elevating itself to the top, and either run-
20 ning out horizontally over the surface of the ground, or
21 conceivably getting into the groundwater system and percolat
22 ing out into the groundwater horizontally in a sub-surface
23 fashion. The impacts can be highly localized or they can be
24 fairly far-reaching, depending on the volume of effluent
25 and the extent of treatment it's received before it got out
4-57
H-2
-------
34
1 into the area. There is potential for significant adverse
2 impacts, particularly if there are any nearby water supplies
3 in the aquifers in that area. There is potential for contain
4 ination of the aquifers.
5 MR. BONE: It was also mentioned that the sludge
6 would be applied to the land. How is this done, is it
H-3
7 applied directly to the surface of the land, plowed under,
8 or exactly how is this done?
9 MR. WHITENIGHT: It's applied to the surface. I
1° might give that to my engineer friend here to give you a
11 thumbnail sketch, but it would be surface applied. There
12 are a variety of techniques, which I don't know if they
13 have been finalized yet in the sludge plan.
14 MR. HARBOUR: There is different techniques. Some
15 of them are direct injection, which is actually dirt below
16 ground. Others are applied and plowed in as the vehicle
17 goes along. St. Peter's, the City of St. Peter's, are ac-
18 tually doing land application at the moment. They weren't
19 at the time that we did the facility plan, but since that
20 time they have been. And the City of St. Charles is also
21 now actively applying sludge to the land. In the case of
22 St. Peter's the sludge is aerobically digested and stabil-
23 ized before it is land-applied. And in the case of St.
24 Charles, I think it's lime-stabilized before it's land-appli
25 ed. Ron, I don't know if you know anything?
4-58
-------
35
1 RON: I'm not sure about St. Charles.
2 MR. WHITENIGHT: Before any sludge is applied to
3 land and any areas except the extensive testing and monitor-
4 ing that has to go along with land application of sludge,
5 which is required by the State to maintain or insure that
6 there isn't contamination of the groundwater. And also,
7 the sludge has got to be tested itself to make sure that
8 there aren't any hazardous materials or harmful materials
9 that are going to destroy the soil, in other words.
10 MR. BONE: The impacts of the construction, then,
11 the implementation of your proposed plan would determine
12 the short-term, particularly in the environmental impacts
H-4
13 as far as the land use and the farms that were impacted by
14
23
the new lines that are going to have to be added. How long
15 do you calculate a short-term?
16 MR. WHITENIGHT: For purposes of the EIS, short-
17 term is defined as the duration of the construction period
18 when there would be active land-disturbing activities going
19 on for purposes of interceptor line construction or treat-
on
ment plant expansion,
21 MR. BONE: This is a question that I had on my
22 own, and I wanted to bring this in and hope we get an
answer: how are toxic waste products removed or treated
24 in the sewer treatment plants? There is definitely an
25 awareness in the St. Louis metropolitan area about a lot of
4-59
H-5
-------
36
1 toxic wastes being dumped on the ground, and it varies, all
2 different types of forms. How is this really treated?
3 MR. BARBOUR: In essence, depending on what the
4 toxic material is and the concentration, but most cities and
5 municipalities have got ordinances that prohibit the dumping
6 of toxic wastes into the sewer system, with a series of
7 fines to stop that. Again, depending on how much or what
8 the concentration, or what the actual toxic is, some toxics
9 would be broken down in a treatment plant, whereas, others
10 could actually cause major damage to the treatment plant
11 and actually, if it's a biological process, essentially
12 knock the process out, and have some serious effects until
13 such time as that could be reestablished. In the study
14 here, most of the area consisted of residential area. There
!5 are very few major industrial facilities, and the ones that
16 there are, I think, are fairly conscious of the materials
17 they produce, and the ordinances prohibiting them from dump-
18 ing into the sewer system.
19 MR. BONE: My next question, and this is my last
20 question, what will the government do for those farms that
21 are interrupted and cannot produce actively during the
H-e
22 construction period of the interceptor lines? Is there some
23 kind of reimbursement for crop yield not achieved?
24 MR. LORENZ: I think I can address that. In most
28 cases as a mitigative measure, we recommend that the com-
4-60
-------
37
1 munity that is implementing a facility like this, say laying
2 an interceptor line or something to that effect, that they
3 take into consideration the agricultural cycles that are
4 taking place in their community and that they avoid such
5 things when there are crops on the ground. This means that
6 there are several times during the year, from late fall to
7 winter, early spring before planting, that ground disrup-
8 tion can take place without interrupting agricultural cycles
9 Most of the time those pipes are set low enough below the
10 surface that they can go ahead and plant over them later on.
11 MR. HARBOUR: Another aspect I might mention is
12 that if any sewer line is going to cross private property,
13 farmland, or that invariably the municipality or sewer dis-
14 trict has to obtain the easement to go across that land, and
15 at which time there is usually some negotiation takes place,
16 in terms of either compensation, monetary or otherwise.
17 It's not something that the State or Federal grant program
18 will fund, but it's usually negotiated between the land-
19 owner and the sewer district or municipality.
20 MR. BONES: All right, thank you. That's all the
21 questions I have.
22 HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Bone.
23 Next is Joe Nichols, and you represent the Duckett Creek
24 Sewer District, 50 Daniel Boone Plaza, St. Charles, Missouri
25 is that correct?
4-61
-------
38
1 MR, NICHOLS: Yes, sir. My name is Joe Nichols.
2 I am the director of the Duckett Creek Sewer District.
3 First of all, I'd like to thank Tom Lorenz for all his work
4 on getting the environmental report together and to the
5 point that it is now. It is, of course, very important,
6 and we realize that the environmental impact statement has H-7
7 to be along with and as a part of the facility, 201 facilit-
8 ies plan. We appreciate all of his work in regard to that,
9 We want our projects, speaking now for Duckett
Creek Sewer District, we want our projects to be environ-
11 mentally sound.
