&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
Water Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
August. 1981
Environmental Final
Impact Statement
St. Croix, Wisconsin, and
Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
Wastewater Treatment
Systems
-------
Q-
4
EPA-5-MN/WI-68-01-4612
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ST. CROIX FALLS, POLK COUNTY, WISCONSIN
AND .
TAYLORS FALLS, CHISAGO COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
AND
WAPORA, INCORPORATED
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Detection
Valdas V. Adamkufe
Acting Regional/Administrator^—
August 1981
-------
For further information contact;
Marilyn Sabadaszka, Project Monitor
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-2157
ABSTRACT
An improved system to treat the wastewater generated by the residents
of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota, is needed to
comply with the Clean Water Act. The alternatives considered included
upgrading/expanding the two existing facilities, combined treatment of the
two communities' wastewater, and alternatives that would eliminate direct
discharge of treated effluent to the St. Croix River. These alternatives
consisted of various combinations of treatment processes, siting options,
effluent disposal options, and sludge processing and disposal options.
Implementation of any of tne alternatives would produce short-term construc-
tion impacts to the local environment. Few long-term operational impacts
are anticipated. Based on the technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness,
and environmental and socioeconomic concerns addressed in this EIS, USEPA
has concluded that the City of St. Croix Falls should upgrade and expand the
existing wastewater treatment plant at St. Croix Falls and that the City of
Taylors Falls should construct a new stabilization pond treatment system to
replace the existing wastewater treatment facility at Taylors Falls.
-------
SUMMARY
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), an improved
system to treat wastewater at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, (across the St. Croix River from each other) is needed. Present-
ly, both communities discharge partially treated wastewater to the River
from deteriorated, overloaded treatment facilities.
Because of their deteriorated condition, the existing wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTPs) at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls are not capable of
meeting State effluent limitations, which have been established under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to protect
the quality of the receiving water. The communities therefore are required
either to upgrade the quality of, or eliminate entirely, the discharge of
wastewater effluent to the River.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plans have been completed by the two
communities that consider alternative solutions for meeting future waste-
water treatment needs. These include upgrading/expanding the two existing
facilities, a new stabilization pond system for Taylors Falls, combined
treatment of the two communities' wastewater, and land disposal of treated
effluent. The possible treatment alternatives have been evaluated on the
bases of technical feasibility, reliability, costs, public desirability,
environmental and socioeconomic effects, and the ability to meet the speci-
fied effluent discharge limitations.
2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Initially, sixteen wastewater treatment alternatives were considered as
potential solutions to improve the quality of effluent from the existing St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs. After completing the preliminary alter-
native screening process, ten potential wastewater treatment alternatives
were developed and evaluated for technical feasiblity, cost-effectiveness,
environmental, and socioeconomic concerns. The alternatives include no
11
-------
action, independent treatment systems for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls,
and regional treatment systems that would serve both communities. A number
of combinations of treatment processes, siting options, effluent disposal
options, and sludge processing and disposal options were considered.
No-action Alternative
The "no-action" alternative would entail continued operation of the
existing WWTPs with discharge to the St. Croix River, without any signifi-
cant expansion, upgrading, or replacement during the design period (to the
year 2000). The "no-action" alternative implies that USEPA would not pro-
vide funds to support new construction, upgrading, or expansion of existing
WWTPs. The costs associated with the "no-action" alternative for both St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls would be minimal, and would constitute the
normal expenditures required for the continuing operation, maintenance, and
repair of the existing equipment. This alternative is not feasible because
the capacity of the existing plants would be inadequate for treatment of the
projected wastewater flows and effluent limitations could not be met. The
reliability and flexibility of the existing facilities also are limited, and
the minor operational, equipment, and personnel improvements that could be
made would not compensate for the age and deteriorated condition of the
equipment.
Alternative 1 — Upgrading and Expanding the Existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP
at St. Croix Falls to a 400,000 gallons per day (gpd) secondary treatment
plant with direct discharge to the St. Croix River. This alternative would
serve only the treatment needs of the St. Croix Falls service area. The
estimated initial capital cost is $1,124,000 and the estimated annual opera-
tion and maintenance (O&M) cost is $31,000. The total present worth is
estimated to be $1,414,000 (Section 3.4.2.).
iii
-------
Alternative 2 — Land Disposal System for St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of rehabilitation of the existing WWTP at St.
Croix Falls, followed by land disposal of the effluent. This alternative
only would serve the needs of St. Croix Falls. The existing WWTP would be
modified, upgraded, and expanded to treat the average design flow of 400,000
gpd and to produce an effluent capable of meeting a BOD effluent limitation
of 50 milligrams per liter (mg/1). The effluent from the rehabilitated
existing WWTP would be pumped through an 8-inch diameter force main approxi-
mately 2.0 miles to a land disposal site in the northeast quarter of Section
29 of St. Croix Falls Township. The effluent would be discharged into
flooding basins and would percolate to the groundwater. During the three
winter months, the effluent would be stored in a basin. The total land area
required for the rapid infiltration system, including the storage basin and
a buffer zone, is approximately 30 acres. An underdrain system or recovery
wells may be required to control groundwater levels, depending on the hydro-
geological conditions at the site. This alternative has an estimated ini-
tial capital cost of $l,lttl,UOl) and an estimated annual O&M cost of $40,000.
The total present worth is estimated to be $1,466,000.
Alternative 3 — Compact Activated Sludge System for Taylors falls
This alternative for Taylors Falls proposes the demolition of the
existing WWTP and construction of a new 140,000 gpd treat-
ment plant at the same site utilizing a compact activated sludge (CAS)
secondary treatment process. The treated wastewater would be discharged
directly to the St. Croix River. To implement this alternative all existing
wastewater treatment process units would have to be demolished. During the
construction period, interim treatment facilities would be required. This
alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $988,000 and an esti-
mated annual O&M cost of $36,000. The total present worth is estimated to
be $1,348,000.
iv
-------
Alternative 4 — Rotating Biological Contactor System for Taylors Falls
This treatment system alternative for Taylors Falls would involve
demolition of the existing WWTP and construction of a new 140,000 gpd WWTP
at the same site utilizing a rotating biological contactor (RBC) secondary
treatment process. The treated wastewater would be discharged directly to
the St. Croix River. Like Alternative 3, all the existing unit processes
would have to be demolished and interim treatment facilities would be pro-
vided during construction. This alternative has an estimated initial capi-
tal cost of $985,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $27,000. The total
present worth is estimated to be $1,233,000.
Alternative 5 — Stabilization Pond System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for the Taylors Falls area involves the abandonment of
the existing n/WTP and the construction of a new stabilization pond treatment
facility for secondary treatment at a site in the northwest quarter of
Section 26 of Shafer Township. Implementation of this alternative would
require approximately 30 acres to 40 acres of land. The treated wastewater
would be discharged to the St. Croix River. However, the discharge to the
River would be controlled and designed to discharge twice a year. The
wastewater would be conveyed to the proposed site using four pumping sta-
tions and approximately 2.5 miles of new force main. This alternative has
an estimated initial capital cost of $1,164,000 and an estimated annual O&M
cost of $18,000. The total present worth is estimated to be $1,218,000. The
cost for the demolition of existing facilities is not included in these
figures.