12 Tonight I would like to raise another issue, and
13 that is, the importance of getting the EIS, the environmen-
tal impact statement, approved, and getting on with the
15 completion of the improvements. Mr. Smith and I just got
16 back from Jefferson City this afternoon, and we are listed
17 as fourth on the State grants fundable list. We feel that
18 this is our only opportunity, due to the cutback in Federal
H~8
19 funds, of getting Federal funds to help correct our sewer
90
m problems.
21 St. Charles County is one of the fastest growing
22 counties in the entire nation. There are problems with
23 sewers in St. Charles County, and we need Federal funds to
24 do that. We feel that this is our opportunity, we are high
25 on the list, we are eligible for funding, and we want to
4-62
-------
39
take advantage of that.
2 The people of the sewer district recognize this
3 fact, and they passed a six-and-a-half million dollar bond
4 issue overwhelmingly this past year. It was 78 percent
5 of those people who voted there were in favor of the bond
6 issue.
7 '
In order to take advantage, we must be ready to
8 proceed by October 1, which is the start of the Federal bud-
9 get year. That's when the Federal government tells the State;
10 of Missouri how much funds they are going to have available
and if we are not ready, then, of course, we will be dropped
12 from the list. We are, in anticipation of this, starting
13
design on June 1, so that our plans will be ready by the
14 deadline, which is January 31. We are not going to wait and
15 see if Federal funds are in effect, available. We feel con-
16 fident that they will be, and we feel that we must proceed
17 now in order to get the designs completed within that time
18 limit.
19
If we are denied this funding for any reason, the
20 effect, we feel, on the environment will be far worse in
the polluted creeks and the health hazards that will result
22
than the impact of the improvements that we are proposing,
no
or that are being proposed to be constructed as part of this
24 plan.
25
We ask that the environmental impact statement be
4-63
H-8
-------
40
l approved prior to October 1, 1985. We feel the time has
2 come to quit studying and to start constructing these much-
3 needed improvements. Thank you very much.
4 HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Nichols.
5 I have two cards here that it's not indicated if they want
6 make a statement or not. I'll just ask you, and let me know
7 Who is Dick Berber?
8 MR. HERBER: I don't have anything.
9 HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: Thank you. And Armin
10 Gronefeld?
11 MR. GRONEFELD: No, I just came here to see what's
12 going on.
13 HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Grone-
14 feld. Does anybody else want to make a comment?
15 Before we close, then, I'd like to mention again
16 that the comment period does not close until May 20, which
17 is 11 days, and any written comment should be sent to the
18 attention of Edward Vest, Chief Environmental Impact Sec-
19 tion, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
20 And if you need that address more clearly I can give it to
21 you as soon as we close.
22 Thank you for coming, and I declare this hearing
23 adjourned.
24 (Whereupon, at 8:05 o'clock p.m., the hearing in
25 the above-entitled matter was closed.)
4-64
H-8
-------
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that this is the transcript of
the proceedings held in the following matter:
Before:. Kent Johnson
TJtle: Environmental Impact Statement Proposed
TSasTewaTer' ~Tre"a"tWtTt~I^TrrtTe"s for Eastern
St. Charlee Count/, MO
Case No.
Date: Ma-' 9j
Place: St. Charles, MO
and that this is a full and correct transcript of the
above referenced proceedings to the best.of my knowledge
and belief.
(Reporter)
Eernlce W. .T2ckson Reporting Co,
Kansas City, Missouri 6^310
(816-523-3030)
4-65
-------
Responses
H-l. An overall percentage of overflow volume which enters groundwater or
surface water from insufficient wastewater treatment facilities in the
planning area has not been estimated; however, overflows or bypasses have
been documented at the Missour River STP and Mississippi River STP. The
status of existing flow and BOD capacities as well as NPDES permit com-
pliance for each major STP is as follows:
• Duckett Creek Plant - plant is operating at 54% of flow capacity and
50% of BOD capacity; plant effluent does not consistently meet BOD and
TSS permit limits.
» Harvester-Derdenne Plant - plant is operating at 80% flow capacity and
78% BOD capacity; plant effluent does not consistently meet BOD and TSS
limits.
* South Plant - plant is operating near flow capacity; no compliance data
available.
• Boschertown Lagoon - no flow meters available, effluent does not con-
sistently meet BOD and TSS permit limits. NPDES permit requires lagoon
to be abandoned within 90 days after a trunk sewer is available.
• Mississippi River Plant - plant is operating at 75% flow capacity and
49% BOD capacity; plant consistently meets effluent limitations except
for fecal coliforms. There are times when a portion (unestimated) of
the flow bypasses secondary treatment because of excessive flows and
mud infiltration.
• Missouri River Plant - plant is operating at 106% flow capacity, making
it necessary to bypass raw sewage to the Missouri River at the Adams
Street pumping station (frequency of bypasses not estimated).
• St. Charles Trails Plant - plant is operating at 34% flow capacity and
does not consistently meet effluent BOD and TSS permit limits. Plant
must be abandoned within 90 days after a trunk sewer is available.
• Heatherbrook Lagoon - lagoon is operating at 39% flow capacity,
although effluent BOD, TSS and pH permit limits are not consistently
met. The lagoon must be abaondoned within 90 days after a trunk sewer
is available.
• Spencer Creek Plant - plant is operating at 57% of flow capacity and
51% of BOD capacity. The effluent does not consistently meet permit
limits for TSS, but does meet BOD limits. Major operational pro-
blems have been reported during excessive rainfall events. Inflow
of runoff into sewer manholes has caused major increases in waste-
4-66
-------
water flows during storms. Also during rainfall events, effluent has
had difficulty in flowing by gravity to the receiving stream because
the stream level during heavy rains is higher than the effluent dis-
charge point which requires the effluent flow to be temporarily
diverted to the sludge holding pond.
• Portage Community Septic Tank - flow is not monitored, but is estimated
to be about 62% of capacity. The effluent consistently violates BOD
and TSS permit limitations.
With regard to the onsite wastewater treatment systems in the planning area,
most of the estimated 5,000 onsite systems are either septic tanks with soil
absorption systems or aerated tanks with surface discharges. Many (not
quantified) of these systems were observed to be failing, as evidenced by
surface discharges of partially treated effluent; however, the frequency of
failure has not been determined. In general, the onsite systems appear to be
poorly maintained. Septic tanks are usually not pumped until they have over-
flowed and backed up. The facilities planner (Sverdrup & Parcel and
Asssociates, Inc.) identified numerous specific problem areas where on-site
systems were observed as failing; these areas were illustrated on Figure 2-3,
page 2-23 of the Draft EIS.
The primary environmental effects from onsite systems have been noted in
the Draft EIS and include potential degradation of either surface water or
groundwater quality. Although each failing onsite system generally contri-
butes only small quantities of contaminants to ground or surface waters, the
total flow of partially treated onsite system effluent in the planning area
was calculated in the facilities plan to be approximately 0.5 mgd, based on a
50% failure rate, i.e., 2,500 failing onsite systems. (Although several local
officials claim that nearly 100% of the onsite systems are failing in some
manner, a 50% failure rate was chosen as a more conservative estimate, based
on field observations.) Many of the interior streams in the planning area
already have poor water quality. The addition of partially treated onsite
system effluent, either as continuous discharge or as non-point source runoff
following rainfall events, would contribute to the already poor water quality
caused by urban runoff, sewer overflows or bypasses, and point-source dis-
charges. Surface and groundwater contamination increases the potential for
public health hazards from contact with, or ingestion of, water containing
harmful bacteria and other pathogens.
4-67
-------
The severity of the failing onsite system problem centers on the poten-
tial public health hazard issue. Some problems exist in the floodplain devel-
opments due to the potential for contamination of private drinking water
systems by onsite system effluents. A significant problem occurs in the
densely populated, unsewered developments in the upland portions of the plan-
ning area. Surface discharge of onsite system effluent onto lawns, pastures,
or vacant lots, or into roadside ditches or creek beds, is common practice in
many parts of the planning area. Contact with these bacteria-laden waters by
pets, domestic livestock, or children creates a potential health hazard for
area residents. In addition, many areas have formally developed common
effluent collection pipes to transport the effluent from failing onsite sys-
tems to vacant lots or small creeks. This practice increases the concentra-
tion at point of discharge and can cause further water quality degradation in
streams now classified as effluent-limited. Another, more localized problem
occurs in those areas with sinkholes and other characteristics of karst topo-
graphy. Discharge of onsite system effluent into sinkholes may result in
groundwater contamination and a potential public health hazard if the aquifer
is a source of potable water. Following rehabilitation or elimination of
these failing onsite systems, combined with better technical guidance in
siting and operating onsite systems, the adverse impacts from these systems
should be reduced significantly.
H-2. See response to H-l above.
H-3. For the purposes of this EIS, land application is differentiated from
landfill disposal by the fact that land application is a surface disposal
method whereas landfill is a burial technique. Land application usually
utilizes stabilized sludge as a soil conditioner. Liquid sludge, sludge
cake, or dried sludge can be applied and, normally, the sludge is tilled
into the soil after application. Land application is a relatively inex-
pensive method of disposal if suitable sites are available and,
especially, if liquid sludge applications are used, thus eliminating
costs of dewatering and related treatment.
4-68
-------
H-4. For purposes of this EIS, short-term impacts are defined as those impacts
which would occur during the construction period when active land distur-
bing activities are taking place. Long-term impacts (e.g., land use and
population charges) will occur following the construction phase and could
continue throughout the 20-year planning period.
H-5. Toxic wastes entering a municipal treatment system can be very problema-
tical; however, the best policy is to implement and enforce local indus-
trial pretreatment ordinances that strictly prohibit the discharge of
toxic wastes into public sewers systems and that place limits on other
industrial wastes that can be discharged into a publicly-owned treatment
facility. However, if toxic materials do enter a municipal treatment
system, depending on the quantity, type, and concentrations of the toxic
constituents, selected toxics can be broken down in the plant while
others could cause a serious plant upset especially if the facility
relies on biological processes for treatment. Since the predominant land
use in the planning area is agricultural in nature, very few major indus-
trial discharges exist and those that do, have a good discharge record
and/or are regulated by industrial pretreatment ordinances.
H-6. In most cases as a mitigation measure, EPA recommends that the grantee,
during the scheduling of facility construction, take into consideration
the agricultural planting/harvesting cycles in their respective communi-
ties in order to avoid or minimize interruption of normal farming prac-
tices. Also following facility construction (e.g., laying an interceptor
line), farming activities generally can resume in the immediate vicinity
of the line without any adverse problems. Also, if any sewer line
crosses private property, the grantee nearly always must obtain an
easement to allow traversing the property. At this time some negotiation
usually occurs in terms of compensation, monetary or otherwise, between
the landowner and the sewer district or municipality.
H-7. Comment noted.
H-8. Comment noted.
4-69
-------
APPENDIX A
KEY CORRESPONDENCE
(Status of Missouri River Levee System, Unit L-15 Project)
A-l
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Kansas City District
Missouri River Levee System
Unit L-15
A
General Information
Construction of Levee Unit L-15 was authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1944. The levee unit was
further studied in the early 1970's. The project was classified inactive after the study because there was
strong opposition to future development that could occur with 100-year protection, and because the risk of
catastrophic failure associated with lower levels of protection was considered unacceptable. Local interest
in flood protection rekindled in 1983-84. In response to local interest in flood protection, Congress included
$250,000 in the Corps of Engineers budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 1985 to review the feasibility of the L-15
project and to determine nonFederal cost sharing requirements. A notice of study initiation and a field trip
to St. Charles County began the study in October 1984. The remainder of this status report summarizes the
study progress since October 1984.
Completed Work
Work that has been accomplished since October 1984 includes:
1. Dissemination of a notice of study initiation to Federal, State, and local governmental agencies
and to the public.
2. Completion of a survey of the top elevation of existing agricultural levees along the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers.