Alternative 6 — Land Disposal System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for Taylors Falls is similar to Alternative 5 except
that the treated wastewater from the ponds would be discharged on land. The
treatment facility and the land application site would be located in the
northwest quarter of Section 26 of Shafer Township. Approximately 110 acres
of land would be required for this alternative. To avoid the potential for
raising the level of the groundwater, an underdrainage system would be pro-
-------
vided. The renovated water, exceeding the secondary treatment standards,
would be collected as drainage and pumped through a discharge force main to
the St. Croix River. This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost
of $1,584,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $21,000. The total pre-
sent worth is estimated to be $1,569,000.
Alternative 7 — Regional Conventional WWTP at St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of upgrading and expanding the existing St.
Croix Falls WWTP to treat wastewater from both the St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls service areas. The existing Taylors Falls WWTP would be
abandoned and an additional 0.25 acres of land would be needed at the St.
Croix Falls WWTP site. A pumping station and interceptor line constructed
from the Taylors Falls WWTP, attached to the US Highway 8 bridge, through
the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, to the St. Croix Falls WWTP, would
divert the wastewater from Taylors Falls to the regional WWTP on the St.
Croix Falls side of the River. The plant would utilize a rotating biologi-
cal contactor (RBC) secondary treatment process. The effluent from the WWTP
would be discharged directly to the St. Croix River. This alternative has
an estimated initial cost of $2,113,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of
$62,000. The total present worth is estimated to be $2,657,000.
Alternative 8 — Regional Stabilization Pond System near Taylors Falls
This alternative consists of a new regional stabilization pond treat-
ment facility to be constructed in a site in the northwest quarter of Sec-
tion 26 of Shafer Township, to treat wastewater from both the St. Croix
Falls and Taylors Falls service areas. Approximately 90 acres of land would
be needed for this alternative. The wastewater treated to a secondary level
would be discharged to the St. Croix River and, as described for Alterna-
tive 5, the discharge would be controlled. The facility would be designed
to discharge twice a year.
The existing St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs would be aban-
doned. A pumping station would be constructed at the St. Croix Falls WWTP. A
force main would extend from the existing St. Croix Falls WWTP site through
vi
-------
the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, crossing the St. Croix River attached
to the US riighway 8 bridge, to the existing Taylors Falls plant site. The
combined system wastewater collected at the existing Taylors Falls WWTP site
would be transported to the new stabilization pond system with the assis-
tance of four pumping stations and approximately 2.5 miles of force main via
the same route as discussed in Alternative 5. The effluent from the stabi-
lization pond system would be pumped through 2.5 miles of force main and
would discharge to the St. Croix River. This alternative has an estimated
initial cost of $2,660,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of $31,000. The
total present worth is estimated to be $2,652,000.
Alternative 9 — Regional Land Disposal System near Taylors Falls
This alternative is similar to Alternative 8 except that the effluent
from the pond system would be discharged on land and not to the River. The
regional treatment facility and the land application site would be located
in Section 2b of Shafer Township. Approximately 280 acres of land would be
needed for this alternative. The existing St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
WWTPs would be abandoned and the wastewater would be diverted to the new
regional plant by pumping stations and force mains as described for Alterna-
tive 8. To avoid the potential for raising the level of the ground-water,
an underdrainage system would be provided. The renovated drainage water
exceeding the secondary treatment standards, would be collected and pumped
through a discharge force main to the St. Croix River. This alternative has
an estimated initial cost of $3,651,000 and an estimated annual O&M cost of
$23,000. The total present worth is estimated to be $3,375,000.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Construction Phase
Construction of any of the nine alternatives will produce primarily
short-term impacts to the local environment. Construction of alternatives
utilizing the existing WWTP sites (Alternatives 1, 3, and 4) would have the
least potential for disruption and environmental impacts. The stabilization
pond and land treatment alternatives (Alternatives 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9) would
vii
-------
result in impacts along the force main and/or effluent discharge routes and
the pond and/or land application sites. The regional alternatives (Alterna-
tives 7, 8, and 9) would result in additional impacts along the force main
route through the Wisconsin Interstate State Park and across the US Highway
8 bridge. Alternatives 8 and 9 also would involve the conversion of a
significant amount of prime agricultural land (40 acres) from crop produc-
tion.
Operation Phase
Implementation of independent treatment alternatives or a regional
alternative by the communities would bring them into compliance with the
effluent discharge standards of the respective States. Operation of any of
the treatment alternatives would produce few significant long-term impacts.
The operation of an expanded and rehabilitated St. Croix Falls WWTP
(Alternative 1) with proper maintenance, alternate power supply, and dupli-
cate unit processes would ensure a reliable treatment system that would
improve water quality and create few long-term adverse environmental im-
pacts. The rapid infiltration land application system for St. Croix Falls
(Alternative 2) would have the potential for contaminating groundwater in
the area and for raising the level of the groundwater. Because of the
limited size of tne site area for new secondary treatment facilities at
Taylors Falls (Alternatives 3 and 4), it may be difficult to duplicate unit
processes to provide for greater reliability in the treatment of waste-
water. The stabilization pond treatment and spray irrigation disposal sys-
tems for Taylors Falls (Alternatives 5 and 6) offer greater flexibility for
future expansion of the treatment system than the conventional treatment
facilities (Alternatives 3 and 4), because they are not limited by the re-
strictive size of the site. The pumps at the pumping stations for Alterna-
tives 5 and 6 will be properly maintained, and a backup power source will be
provided in case a power failure should occur. The regional alternatives
(Alternatives 7, 8, and 9) would present another potentially problematic
system component with the force main supported over the St. Croix River by
the US riighway 8 bridge. The force main would be subject to exposure and
temperature extremes, and bridge flexure could cause leaks or joint failures
resulting in a direct discharge of untreated sewage to the St. Croix River.
viii
-------
4. IMPLEMENTATION
The total costs to St. Croix Falls residents (annual user fees) would
be higher for the construction and operation of a regional treatment system
than for an independent treatment system; the costs to system users in
Taylors Falls would be lower with a regional system. The ability to con-
struct a regional treatment system may not be feasible, however, because of
the difference in funding priorities for treatment facilities by the two
States. Finally, the two communities have expressed no desire to form an
interstate wastewater treatment district and to join in a regional system.
The City of St. Croix Falls has gone on record preferring the expansion and
rehabilitation of their existing treatment plant and the City of Taylors
Falls has recommended the construction of a new stabilization pond waste-
water treatment system.
5. RECOMMENDED ACTION
*
In consideration of these factors and others described in this Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS), the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) recommends that the City of St. Croix Falls upgrade and expand its
existing WWTP (Alternative 1) and that the City of Taylors Falls construct a
new stabilization pond treatment system (Alternative 5) to replace its
existing WWTP. These two alternatives represent cost-effective, environ-
mentally acceptable, and implementable solutions to meet these communities'
wastewater treatment needs.