3. Completion of basic hydrologic and hydraulic investigations.
4. Initiation of basic social, cultural, environmental and economic investigations.
5. Formulation of several study alternatives.
Schedule for Remaining Work
The current schedule for the study effort calls for the economic evaluation of alternatives, including a
determination of nonFederal cost sharing requirements for any feasible alternatives to be completed by the
late fall of 1985.
Alternatives under Consideration
Three alternatives are currently being evaluated. These are:
• A levee on an alignment submitted by landowners in St. Charles County that were responsible
for initiation of this study.
• A levee that would follow the adopted floodway along the Missouri River and the "No Signifi-
cant Effect" floodway boundary along the Mississippi River. A floodway boundary for the
Mississippi River portion of the project area has not been adopted at this time. The "No Signifi-
cant Effect" floodway is being used in this study in order to be responsive to the interests of
Illinois residents regarding increasing flood elevations. Its use in this study is not an indication
that it is approved or adopted by any Federal, State or local agency.
• Ring levees around improvements in the floodplain.
The enclosed map shows the levee alignments that are being evaluated.
A-2
-------
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
700 FEDERAL BUILDING
601 EAST 12TH STREET
BULK RATE I
POSTAGE & FEES PAID '
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYj
PERMIT Nc. 6-5 f
KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64106-2896 ' '
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
MRKPO-A-25-1
Response from the Notice of Study Initiation
Response from the notice of study initiation was quite heavy indicating a high level of interest in the
project. The Corps received about 500 cards and letters. Comments were about evenly divided between sup-
port and opposition to levee construction. Basically, persons residing east of the Mississippi River
expressed opposition to levee construction and Missouri residents were nearly unanimous in support of
levee construction. A petition bearing 2,445 signatures in support of levee construction was also received in
addition to the cards and letters.
Common reasons cited for opposition to levee construction were:
1. Levee construction would increase flood heights on the Illinois side of the Mississippi River.
2. Additional commercial and industrial development would be attracted to the area changing the
land use'from agricultural to urban. This would introduce competition to commercialized
communities across the Mississippi in the minds of some commentators while others suggested
that an urban area across the river would be less esthetically pleasing.
Both Missouri and Illinois residents appear to agree that the area would be best served by protecting
the agricultural character of the area without additional industrialization.
Address Corrections
Please review your mailing label on this report and advise us of your correct name and/or address if
there is an error (please print or type). Mail your name/address corrections to:
Kansas City District
Corps of Engineers
Attn: MRKPD-A
700 Federal Building
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896
A-4
-------
THE KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CORDIALLY INVITES YOU TO ATTEND A
Public Workshop
Meeting
CONCERNING
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE UNIT L-15
To be Held at
The Orchard Farm High School
July 2, 1985
7:30 P.M.
MEETING LOCATION
ORCHARD FARM
HIGH SCHOOL
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Kansas City District
A-5
-------
ooe* 'asn aivAiwd UQJ
ss3Nisna
S-S -ON ilHH3d
AHHV 3H1 dO lN3HiHW3a
OlVd S33J
nivw
9683-901*9 IbflOSSIW 'AJJO SVSNVX
iaaais »izi isva u»
ONianna nvaaoad oo^
S«33NION3 dO SddOO 'iOldlSId AilO SVSNVX
AWUV 3H1 JO INlWiUVdaa
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM
UNIT L-15
The L-15 study area consists of the combined Missouri River and Mississippi
River flood piains from St. Charles, Missouri downstream to the Mississippi River
and from just upstream of Portage des Sioux downstream to the Missouri River.
The Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers published an announcement in
October 1984 concerning the initiation of the L-15 study. A Study Status report
was published in May 1985. This meeting is being held to allow the interested
public an opportunity to comment on any aspect of the study.
You are invited to express your interest and to become involved in the study
at this meeting.
Please circulate this notice to any other persons whom you believe may have
an interest in this study.
If you need additional information about this meeting please contact Mr. Don
Hammond, Study Manager, at 816-374-3062 or write to the following address:
Department of the Army
Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: MRKPD-A
700 Federal Building
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896
A-6
-------
Missouri River Levee System
US Army Con* UlHt H5
studv uPdate
September 1985
On July 2,1985, staff from the Kansas City District Corps of Engineers attended a meeting with per-
sons interested in the future of Missouri River Levee Unit L-15. The meeting was held at the Orchard Farm
School in St. Charles County, Missouri, because the school is in the study area.
The primary purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for persons interested in the future
of the project to express concerns related to the need for the project and its effects. The concerns expressed
at the meeting will help Corps of Engineers staff continue planning the project. The expressions of people
from the project area are necessary to be sure that the study will adequately consider all the aspects of the
project that are important to the people of the area, and not unnecessarily devote study resources to unim-
portant issues. The process of determining the important issues is called scoping.
The people of the project area and the Corps of Engineers are not the only groups involved in scoping.
State and local governments and other Federal agencies may also be aware of issues that should properly be
addressed in the study. However, the process for obtaining the expressions of these other study par-
ticipants is more structured and does not usually require a meeting devoted to obtaining those expressions.
As explained at the July 2 meeting, study of the L-15 project is still in the initial stage. The determin-
ing factor in whether or not the study moves beyond the initial phase is an economic analysis the Corps will
complete later this year. That analysis will not include all the costs, nor will it include highly refined
estimates of the benefits of the project. Rather, it will compare an estimate of the construction cost of the
levee to the benefits that might be obtained from a 25-year level of protection for the project area. Should
that analysis show that potential benefits do not exceed even the basic construction cost, detailed study
would not be productive and the study would be terminated. However, should the project show indications
of potential economic feasibility, the next step would be to start more detailed analysis.
The following are brief descriptions of the concerns expressed at the July 2 meeting, together with the
Corps assessment of how those concerns may or may not relate to the scope of the L-15 study. Refining the
scope of a study is an ongoing process that reflects information as it becomes available and conclusions as
they are reached.
Mississippi River induced flooding: The concern most widely held and most frequently reiterated at
the meeting was for those flood damages that would occur in Illinois as a result of excluding flood waters
from the L-15 area. This concern includes property damage at Elsah, Grafton, and Alton, Illinois, interrup-
tion of use of the Great River Road, and impacts on the development of a tourist economy in Illinois.
The Kansas City District agrees that induced flooding effects are an integral part of the L-15 study.
Before levee construction would be recommended, the amount of induced flooding would be identified.
When induced flooding produces appreciable increased flood damages, the increase in damages for the proj-
ect life is estimated and included in tallying the benefits and costs of the project. However, the L-15 study
has already focused on a 25-year level of protection which causes an insignificant increase in 100-year flood
heights on the Mississippi River (one tenth of one foot). For so small an increase in flood height, it will not
be possible to estimate a value for induced flooding. Should the L-15 study expand to other alternatives
that produce induced flooding for which increased damages could be estimated, that would represent a
change in the scope of the study and the Corps would estimate the damages in that case.
Induced flooding on the Missouri River: Some areas of St. Louis County would likely experience in-
creased flood heights caused by excluding the L-15 area from the Missouri River flood plain. For a 100-year
flood on the Missouri River, the stage at some locations would be increased between 1 and 2 feet if the L-15
A-7
-------
levee were in place to provide a 25-year level of protection. People at the July 2 meeting expressed concern
for increased flood damages in these areas and noted some areas of particular concern. The L-15 study
would identify the areas affected by induced flooding and estimate the value of the increased flood damages
for the life of the project.
Urban development of the L-15 area: At the meeting, individuals from the project area and from
Illinois expressed their determination to preserve the agricultural character of the L-15 area. Some in-
dividuals expressed concern that reducing the flood threat in the area by levee construction would provide
an incentive for investors to convert the protected area to other uses. Others expressed concern for the
displacement of wildlife by development.
The Kansas City District acknowledges that levee construction as a general concept might affect land
use in the project area. However, decisions on the best use of private land are traditionally made by state
and local governments. The Corps of Engineers has no authority to direct private land use, although it does
have a responsibility under Executive Order 11988 to discourage unwise development of areas that are ex-
pected to be flooded more often than once in 100 years, on the average. Through zoning by St. Charles
County as part of its participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, land use in the L-15 area can
be controlled. If the L-15 25-year levee is to be recommended for construction by the Corps of Engineers,
land use controls will have to be in place to assure preservation of the agricultural character of the area for
the foreseeable future.
Sediment accumulating in the river channels will cause more induced flooding in the
future or create the need to raise the L-15 Levee: Several individuals at the meeting expressed
concern for the effects of sediment accumulation on flooding. They suggested that, after several years, the
levee would be less effective than it was designed to be because of sediment accumulated in the river channel.
The Kansas City District agrees that future effects of the proposed levee should be fully considered
before deciding whether or not to recommend construction. The Corps of Engineers has a prior interest in
sediment movement in both the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers because the Corps has the responsibility
of maintaining commercial navigation on both. Information already available on sedimentation near the
L-15 area could be used to project the effects of sediment on the effectiveness of the levee design. The exist-
ing information indicates that the bed elevation of the river channels has not risen significantly in the past.
Corps estimates of induced flooding or induced flood damages will be understated be*
cause floods have been observed to be higher and more frequent than the Corps analyses
indicate: Some individuals stated that floods to which the Corps assigns an infrequent recurrence interval
appear to be occurring more often than the recurrence interval would indicate. One individual summarized
this concern by asking how often to expect a 25-year flood.
The Kansas City District recognizes that hydraulic and hydrologic analyses of the Missouri and Missis-
sippi Rivers are within the scope of the L-15 study. These analyses for the lower Missouri River are per-
formed by the Kansas City District, and, for the Mississippi River in the L-15 area, they are performed by
the St. Louis District. The analyses are based on historic flood records and observed conditions which are
used as a guide to estimate future conditions. The estimate of future conditions relies on the quality of the
historic records. Fortunately, the records of both the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers are some of the most
complete in the United States. The hydraulic and hydrologic analyses can only assume the rivers will
behave in the future as they behaved in the past. These estimates are not infallible. They are, however, the
best available tools to answer critical questions about the future flood threat to the L-15 area and nearby locations.
Over several decades, human activities on the rivers have caused impacts which accumu-
late from activity to activity and from year to year. The L-15 Levee should not be built
because it could be the one project that shifts a critical balance and triggers catastrophic
consequences all along the river system: The concept of cumulative impacts was mentioned by
several individuals at the meeting, sometimes with respect to water pollution, sometimes with respect to
sediment, and sometimes with respect to other Corps of Engineers projects including Lock and Dam No. 26.
A-8
-------
The scope of the L-15 study would include examination of the possibility that levee construction could
have cumulative effects. This examination would determine the expected effects of adding the L-15 project
to the existing set of conditions including the combined effects of all other human activities. However, only
the changes brought about by construction of the L-15 project would be considered in deciding whether or
not to recommend construction. A comprehensive study of all human activity affecting the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers since the river basins were first settled would not be an appropriate part of the L-15 study.
The new Lock and Dam No. 26 will change the Mississippi River to the extent that
adverse effects of the L-15 Levee will be worsened: At the July 2 meeting, only the Kansas City
District of the Corps of Engineers was represented. Lock and Dam No. 26 is a project of the St. Louis
District. The Kansas City District requested at the meeting that statements be confined to the L-15 topic
and the participants cooperated for the most part. Nevertheless, it was apparent that many of the same per-
sons who were concerned about L-15 were also concerned about Lock and Dam No. 26 which adjoins the
L-15 project area.
Effects of the new lock and dam on the L-15 project would be considered in formulating the L-15 project
and any effects of L-15 on the lock and dam would be considered in deciding whether or not to recommend
levee construction. The St. Louis District has the responsibility for determining the effects of Lock and
Dam No. 26 on the Mississippi River and for any decisions on the future of the lock and dam project. The
Kansas City District has. the responsibility for the L-15 project. Study of, or recommendations on, the
future of Lock and Dam No. 26 are not within the scope of the L-15 study. However, the L-15 study will be
coordinated with the St. Louis District to assure all project effects are identified.