ix
-------
TABLE UF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
SUMMARY ii
TABLE UF CONTENTS x
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF TABLES xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xix
1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1. Project Need and Legal Basis for Action 1-1
1.2. Project History 1-4
1.3. Study Process 1-6
1.4. EIS Issues 1-7
2.0. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS 2-1
2.1. Correspondence from Federal Agencies 2-1
2.2. Correspondence from State of Minnesota Agencies . . . 2-3
2.3. Correspondence from State of Wisconsin Agencies . . . 2-4
2.4. Correspondence from Individuals in St. Croix Falls . . 2-7
2.5. Comments at the St. Croix Falls Public Hearing . . . 2-11
2.6. Comments at the Taylors Falls Public Hearing 2-12
3.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.1. Existing Wastewater Conveyance
and Treatment Systems 3-1
3.1.1. Existing Service Areas 3-1
3.1.2. Existing Treatment Systems 3-2
3.1.3. Existing Effluent Quality . 3-3
3.1.4. Wastewater Flows 3-5
3.2. Design Factors 3-8
3.2.1. Wastewater Load Factors 3-8
3.2.2. Effluent Standards 3-12
3.2.3. Economic Factors 3-15
3.3. System Component Options 3-17
3.3.1. Flow and Waste Reduction 3-18
3.3.1.1. Infiltration and Inflow Reduction . . 3-18
3.3.1.2. Water Conservation Measures 3-19
3.3.1.3. Other Reduction Measures 3-20
3.3.2. Collection Systems 3-21
3.3.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes 3-22
3.3.3.1. Preliminary Treatment and
Primary Sedimentation 3-22
3.3.3.2. Secondary Treatment 3-23
3.3.3.3. Tertiary Treatment 3-24
3.3.3.4. Disinfection 3-25
-------
3.3.4. Effluent Disposal 3-26
3.3.4.1. Surface Water Discharge 3-26
3.3.4.2. Land Application 3-26
3.3.4.3. Wetlands Discharge 3-32
3.3.4.4. Reuse 3-32
3.3.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal 3-33
3.3.5.1. Sludge Digestion 3-34
3.3.5.2. Sludge Disposal 3-34
3.4. System Alternatives 3-35
3.4.1. No-action Alternative 3-36
3.4.2. Alternative 1 — Upgrading and Expanding
the Existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls 3-37
3.4.3. Alternative 2 — Land Disposal
System for St. Croix Falls 3-40
3.4.4. Alternative 3 — Compact Activated
Sludge System for Taylors Falls 3-43
3.4.5. Alternative 4 — Rotating Biological
Contactor System for Taylors Falls 3-45
3.4.6. Alternative 5 — Stabilization Pond
System for Taylors Falls 3-45
3.4.7. Alternative 6 — Land Disposal System
for Taylors Falls 3-47
3.4.8. Alternative 7 — Regional Conventional
WWTP at St. Croix Falls 3-49
3.4.9. Alternative 8 — Regional Stabilization
Pond System near Taylors Falls 3-52
3.4.1U. Alternative 9 — Regional Land
Disposal System near Taylors Falls 3-53
3.5. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives . . 3-56
3.5.1. Flexibility 3-56
3.5.2. Reliability 3-57
3.6. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection
of the Recommended Action 3-59
3.6.1. Comparison of Alternatives 3-59
3.6.2. Recommended Action 3-63
4.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4-1
4.1. Natural Environment 4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-4
4-4
4-6
4-6
4-8
XI
Na tural
4. 1.1.
4.1.2.
4. 1.3.
4.1.4.
Environment ............
4.1.1.2. Air Quality , . . .
Physiography, Topography, and Geology . . . .
4.1.2.1. Physiography and Topography . . . .
4.1.2.2. Geology
Soils
4.1.3.1. Soils of the Project Area
4.1.3.2. Suitability of Soils for Land
Treatment of Wastewater ......
-------
4.1.4.2. Uses 4-8
4.1.4.3. Quality 4-10
4.1.4.4. Existing Discharges 4-20
4.1.5. Groundwater 4-22
4.1.5.1. Resources 4-22
4.1.5.2. Quality 4-23
4.1.6. Terrestrial Biota 4-24
4.1.6.1. Vegetation and Landscape 4-24
4.1.6.2. Wildlife 4-24
4.1.7. Aquatic Biota 4-24
4.1.8. Endangered and Threatened Species 4-26
4.1.8.1. Federal Designation 4-26
4.1.8.2. State Designation 4-27
4.2. Man-made Environment 4-30
4.2.1. Economics » 4-30
4.2.1.1. Income 4-30
4.2.1.2. Employment 4-31
4.2.2. Demographics 4-33
4.2.2.1. Historical Population Trends .... 4-33
4.2.2.2. Population Projections 4-33
4.2.3. Public Finance . 4-35
4.2.3.1. Revenues and Expenditures 4-35
4.2.3.2. Assessed Valuation and
Property Tax Assessments 4-36
4.2.3.3. Local Indebtedness 4-37
4.2.3.4. User Fees 4-37
4.2.4. Land Use . . . . 4-37
4.2.4.1 Existing Land Use 4-37
4.2.4.2. Future Land Use 4-43
4.2.4.3. Development Controls 4-46
4.2.4.4. Housing Characteristics 4-46
4.2.4.5. Transportation 4-47
4.2.4.6. Recreation 4-47
4.2.5. Archaeological, Historical,
and Cultural Resources 4-49
4.2.5.1. Archaeological Sites 4-49
4.2.5.2. Historical Sites and
Cultural Resources 4-50
4.2.6. National Scenic Riverway 4-50
5.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 5-1
5.1. Construction Impacts 5-1
5.1.1. Air Quality and Odors 5-9
5.1.2. Floodplains and Wetlands 5-9
5.1.3. Prime Agricultural Land 5-10
5.1.4. Endangered and Threatened Species 5-11
5.1.5. Cultural Resources 5-12
5.2. Operation Impacts 5-13
5.2.1. Conventional Treatment Plant Alternatives. . . 5-13
5.2.1.1. Wastewater Treatment Facilities . . 5-20
5.2.1.2. Discharge of Treated Wastewater. . . 5-22
xii
-------
5.2.1.3. Sludge Disposal 5-23
5.2.1.4. Conveyance System 5-24
5.2.2. Stabilization Pond Treatment
System Alternatives 5-25
5.2.2.1. Treatment and Storage Ponds .... 5-25
5.2.2.2. Discharge of Treated Wastewater. . . 5-26
5.2.2.3. Conveyance System 5-27
5.2.3. Land Application Wastewater
Treatment Alternatives 5-29
5.2.3.1. Rapid Infiltration Land Applica-
tion System for St. Croix Falls. . . 5-29
5.2.3.2. Spray Irrigation Land
Application System 5-31
5.3. Public Finance Impacts 5-34
5.3.1. User Costs 5-34
5.3.2. Municipal Indebtedness 5-42
5.4. Secondary Impacts 5-44
5.5. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts 5-46
5.5.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts 5-46
5.5.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts 5-50
5.5.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 5-51
5.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 5-51
5.7. Irretrievable and Irreversible
Resource Commitments 5-52
6.U. CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
7.0. LITERATURE CONSULTED 7-1
8.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 8-1
9.0 INDEX 9-1
APPENDIX A: EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS A-l
APPENDIX B: POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS .... B-l
APPENDIX C: GEOLOGY AND SOILS C-l
APPENDIX D: WATER QUALITY D-l
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC FINANCE AND USER FEES E-l
xiii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1 Location and boundaries of the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 1-2
3-1 Existing and proposed site areas for the wastewater
treatment facilities alternatives and force main routes. . . 3-38
3-2 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 1 3-41
3-3 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 2 3-42
3-4 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 3 3-44
3-5 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 4 3-46
3-6 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 5 3-48
3-7 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 6 3-50
3-8 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 7 3-51
3-9 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 8 3-54
3-10 Schematic diagram of treatment processes
proposed for Alternative 9 3-55
3-11 Site plan for Alternative 5, Taylors Falls, Minnesota . . . 3-64
3-12 Site plan for Alternative 1, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin . . 3-65
4-1 Topography of the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 4-3
4-2 Soil associations in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 4-5
4-3 Areas potentially suitable for land application of
treated wastewater in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 4-7
4-4 Water quality sampling sites 4-17
4-5 Land cover in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area 4-25
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (concluded)
Page
4-6 Existing land uses in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area, 1979 4-40
4-7 Existing land uses in Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1979 .... 4-41
4-tf Existing land uses in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, 1979 . . . 4-42
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1 Estimated user charges for Alternatives 1 through 9,
based on unavailability of Federal funds 2-9
3-1 Raw sewage and final effluent data for the St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin, wastewater treatment plant for 1978 . . . 3-4
3-2 Raw sewage and final effluent data for the Taylors
Falls, Minnesota, wastewater treatment plant for 1978 . . . 3-5
3-3 Wastewater load factors projected for St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota for the year 2000 . . 3-10
3-4 Interim and final effluent limitations for the St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin, wastewater treatment plant 3-13
3-5 Interim and final effluent limitations for the Taylors
Falls, Minnesota, wastewater treatment plant 3-14
3-6 Effluent limitations for a discharge
to Lawrence Creek or Dry Creek 3-16
3-7 Summary of estimated costs for the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota wastewater
treatment alternatives (in thousands of dollars) 3-60
4-1 Summary of flow data for the St. Croix River at
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for the period 1902-1977 ... 4-9
4-2 Monthly flow data for the gaging station at
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for water year 1976-1977 . . . 4-9
4-3 Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, for 1976 and 1977 4-12
4-4 Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for 1976 and 1977 4-13
4-5 Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at
Stillwater, Minnesota, for 1977 4-14
4-6 Water quality survey of the St. Croix
River to assess the impact of the St.