The Kansas City District appreciates the public participation in the July 2 meeting. The study of a
project such as L-15 is more effective and orderly when all major concerns surface early in the study pro-
cess. In this regard, you are encouraged to make this publication available to anyone interested in the L-15
project and to make your concerns known to the Kansas City District. As stated above, developing the
scope of a study is an ongoing process.
We do not plan any widespread communications similar to this one until later this year when the
preliminary economic analysis indicates whether the study should proceed to the next phase. Until then, we
at the Kansas City District will be available to answer questions related to the L-15 project. You may send
your questions or comments to the address below or you may phone the study manager, Don Hammond,
(816) 374-3062.
A-9
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Kansas City District
Missouri River Levee System
Unit L-15
Study Update
December 1985
Construction of Levee Unit L-15 was authorized
in the Flood Control Act of 1944. After study in the
early 1970's, the project was classified inactive
because there was no feasible solution.
Because of flood problems in 1982 and 1983,
substantial renewed interest developed for a 25- to
50-year level of flood protection. Congress included
$250.000 in the Corps of Engineers budget for
Fiscal Year (FY) 1985 to review the feasibility of the
L-15 project and to determine non-Federal cost shar-
ing requirements. Congress appropriated $210,000
to continue study in FY 1986.
The Kansas City District began the study in Oc-
tober 1984. Two levee alignments were evaluated.
One alignment would follow existing private levees
through the area (see map) and would protect an
estimated 29,000 agricultural acres. The second
alignment would follow the adopted floodway
boundary along the Missouri River and the "No
Significant Effect" floodway boundary along the
Mississippi River and would protect an estimated
24,000 agricultural acres. (A floodway boundary for
the Mississippi River portion of the project area has
not been adopted.) In October 1985, the Kansas City
District completed its preliminary economic
analysis of the alternatives at October 1985 price
levels and 8%-percent interest. The results are:
Landowner's Alignment:
(25-year protection)
Total Cost
25% non-Federal cost
35% non-Federal cost
Benefits
Annual Cost
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Net Benefits
Floodway Alignment
(25-year protection)
Total Cost
25% non-Federal Cost
35% non-Federal Cost
Benefits
Annual Cost
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Net Benefits
$19,370,000
$ 4,842,500
$ 6,779,500
$ 2,590.000
$ 2,181,500
1.19
$408,500
$
$18,255.000
$ 4,563.750
6,389,250
$ 2,399,000
$ 2,060,200
1.16
$338,800
A-10
The results of the analysis were presented to the
St. Charles County Commission and landowners on
October 29, 1985. The St. Charles County Commis-
sion and landowners reviewed the information dur-
ing November and the St. Charles County Commis-
sion provided a letter of support for continued study
of the project on November 26, 1985.
Study Requirements
The study is being conducted in accordance with
the Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies published by the US Water
Resources Council, and appropriate Corps of Engi-
neers regulations. The Corps is required to evaluate
a wide range of alternatives. Consequently, the
number of alternatives evaluated in the initial phase
of the study is being expanded in two ways: 1) addi-
tional levels of protection above 25-year flood pro-
tection will be studied and documented, and 2) addi-
tional alignments will be evaluated. The expanded
alternatives are discussed in more detail below.
Higher Levels of Protection
During the preliminary evaluation of the project.
the Corps limited its evaluation to the 25-year level
of flood protection on two levee alignments. Higher
levels of protection were not evaluated because the
impacts associated with induced flooding that
would accompany protection at levels above 25-year
were expected to be unacceptable. To save time and
expense, the benefits and costs for higher levels of
protection were not calculated in the preliminary
analysis. The outlook for higher levels of protection
has not changed, but investigating these alter-
natives in some additional detail is necessary to
have a complete evaluation.
Additional Alignments
Two additional levee alignments have been pro-
posed for evaluation. (See map) These are
designated alignments 3 and 4.
Alignment 3 would follow the floodway alignment
downstream from St. Charles, Missouri, along the
Missouri River and up the Mississippi River to the
Clark bridge.
Alignment 4 would follow the floodway alignment
downstream from St. Charles, Missouri, along the
-------
A-ll
-------
Missouri River to about Missouri River mile 15. It
would then cross land to the Mississippi River just
downstream from Portage des Sioux and would
again follow the floodway alignment upstream
along the Mississippi River.
Modification of Landowners' Alignment
The preliminary economic evaluation
demonstrated that the levee alignment originally
submitted by St. Charles County landowners was
not economically justified. The Corps shortened the
alignment by crossing to the Mississippi River far-
ther upstream from the mouth of the Missouri River
than the landowners originally requested. The
resulting levee alignment (see map) is about 5 miles
shorter than the original landowners' alignment and
is economically feasible.
The Array of Alternatives
The following is the array of alternatives for more
detailed study:
• No action,
• Levees that would provide protection from 25-,
50-, and 100-year floods on four alignments as
shown on the enclosed map, and
• Construction of ring levees to protect develop-
ment subject to flood damage - the nonstruc-
tural plan.
Study Schedule
The Kansas City District is continuing with the
L-15 study based on the letter of support furnished
by the St. Charles County Commission on
November 26, 1985. The District plans to complete
its evaluation of the alternatives during 1986 and to
provide Federal, State and local government agen-
cies and interested individuals with a draft report
and draft environmental statement for review and
comment early in 1987. After public review, the
Kansas City District Engineer would decide
whether to recommend construction of any flood
control works for the study area in St. Charles Coun-
ty. A final report including the District Engineer's
recommendations would be sent to higher head-
quarters in the fall of 1987 for approval: If the
District Engineer recommends construction of a
project and-if his recommendation is approved by
higher headquarters, about 4 years of additional
detailed investigations would be required before
construction could begin. Construction of the unit
would then be considered under the cost-sharing and
financing policy in effect at that time.