Croix Falls, Wisconsin wastewater discharge 4-18
4-7 Water quality survey of the St. Croix
River to assess the impact of the Taylors
Falls, Minnesota wastewater discharge 4-19
4-8 Uses of groundwater withdrawn
from the St. Croix River Basin 4-23
xvi
-------
LIST OF TAriLES (continued)
Page
4-9 Endangered and threatened species that
may be present in the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota project area 4-28
4-10 Species in the project area with watch status in Wisconsin
and with priority species designation in Minnesota 4-29
4-11 Species of plants that are protected under
the Minnesota Wildflower Protection Act 4-30
4-12 Estimated 1980 median family income 4-30
4-13 Per capita personal income in thousands of dollars 4-31
4-14 Employment by category, 1971 and 1976 4-32
4-15 Historic population trends in the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota project area 4-34
4-16 Population projections for St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1980 to 2000 . . . 4-35
4-17 Common municipal debt measures 4-38
4-18 Existing land use in the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota project area 4-39
4-19 Existing developed land uses in Taylors Falls,
Minnesota and St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin 4-39
4-20 Projected residential acreage in
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1977 to 2000 4-44
4-21 Projected residential acreage in
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, 1977 to 2000 4-45
4-22 Traffic volumes between Chisago County
and Washington County, Minnesota 4-47
4-23 Recreational visitation in the
Wisconsin Interstate State Park. 4-48
5-1 Potential major primary impacts from the construction
of new wastewater treatment facilities at St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota 5-2
5-2 Potential major primary impacts from the operation
of new wastewater treatment facilities at St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota 5-14
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
Page
5-3 Quality of drain tile water at
Muskegon, Michigan, land treatment site 5-35
5-4 Estimated annual user costs for typical families
of three for wastewater treatment and
collection for Alternatives 1 through 9 5-38
5-5 Comparison of user charges and debt service
as a percentage of median family income 5-40
5-6 Per capita debt levels associated with financing
new wastewater treatment facilities at St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota 5-43
xviii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AWT advanced wastewater treatment
BODS 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
CAS compact activated sludge
CUD central business district
CEtj Council on Environmental Quality
cfs cubic feet per second
CTH County Trunk. Highway
CWA Clean Water Act
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DO dissolved oxygen
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpra . gallons per minute
I/I infiltration and inflow
kg/day kilograms/day
Ib/ac/yr pounds per acre per year
Ib/day pounds per day
MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
mg/1 milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
MN Minnesota
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MPN/100 ml most probable number per 100 milliliters
N nitrogen
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Park Service
NSP Northern States Power Company
NTU nephelometer turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
P phosphorus
RBC rotating biological contactor
SCS Soil Conservation Service
xix
-------
sq mi square miles
SS suspended solids
urn micrometers
USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency
USGS US Geological Survey
WCWRPC West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WI Wisconsin
WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
xx
-------
1.0. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1. Project Need and Legal Basis for Action
To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) an improved
system to treat the wastewater at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors
Falls, Minnesota (across the St. Croix River from each other; Figure 1-1),
is needed. Presently both communities discharge partially treated waste-
water to the River from deteriorated, overloaded treatment facilities.
The Clean Water Act (PL 92-500, as amended by PL 95-217) establishes a
uniform, nationwide water pollution control program administered by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), within which all state water quali-
ty programs operate. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have been delegated respon-
sibilities for tne National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program by USEPA. The NPDES program was established by the CWA to regulate
the quality of wastewater discharged to rivers and streams. USEPA retains
approval and control over the NPDES program. Because of their deteriorated
condition, the existing wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) at St. Croix
Falls and Taylors Falls are not capable of meeting State effluent limita-
tions, which have been established under the NPDES program to protect the
quality of the receiving water. These communities, therefore, are required
either to upgrade the quality of, or to eliminate entirely, the discharge of
wastewater effluent.
Facilities Plans have been completed by the two communities that in-
clude consideration of alternative solutions for meeting future wastewater
treatment needs. These include upgrading/expanding the two existing facili-
ties, a new stabilization pond system for Taylors Falls, combined treatment
of the two communities' wastewater, and land disposal of the treated
effluent. The possible treatment alternatives have been evaluated on the
basis of the technical feasibility, reliability, costs, public desirability,
and socioeconoinic and environmental effects of the alternatives and on the
basis of the ability of the improved facilities to meet the applicable
effluent discharge standards.
1-1
-------
LLS
*?&&
MINNEAPOLIS
Figure 1-1.
Location and boundaries of the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin -
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
-------
Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided under
Section 201 of the CWA. The Act provides 75% Federal funding for eligible
facilities planning, design, and construction costs. Portions of projects
that are defined as innovative or alternative are eligible for 85% funding
under the CWA.
The dispersal of Federal funds is made to local applicants via the
Federal Construction Grants Program, which is administered by (JSEPA. The
program consists of a three-step grant process: Step 1 includes wastewater
facilities planning; Step 2 involves the development of detailed engineering
plans and specifications; and Step 3 covers construction of the pollution
control system. St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls currently are completing
Step 1, which involves planning for wastewater facilities that will be
serviceable for at least 20 years, or until the year 2000.
The State of Wisconsin, through WDNR, and the State of Minnesota,
through MPCA, administer the Federal Construction Grants Program at the
State level. The State of Minnesota also provides an additional 15% of the
costs for planning, design, and construction for Minnesota projects, except
where the Federal share is larger than 75%. In such a case, the State's
share is reduced. Because Federal grant regulations are, for the most part,
the controlling factor in determining the selected (fundable) alternative,
they significantly influence how the State grant funds are spent.