Other Information
Other mailings have been made that have pro-
vided information on the L-15 study. These mailings
were a notice of study initiation in October 1984, a
status report in May 1985, and a study update in
September 1985. If you failed to receive a copy of
any of these documents, you may obtain a copy by
writing the Kansas City District Office at the ad-
dress shown below.
Address Correction
Please review your mailing label and advise us of
your correct name and/or address if there is an error
(please print or type). Mail your name/address cor-
rections to:
Kansas City District
Corps of Engineers
Attn: MRKPD-A
700 Federal Building
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
KANSAS CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
700 FEDERAL BUILDING
601 EAST 12TH STREET
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64106-2896
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
MRKPO-A.2H
! FlflST CLASS MAIt
POSTAGE & FEES PAID '
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY!
PERMIT No. G-5 I
J-. Keith Whitenight
Wapora Corp.
Ch
Chevy Chase, MD.
&-I2
-------
APPENDIX B
MAILING LIST FOR FINAL EIS
-------
APPENDIX 8
DUCKETT CREEK
MAILING LIST FOR FINAL EIS
FEDERAL
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Washington, DC
Federal Aviation Administration
Kansas City, MO
Federal Highway Administration
Kansas City, MO
Missouri Federal Assistant Clearinghouse
Jefferson City, MO
National Park Service
Rocky Mountain Region
Denver, CO
President's Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
Lakewood, CO
Regional Environmental Officer
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO
U.S. Army Engineer District
Kansas City, MO
U.S. Army Engineer District
St. Louis, MO
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Kansas City, MO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas City, MO:
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Grants Information Branch
Facilities Requirements Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC:
Non-point Sources Branch
Office of Federal Activities
Office of Legislation
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Washington, DC
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia, MO
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development
Kansas City, MO
U.S. Department of the Interior
Missouri Cooperative Fishery Research Unit
University of Missouri
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, DC
U.S. Department of Transportation
Kansas City, MO
U.S. Senator John C. Danforth
Washington, DC
Jo Randolph, Washington, DC
Rob McDonald, St. Louis, MO
Clair Elsberry, Jefferson City, MO
Georganne Hedges, Kansas City, MO
Jeanne Lineberry, Kansas City, MO
Richard Struckhoff, Springfield, MO
Teresa Poole, Springfield, MO
Marline Morrison, Springfield, MO
U.S. Senator Thomas F. Eagleton
Washington, DC
Rindy O'Brien, Washington, DC
Debbie King, St. Louis, MO
Woody Overton, Kansas City, MO
Joe Dugan, Kansas City, MO
Girard Grimaldi, Kansas City, MO
L. Gene Bickel, Jefferson City, MO
U.S. Congressman E. Thomas Coleman
Washington, DC
Susan Adkins, Washington, DC
Ruth Coffman, Kansas City, MO
Marylin Erganian, St. Joseph, MO
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
FEDERAL (cont'd.)
U.S. Congressman Bill Emerson
Washington, DC
Hank Harbour, Washington, DC
Lloyd Smith, Cape Girardeau, MO
Doris Turner, Rolla, MO
U.S. Congressman Gene Taylor
Washington, DC
Tony Hammond, Washington, DC
Gerald Henson, Washington, DC
Gary Nodler, Joplin, MO
Bonnie Grume, Springfield, MO
U.S. Congressman Harold Volkmer
Washington, DC
Cherry Scheloman, Washington, DC
Lee Viorel, Hannibal,
Wiley Hibbard, Hannibal, MO
Carol Preisack, O'Fallen, MO
Carol Phillips, Macon, MO
Kathleen Anderson, Columbia, MO
Tom Politic, Washington, MO
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B
STATE
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Jefferson City, MO
Missouri Department of Conservation
Consortium of Environmental Education
St. Louis, MO
Missouri Department of Conservation
Jefferson City, MO
Missouri Department of Health & Education
Services
Kansas City, MO
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
St. Louis, MO
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Rolla, MO
jf
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson City, MO
Representative Richard Roehl
Jefferson City, MO
Representative Thomas Barklage
Jefferson City, MO
Representative Russell Brockfield
Jefferson City, MO
Representative George Dames
Jefferson City, MO
Senator Fred Dyer
Jefferson City, MO
Soil & Water Districts Commission
Jefferson City, MO
State Extension Services
Columbia, MO
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
Anglers of Missouri, Inc.