Communities may choose to construct wastewater treatment facilities
without financial support from USEPA/State Grants Program. In such cases,
the design must be considered by the State to be technically sound and the
facility must be capable of meeting discharge standards. Without Federal
assistance, construction costs would be borne by the States and local units
of government. The funds available under the Wisconsin Fund (144.24 Wis-
consin Statutes), may provide for 60% of eligible costs when Federal funds
are unavailable.
If a community chooses to construct a wastewater treatment plant with
USEPA grant assistance, the project must meet all requirements of the
Federal Construction Grants Program. The CWA requires that the most cost-
1-3
-------
effective alternative be identified and selected. USEPA defines the cost-
effective alternative as the one that will result in minimum total resource
costs over the life of the project, while still meeting Federal, State, and
local requirements. However, the cost-effective alternative is not necessa-
rily tne lowest cost proposal. The analysis for choosing the cost-effective
alternative is based on both the capital (construction, engineering, and
administrative) costs and the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for a
20-year period, altnough only the capital costs are funded. Non-monetary
costs, including social and environmental factors, also must be considered.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Federal
agency to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on "...major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
...." In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) to guide Federal agencies in determina-
tions of whether Federal funds, or Federal approvals, such as the approval
of the St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls Facilities Plans would result in a
project that would significantly affect the environment. USEPA developed
its own regulations (40 CFR Part 6) for the implementation of the EIS pro-
cess. Pursuant to these regulations, USEPA Region V determined on 27 July
ly7b that an EIS was required for the proposed project at St. Croix Falls
and Taylors Falls before the Facilities Plans could be approved. This
decision was based on the potential for adverse impacts to the St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway, the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, the Minnesota
Interstate State Park, the Ice Age National Scientific Reserve, cultural
sites, prime agricultural lands, wetlands, wildlife, recreational areas, and
the socioeconomic environment.
1.2. Project History
During the past five years, wastewater treatment needs have been consi-
dered for a study area that included the municipalities of St. Croix Falls,
Dresser, and Osceola, Wisconsin; the City of Taylors Falls, Minnesota; and
adjacent areas. The St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewerage District
was formed in 1975 in response to the need to upgrade existing wastewater
treatment facilities in the Wisconsin section of the project area. The
1-4
-------
District initiated facilities planning for the construction of new treatment
works that would serve the needs of both St. Croix Falls and Dresser and
replace the existing, overloaded treatment plants.
A Facilities Plan for the St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewerage
District was completed by Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Asso-
ciates, Inc., in March 1976 and revised in August 1976. The Facilities Plan
recommended that a new regional WWTP be constructed at a location between
St. Croix Falls and Dresser to serve the wastewater treatment needs of the
two communities. The proposed facility would have discharged treated waste-
water directly to the St. Croix River. Acceptance of the Facilities Plan by
WDNR and USEPA was delayed because of questions regarding the potential
impacts of the proposed new conveyance lines, the cost of the system, and
the feasibility of alternative systems.
On 27 July 1978, USfiPA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
for a study area that included the St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan
Sewerage District and the City of Taylors Falls planning area. During 1978,
the F&A Dairy, which contributed a significant amount of wastewater to the
Dresser WWTP, decided that it would discontinue its discharge to the City
sewers and treat its own wastes. Because of the decision by F&A Dairy,
Dresser determined that it could handle its own treatment system needs and
withdrew from the District. This left St. Croix Falls to find its own
solutions for wastewater improvement. After Dresser withdrew from the
District, the EIS project area was revised to include only the cities of St.
Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota. The City of St. Croix
Falls amended the 1976 Facilities Plan for the St. Croix Falls-Dresser
Metropolitan Sewerage District for its own use.
In 1978 the City of Taylors Falls received a Step I Grant from MPCA to
begin preparation of a Facilities Plan. The City of Taylors Falls and MPCA
determined that the planning area for the Facilities Plan would be the
corporate limits of Taylors Falls. The Draft Facilities Plan for Taylors
Falls was completed in March 1980 by Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engi-
neers. This plan recommended the construction of a new stabilization pond
treatment system to be located in Section 26 of Shafer Township, west of the
1-5
-------
City. At about the same time, the St. Croix Falls Facilities Planner, Short-
Elliott- tiendrickson, Inc., recommended that the expansion and upgrading of
the existing St. Croix Falls WWTP would be the most environmentally sound
and cost-effective alternative for St. Croix Falls.
On 28 April 1980, the St. Croix Falls City Council passed a resolution
in favor of upgrading and expanding the existing wastewater treatment plant.
On 14 May 1980, the City of Taylors Falls went on record in favor of the
construction and operation of a stabilization pond system with a controlled
discharge to the St. Croix River.
1.3. Study Process
The major efforts in the preparation of this Final EIS occurred during
1979 and 1980. During this period, WAPORA, Inc., USEPA's EIS consultant,
submitted various interim reports to USEPA, including Existing Environmen-
tal Conditions in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
Wastewater Facilities Project Area.
Public meetings were sponsored by USEPA to facilitate public involve-
ment during the preparation of the EIS:
Date Location . Subject
24 May 1979 St. Croix Falls Study process, EIS issues, and
existing environmental conditions
10 December 1979 Taylors Falls Wastewater treatment system alter-
natives and initial analyses of
impacts
14 April 1980 Taylors Falls Initial cost analysis and environ-
City Council mental impacts of the wastewater
treatment system alternatives
15 April 1980 St. Croix Falls Initial cost analysis and environ-
City Council mental impacts of the wastewater
treatment system alternatives
30 March 1981 St. Croix Falls Public hearings to receive comments
and Taylors Falls on the Draft EIS
Several informational newsletters also were prepared during this time
and mailed to persons who expressed interest in the project. The following
participants in the wastewater planning process have coordinated their
1-6
-------
activities during the last two years: USEPA; WAPORA, Inc. (EIS consultant);
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers (Taylors Falls Facilities Planner);
City of Taylors Falls; Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. (St. Croix Falls
Facilities Planner); City of St. Croix Falls; MPCA; WDNR; Minnesota-
Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission; National Park Service; and other
Federal, State, local, and private agencies and organizations.
1.4. EIS Issues
Issues initially identified by USEPA in the 27 July 1978 Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, and other issues subse-
quently determined through the EIS process, include:
• The quantity and quality of wastewater effluent that is
produced by various wastewater treatment processes and the
most cost-effective and iinplementable treatment methods and
sites
• The impact of increased user charges to system users in St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
• The impact to local government finances from the indebted-
ness related to the local share of construction costs
• The potential for, and the possible impacts of, the release
of pollutants to the St. Croix River or to groundwater from
the various treatment methods and sites
• The conversion of prime agricultural land or wetlands to
other uses through the construction of a new wastewater
treatment facility and the potential for new residential
growth from the expanded wastewater treatment capacity
• The impacts along the proposed interceptor/force main routes
from the existing wastewater treatment plant sites to the
stabilization pond and land application sites proposed in
several of the alternatives
• The construction of a force main through the Wisconsin
Interstate State Park, if a regional treatment system alter-
native is selected
• The potential contamination of soil and groundwater, and
production of odors from the disposal of effluent on land
• Tne potential production of offensive odors from storing
wastewater in storage ponds prior to release to the St.
Croix River or land application
1-7
-------
e The potential for leakage from the storage lagoons that
would contaminate groundwater and thus preclude the use of
groundwater for public water supply
o The effect on the value of property of areas adjacent to a
wastewater land treatment or stabilization pond site
e The determination of the composition of sludge and residuals
generated from various treatment processes and the best
methods of treatment, transportation, disposal, and monitor-
ing of sludges
e The possible danger to public health and welfare from aeroso-
lization of pathogenic organisms and/or their accumulation
on soil and plant surfaces, and from possible transmission
into and through ground and surface waters for all treatment
alternatives
• The commitment of resources, including but not limited to:
construction materials, financial resources, and labor and
energy resources
• The secondary impacts that would result from the implementa-
tion of all treatment alternatives
• The other environmental impacts that would result from the
implementation of all treatment alternatives, including but
not limited to: rare, endangered, or unique plant and animal
species or associations; and cultural, archaeological,
historical, and recreational resources.
1-8
-------
2.0. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
There were a number of comments on the Draft EIS (DEIS) received by mail
or expressed at the public hearings held at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls.
Responses to these comments are presented below. Copies of the letters re-
ceived are included at the end of this section.
Z.I. Correspondence from Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (11 March 1981)
Impacts on prehistoric and historic cultural properties located at the
sites of the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls recommended alternatives:
Refer to Section 5.1.5. and the comment letters from the State His-
torical Society of Wisconsin and the Minnesota Historical Society at
the end of Section 2.0.
Corps of Engineers, US Department of the Army (27 March 1981)
A permit will be required for any work, performed below the ordinary
high-water mark, of the River or for the placement of fill material in wetlands
adjacent to the River:
Refer to Section 5.1.2.
US Department of the Interior (15 April 1981)
1. No discussion of mineral resources at the site of the Taylors Falls
recommended alternative in the DEIS:
There are no commercially valuable minerals located in the
Taylors Falls area (By telephone, Mr. G. B. Morey, Minnesota
Geological Survey, to WAPORA, Inc., 14 May 1981).
2. Recommendation for additional study of on-land disposal:
Comment noted. The designs and costs for the alternatives
prepared by the Facilities Planners for each community were the
bases for the selection of the recommended alternatives by
USEPA. According to the Facilities Planners, the on-land
disposal alternatives were not the most cost-effective for each
community, based on total present worth.
3. Quality of the effluent discharged to the River should be equal to,
but not lower than, the present river water quality :
Tne State of Wisconsin's effluent limitations are not as strin-
gent as the State of Minnesota's (Section 3.2.2.). The St.
Croix Falls wastewater treatment plant must meet only the
Wisconsin effluent limitations, which are stated in the WPDES
permit.
4. Wisconsin Interstate State Park does not discharge to the Taylors
Falls WWTP:
Statement has been corrected; refer to Section 3.2.1.
2-1
-------
5. Incorrect names of transportation routes:
The errors have been corrected; refer to Section 4.2.4.5.
6. Incorrect headings on Table 4-22:
The headings have been corrected; refer to Section 4.2.4.5.
7. Incorrect usage of Route 5 as descriptor:
Route 5 has been changed to County Trunk Highway S; refer to
Section 4.2.4.6.
6. Comparison of the slow-rate irrigation system site at Dickinson,
North Dakota, with the proposed Taylors Falls site:
Comment noted. Neither spray irrigation system alternative
(Alternatives 6 and 9) was selected as a recommended alter-
native. Refer also to Section 5.2.3.2.
9. Recommendation to restrict definition of groundwater:
Definition modified; refer to Section 8.0.
10. Recommendation to restrict definition of aquifer:
Definition modified; refer to Section 8.0.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (21 April 1981)
Possibility of future recreation-oriented residential development on the
shores of the St. Croix River that may affect floodplains, wetlands, and
prime farmland:
No residential development is planned on the shores of the River at
St. Croix Falls WI or Taylors Falls MN, and no suitable land is
available for development (By telephone, Ms. Bernice Peterson, City
Clerk, City of Taylors Falls and Ms. Marion Edler, City Clerk, City
of St. Croix Falls, to WAPORA, Inc., 14 May 1981). Thus no mitiga-
tion measures need be discussed in the EIS for control of such
development.
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, (23 April
1981)
1. Attachment of a force main to the US Highway 8 bridge for Regional
Alternatives 7, 8, and 9:
The regional alternatives were not selected as the recommended
alternative because they are not the most cost-effective,
environmentally acceptable, or implementable alternatives.
Therefore, the intergovernmental coordination associated with
the attachment of the force main to the US Highway 8 bridge was
never addressed.
2. Planned repair of the deck on the US Highway 8 bridge by the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation in 1983:
If a regional alternative were selected, repairs to the bridge
deck should be coordinated with the construction of the alter-
native to minimize traffic congestion. Refer to Section 5.5.1.
2-2
-------
US Department of the Interior (28 April 1981)
Utilization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund by WDNR in the acqui-
sition and development of the Wisconsin Interstate State Park, as it
relates to the construction of a force main through the park for Regional
Alternatives 7, 8, or 9:
Information included; refer to Section 5.1.
2.2. Correspondence from State of Minnesota Agencies
East Central Regional Development Commission (25 March 1981)
Concurrence with the selection at the recommended alternatives:
Comment noted.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (14 April 1981)
1. Sludge disposal at sanitary landfills in Minnesota:
Refer to Section 3.3.5.2.
2. Wetland areas exist at the site of recommended Alternative 5. How-
ever, if a sufficient amount of high ground is available, MPCA does
not see any problems associated with locating the stabilization
ponds there:
Comment noted.
3. Use of a plastic membrane or a clay liner for the stabilization
ponds of Alternative 5. If a clay liner is used, the suitability of
the borrow area should be determined to insure that no significant
environmental damage occurs to the site:
The Taylors Falls Facilities Planners performed preliminary
soil borings at the proposed stabilization pond site and ini-
tially determined that the need for a soil seal is probable.
The Facilities Planners intend to evaluate the site further
during Step 2. However, for the purposes of the Facilities
Plan, a higher seal cost was assumed through the use of a plas-
tic membrane or clay liner (By telephone, Mr. Greg Pederson,
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers, to WAPORA, Inc., 18
May 1981). The potential borrow area for clay that would be a
suitable liner has not been identified. The design engineer
should specify how the borrow area would be reshaped and re-
stored. This item normally is incorporated during the review
of the design plans and specifications.
4. Error in forage crop uptake rate:
Error has been corrected; refer to Section 5.2.3.2.
5. Clarification of Alternative 5 as most expensive alternative:
Refer to Section 3.6.1.
6. Suitability of the proposed stabilization pond site of Alternative
5, especially in the event of high groundwater levels:
Tne Taylors Falls Facilities Planner performed a site survey
and found no problems associated with the site. Although some
2-3
-------
wet spots were noted, there is enough high ground on which to
locate the pond (By telephone, Mr. Greg Pederson, Howard A.
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers, to WAPORA, Inc., 18 May 1981).
The preparation of the EIS was based on data and engineering
judgements supplied by the Facilities Planners. The EIS is not
intended to satisfy the requirements of a complete Facilities
Plan. The task, of preparing an approvable Facilities Plan is
the responsibility of the Grantee.
Minnesota Historical Society (23 April 1981)
No archaeological or historic sites Known to be located at the site of
Alternative 5:
Comment noted; refer to Section 5.1.5.
2.3. Correspondence from State of Wisconsin Agencies
The State Historical Society of Wisconsin (26 February 1981)
No archaeological or historic sites known to be located at the site of
Alternative 1:
Comment noted; refer to Section 5.1.5.