St. Louis, MO
Audubon Society of Missouri
Columbia, MO
Audubon Society of Missouri
St. Louis, MO
Conservation Federation of Missouri
Jefferson City, MO
Daniel Boone Wildlife League
Columbia, MO
Home Builders Association
St. Louis, MO
League of Women Voters
St. Louis, MO
Midwest Friends of the Earth
Columbia, MO
Missouri Chapter of the Nature
Conservancy
St. Louis, MO
Missouri Citizen's Action
St. Louis, MO
Missouri Sportsman for Clean Outdoors
Florissant, MO
Missouri State Campers Association
Kansas City, MO
Missouri Wilderness Coalition
Columbia, MO
Osage Chapter of the Sierra Club
Columbia, MO
Ozark Area Land Trust
Drury, MO
Redbird Bassmasters
St. Louis, MO
St. Charles Countians Against Harzardous
Waste
St. Charles, MO
Wildlife Society
Holt Summit, MO
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Patricia Boschert, City Clerk
City of Portage des Sioux
Portage des Sioux, MO
Ed Brockshire
City of 0*Fallen
0*Falion, MO
Honorable Thomas Brown
Mayor of St. Peters
St. Peters, MO
Gilbert Carey
Mississippi River Treatment Plant
St. Charles, MO
John Carpenter
St. Charles County Health Department
Wentzville, MO
Peggy Coppage
County of St. Charles
St. Charles, MO
Duckett Creek Sewer District
St. Charles, MO
East-West Gateway Coordinating Council
St. Louis, MO
Honorable Clemence Echele
Mayor of the City of Portage des Sioux
Portage des Sioux, MO
Thomas E. Glosier, Trustee
County of St. Charles
St. Charles, MO
Richard Green, Trustee
County of St. Charles
St. Charles, MO
Earl Holtgraewe, Director of Engineering
City of St. Peters
St. Peters, MO
Robert Irvin, City Administrator
City of St. Peters
St. Peters, MO
Jim Lindemann, Trustee
Cottleville, MO
Honorable Steve Linneham
Mayor of Lake St. Louis
Lake St. Louis, MO
Kathryn M. Linnemann
Branch Library
St. Charles, MO
Herbert J. Ochs,
Assistant Superintendent
City of St. Charles
St. Charles, MO
Regional Sewer District
St. Charles, MO
Spencer Road Branch Library
St. Peters, MO
John Vinson, City Administrator
City of St. Charles
St. Charles, MO
C.V. Walkenhorst,
Superintendent of Public Works
City of St. Charles
St. Charles, MO
George Weible, City Attorney
City of St. Charles
St. Charles, MO
Honorable Melvin G. Wetter
Mayor of St. Charles
St. Charles, MO
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B
CITIZENS
Paul Adams
St. Charles, MO
Bob Balcom
St. Peters, MO
John M. Bogdamor
Ferguson, MO
Richard Bone
O'Fallon, MO
Hike Dougherty
St. Peters, MO
Elmer Dwyer
St. Charles, MO
Don Hallemeier
St. Charles, MO
Keith Hazelwood
St. Charles, MO
Jerry Konersman
St. Peters, MO
Allen Lanzarini
St. Peters, MO
Clifford Metcalf
St. Charles, MO
Robert Mulock
St. Charles, MO
Jim O'Loughlin
St. Peters, MO
William E. Sass
St. Peters, MO
Richard Schall
Eldon, MO
Al Schroer
St. Charles, MO
Gary Sczepanski
St. Charles, MO
Al Wiegand
St. Peters, MO
Jules Willot
St. Peters, MO
B-6
-------
APPENDIX B
OTHER
EMC
Lake St. Louis, HO
William G. Lavrrar
Consulting Engineering
St. Charles, MO
Mark Twain Bank
O'Fallon, MO
McDonnell Douglas Electronics
St. Charles, MO
Attn: Joe Jansen
St. Charles Journal
St. Charles, MO
St. Louis Globe - Democrat
St. Louis, MO
St. Louis Post - Dispatch
St. Louis, MO
St. Peters Courier Post
St. Peters, MO
Sverdrup & Parcel and Assoc.
St. Louis, MO
Attn: Bob Barbour
WAPORA, Inc.
Chevy Chase, MD
Attn: Keith Whitenight
B-7
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 907/9-86-003
3. ftaclplanf t Aeeatalon No.
4. TWt and SuMltta
Final Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for Eastern St. Charles County, Missouri
7.Author^ u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Edward
Vest. Project Officer: Tom Lorenz. Work Assignment Manager
8. Performing Onanlxatfon Rapt. No.
Prolect 1563
9. PartofmlRf Organliatlon Nama and Mtfran
WAPORA, Inc.
L555 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
losslyn, VA 22209
10. Projvct/Taak/Wor* Unit No.
Work Assignment No. 13
11. ContraettO or GranKO) No.
to 68-01-6609
It SpORMrific Organization Nama and Addntaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas Citv. KS 66101
1*. Typ* of (tape* * P*fiod Co»r»d
Final EIS
14.
O. Supplamantary NotM
U. Abatract (Limit: 200 worta)
The final environmental impact statment addresses the social, economic, and environmental
impacts potentially resulting from the proposed Federal action of issuing a grant for
construction of wastewater management facilities within the St. Charles County facilities
planning area. The planning area includes the Duckett Creek Sewer District and the cities
of St. Charles and St. Peters, Missouri. Communities served by the new system also
include the Village of Portage des Sioux and other unincorporated areas of St. Charles
County. St. Charles County, located between the Missouri and Mississippi River approxi-
mately 25 miles from St. Louis, is one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. The
planning area has at least 23 treatment facilities of varying ages, capacities, and
capabilities, and the southern portion has high population growth and urbanization.
The no-action alternative and four action alternatives were evaluated. The no-action
alternative was determined to-be unacceptable and would result in continual water quality
degradation, public health risks, and property damage. Principal impact areas for the
action alternatives include surface and groundwater quality, biological resources, and
infrastructures. The recommended alternative was found to be environmentally sound and
cost-effective. Most adverse impacts can be mitigated through various legal requirements,
planning measures, and design/construction practices.
a. Deeufflont Aiwlytt* •. Daacflpton
Sewage Treatment
Sludge Disposal
Flow and Waste Reduction
Effluent Disposal
Collection Systems
~ i/Op*frCMM
0. Idantlflan/
Tarma
Floodplains/Wetlands
Onsite Systems
Regionalization
Environmental Impact
Cost-Effectiveness
Innovat i ve/Alternati ve
Treatment
Alternative Analysis
Infiltration/Inflow
)uckett Creek Sewer Authority Portage des Sioux
St. Charles County Mississippi River
St. Peters; St. Charles Slssourt River
c. COSATI now/Group Env. Eng, Bio, Hydro, Socioeconomics, Geo, Archae, Planning, Demogra, Trans
por
SI. Availability Statement
Release unlimited. Copies are available from
sponsoring organization at no charge until
supplies are depleted.
19. Saeurtty Clan (Thl« Raport)
Unclassified.
20. Sactirfty Claat (TMi Pag*)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pa(M
150
22. (Mca
««a AMI-ZM.lt) SM
ftU.S.GOVERNMENTPRINTlNGOmCE:1986 -6SM-8B6' mj006REC!ONNO.4
OPTIONAL FOMU 272 <«-77)
(Formariy NT1S-39)
Dapartmoflt of ceoumm*
-------
-------
United States Environmental Review
Environmental Protection Region 7
Agency 726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA, (WH-546)
Environitental Evaluation Branch
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
------- |