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission (7 April 1981)
Recommendation for selection of Alternative 9 instead of Alternative 5:
Comment noted. The recommended alternatives for St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls were selected primarily on the basis of the cost-
effective analyses prepared by their respective Facilities Planners
and the preferences of both communities concerning the recommended
alternatives. The total present worth of Alternative 9 was signifi-
cantly greater than that of the recommended alternatives.
Lower St. Croix Management Commission (10 April 1981)
1. Clarification of procedure used to determine unacceptability of land
disposal system (Alternative 2):
Alternative 1 was selected as a recommended alternative based
on the cost-effectiveness analysis provided by the Facilities
Planners and on the desire of St. Croix Falls to implement that
alternative. No conclusions were drawn that treatment by land
application was "unacceptable."
2. Clarification of how the conclusion of non-degradation of the
receiving stream was reached by US EPA:
The calculation of the effect of the WWTP discharges on the
River was based on the dilution ratio of the discharge rate to
the volume and rate of the river flow. No assimilative capaci-
ty calculations were completed because the two discharges are
insignificant when compared with the flow in the River. The
conclusion that the discharge of treated effluent from ex-
panded/upgraded treatment facilities would not adversely affect
river water quality was based primarily on the studies of the
2-4
-------
effects of the current discharges. Due to better treatment,
the expanded/upgraded treatment facilities would discharge less
BOD than presently is removed. Also refer to Section
5.271.2.
3. Clarification of amount of funding available for a regional facility
built in Minnesota:
No commitments for funding under various scenarios of Federal
and State grant participation were obtained. The various
agencies have declined to commit funds to these projects be-
cause higher-priority projects have expended available funds.
The assumptions used in the calculation of the respective
funding shares are given in Appendix E. The cost shares were
calculated on the basis of the average.daily summer flows from
the respective communities.
State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation (10 April 1981)
1. Unsuitability of the US Highway 8 bridge for attachment of sewage
force main:
Comment noted. Although none of the regional alternatives
(Alternatives 7, 8, and 9) were selected as the recommended
alternative, they have reasonable costs, particularly if
Federal funds are unavailable. The pressures that would be
experienced in the force main are expected to be very low be-
cause the discharge point at either existing WWTP site is at a
lower elevation than the bridge, regardless of which direction
the sewage is pumped. Suspension of the force main from the
bridge appeared to be a reasonable assumption for initial
costing purposes. If a regional alternative were to be select-
ed, the Facilities Planners should engage in discussions with
the bridge engineers as to whether the force main could be sus-
pended from the bridge.
2. Incorrect use of Route 5:
Correction made; refer to response #7 to US Department of the
Interior comments of 15 April 1981 and to Section 4.2.4.6.
3. Wisconsin Department of Transportation permit is required for any
sewer line that would cross or lie within the right-of-way of a
State Trunk System highway:
Refer to Section 5.1.
4. Scheduled repair of the US Highway 8 bridge decK. in 1983:
Refer to response #2 to US Department of Transportation
comments.
State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources (13 April 1981)
1. Error on cover page of Draft EIS:
Error corrected.
2-5
-------
2. Explanation of difference between the costs for Alternative 1 pre-
sented in the Facilities Plan and those presented in EIS:
Refer to Section 3.4.2.
3. Level of treatment provided in Alternatives 5 through 9:
Refer to Summary Section.
4. Percentage of eligible construction costs that may be provided by
the Wisconsin Fund:
Refer to Sections 1.1. and 5.3.
5. Possible revision of the WPDES permit to 0.4 mgd from the present
design flow of 0.18 mgd to 0.4:
Refer to Section 3.2.2.
b. Possible use of ultraviolet light as a disinfection technique:
Refer to Section 3.3.3.4.
7. Availability of effluent discharge data for St. Croix Falls Fish
Hatchery:
Refer to Section 4.1.4.4.
8. Change in the status of the red-shouldered hawk from priority status
in State of Wisconsin to threatened in State:
Correction made; refer to Section 4.1.8.2., Table 4-9.
9. Population projections developed by the Facilities Planners should
be mentioned in EIS:
Comment noted.
10. Duality of wastewater treatment to be provided during the expansion
of the existing WWTP:
Comment noted. Maintenance of the necessary level of treatment
during the construction phase should be addressed during the
Step 2 phase of the project. The contractor has the responsi-
bility to maintain treatment at a level equivalent to that
provided prior to construction. The contractor must submit a
plan to the consulting engineer for approval that outlines how
treatment will be maintained, including sludge digestion and
disposal (By telephone, Mr. Wilbur Liebenow, Short-Elliott-
Hendrickson, Inc., to WAPORA, Inc., 15 May 1981).
11. Economic impacts on the residents of St. Croix Falls due to the
cummulative effects of the costs of the wastewater treatment facili-
ties and the construction of the new school:
The present per capita debt in St. Croix Falls is $1,347, which
includes the City's portion of the construction costs of the
new school (Refer to DEIS, Section 3.2.3.1.) The per capita
debt associated with the financing of the wastewater treatment
facilities for both communities is presented in Table 5-6 and
is discussed in Section 5.3.2. Although St. Croix Falls ap-
pears to be approaching its capacity for incurring additional
debt, Alternatives 1 and 2 (which are similar in cost) would
have the least impact on municipal finances.
2-6
-------
12. Measures for mitigation of adverse impacts, including compliance
with current regulations:
Comment noted.
13. Mitigation of construction impacts through selection of best manage-
ment practices appropriate to project requirements, available equip-
ment, and weather conditions:
Comment noted.
14. Location of odorous soils along the force main route:
The sentence has been deleted; refer to Section 5.5.1.
15. Unsuitability of wetlands and other sensitive areas as spoil dispo-
sal sites:
Refer to Section 3.3.4.3.
2.4. Correspondence from Individuals in St. Croix Falls
Warren White (10 March 1981)
1. Has the National Park system stated that a discharge of 30/30
effluent will always be permitted:
WDNR has set effluent limits for the St. Croix River with input
from the National Park Service. WDNR cannot guarantee that no
change from the 30/30 discharge will occur during the next 20
years.
2. Is the existing wastewater treatment plant to be demolished and
replaced with rotating biological contactors (RBCs), or could RBCs
be added to the present facility:
The trickling filter function will be replaced by the RBC func-
tion; the facilities planning documents did not include a site
plan showing the location of the proposed units.
3. Adoption of the EIS and commencement of Step 2:
St. Croix Falls may be able to get Step 2 funds from the State
of Wisconsin, if so, plans to upgrade and expand the WWTP
should continue.
Reevaluation of Alternative 1 to only add treatment capacity:
The existing building was not proposed for demolition, but in
order to accomodate the 20-year projected flows, the Facilities
Planner made engineering decisions based on his best judgement.
In Step 2, changes in the selected plan may be made as long as
the overall function of the facilities is not impaired and the
respective State and Federal agencies concur with the proposed
changes.
4. Necessity of storage basin for Alternative 2:
Comment noted. Discharging effluent to infiltration beds can
be accomplished year-round in cold climates. This is done at
Grantsburg, Wisconsin, about 30 miles north of St. Croix Falls,
as well as in a similar climate at Lake George and Bolton
Landing, New York. The infiltration beds could be constructed
2-7
-------
to provide temporary storage if it were needed during unusually
severe weather conditions.
The storage basin cost was not estimated separately by the
Facilities Planner. The construction cost for the total pond
system, including three-month storage capacity, was estimated
at $25U,OOU. The portion of this total that would be asso-
ciated with the storage basin and the portion required for the
infiltration basin was not provided. Based on approximate
costs from the USEPA technical report entitled Cost of Land
Treatment Systems, approximately two-thirds of the cost may be
attributable to the storage basin. If this is the case, the
capital cost of the alternative may be as low as $972,000, or
about $150,000 less than Alternative 1, the recommended alter-
native. Deletion of the storage basin may not reduce the O&M
costs appreciably. The O&M costs of the rapid infiltration
alternative were estimated by the Facilities Planner to be
$40,000, or $9,000 greater than Alternative 1. The land appli-
cation alternative then would be the least costly alternative
for St. Croix Falls. However, the question of whether the soil
characteristics at the rapid infiltration site are satisfactory
for this alternative remains unanswered.
5. Justification of need for a storage lagoon liner for rapid infiltra-
tion site:
One reason for a liner in a lagoon where wastewater is stored
prior to rapid infiltration is that the lagoon may be located
at a site independent from the infiltration site if conditions
at the lagoon site are unacceptable for rapid infiltration.
Another reason may be that the lagoon is used as a polishing
pond for treatment plant effluent with a BOD level considera-
bly greater than 50 mg/1. It is difficult to conceive of other
situations where a liner would be required in a storage basin.
The sentence referring to a liner being required for a storage
lagoon has been deleted.
6. Figures C-5 and C-6 are too general to serve as the basis for an
adequate discussion of groundwater in Section 29:
The acquisition of more detailed information on groundwater
would require further field investigations. According to the
costs developed by the Facilities Planners, Alternative 2 is
not the most cost-effective alternative; therefore, additional
field investigations are not feasible at the present time.
7. Extent of funding assistance available from EPA, FmHA, and Wiscon-
sin:
Currently, no grant funds are available from USEPA or the State
of Minnesota. The Wisconsin Fund may have 60% grant monies
available for St. Croix Falls. These realities do have an
impact on what appears to be the least costly system for
Taylors Falls, though not for St. Croix Falls. (Table E-l in
Appendix E was recalculated using the current funding pro-
babilities and is presented in this section as Table 2-1.) For
2-8
-------
Table 2-1 Estimated user charges for Alternatives 1 through 9, based on
unavailability of Federal funds.
Upgrade/Expand
Existing UUTP
it St. Croix Kails
1 .124,000
31,000
Alternative 2
Land Disposal System
at St. Crotx Falls
1.181,000
40,000
Alternative 3
CAS System
for Taylors Fal Is
988,000
36,000
RBC System for
Taylors Falls
985,000
27,000
Alternative 5
Pond
System for
Taylors Falls
1.164.000
18.000
Alternative 6
Land Disposal
System for
Taylors Falls
1,584,000
21,000
I. Cost b
Capital Cost '
Annual O&M
Community's Share
of Cost of
Regional System
Capital Cost
Annual O&M
II. Capital Cost Distribution
Federal
State 674,AGO (60%) 708,600 (60%)
Local 449,600 (40%) 472,400 (40%) 988.000 (100%) 985,000 (100%) 1,164,000 (100*) 1,584.000 (100%)
111. Annual Costc
O&M—Residential 27,900 36,000
O&M—Interstate 3,100 4,000
State Park
Debt service-- 38,600 40,500
Residential
Debt service-- 4,300 4,500
Interstate
State Park
IV. Typical Monthly Residential
User Charge*1
0&M--Residential 4.20 5.40
Debt service— 5.80 6.10
Residential
Total Monthly 10.00 11.50
Residential
V. Annual Residential 120-00 138.00
User Charge
26,100
6,900
74,400
1 9 , 800
21,300
5.700
74.200
19,700
14,200
3.800
87,600
23.300
16,600
4,400
119.300
2 1 , 700
9.90
28.20
38.10
457.00
8.10
28.10
36.20
4 34 . 00
5.40
33.20
38.60
463.00
6.30
45.20
51.50
618.00
The distribution of capital costs is determined as follows.
For Taylors Kails MN, Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and 9,-the capital cost distribution is:
1002! x total cost = Local cost
For all projects in St. Croix Falls UI, Alternatives 1, 2, and 7, the capital cost distribution is:
60% x total cost = State cost
, 402 x total cost • Local cost.
For the Regional Alternatives 7, 8, and 9, the cost allocated to each community was based on the
community's waste flow. The cost allocation was determined as follows:
742 x total cost «• St. Croix Falls' share
26% x total cost = Taylors Kails' share.
The Interstate State Park contributes significantly to each community's waste flow and therefore is
considered separately. For each community, commercial and industrial flows are included in the
residential share. In Taylors Kails the residential share is 79%; the Interstate State Park share
is 21%. In St. Croix Falls the residential share is 90%; the Interstate State Park share is 10%.
Residential user charges are based on 1980 estimated populations and estimated number of persons per
household. In Taylors Falls the 1980 population is estimated to be 655 with 2.98 persons per
household. The number of households therefore is estimated to be 220. In St. Croix Falls, the 1980
population is estimated to be 1643 wich 2.95 persons per household. The number of households
therefore is estimated to be 557.
2-9
-------
Table 2-1. Estimated user charges (concluded).
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
Regional Conventional WWTP
at St. Croix Falls
Regional Stabilization
Pond System Near Taylors Falls
Regional Land Disposal System
Near Taylors Falls
2,113,000
62,000
2,660,000
31,000
3,651,000
23,000
St. Croix^ Falls- Taylors Falls-26% St. Croix Falls-74% Taylors Falls-26% St. Croix Falls-74% Taylors Falla-261
1,563,600
45,900
549,400
16,100
1.968,400
22,900
691,600
8,100
2,701.700
17,000
949,300
6,000
938,200 (60%)
625.400 (40%)
41,300
4,600
549,400 (100%)
12.700
3,400
1,181,000 (60%)
787,400 (40%)
20,600
2,300
691,600 (100%)
6,400
1,700
1,621,000 (60%)
1,080,700 (40%)
15,300
1,700
949,300 (100%)
4,700
1,300
53,600
6,000
41,400
11,000
67,500
7,500
52,100
13,800
92.700
10,300
71,500
19,000
6.20
8.00
4.80
15.70
3.10
10.10
2.40
19.70
2.30
13.90
1.80
27.10
14.20
170.00
20.50
246.00
13.20
158.00
22.10
265.00
16.20
194.00
2-10
-------
Taylors Falls, the alternative with the least cost impact on
the local residents is the RBC system at the existing site.
Viewed regionally, the regional RBC system at the St. Croix
Falls WWTP site has the least total impact on local financing.
The cost shares between Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls were
apportioned based on the proportional flow contributed by each
municipality; other formulas for apportioning shares are possi-
ble.
Interest rate for user cost calculations:
The interest rate used for calculating the cost per hook-up was
7.125%. The interest rate in the current municipal bond market
fluctuates around 11%. The 7.125% rate is specified by the
Water Resources Council for cost-effectiveness analyses for
federally funded projects; thus this rate was used consistently
tnroughout the analysis. A higher interest rate would result
in much higher local costs for the capital-intensive alterna-
tives and proportionately lower costs for the O&M-intensive
alternatives.
Cost estimate reliability:
The designs and cost estimates were developed by the Facilities
Planners. Although some discrepancies may exist, the prepara-
tion of new designs and cost estimates independently through
the EIS process was not thought to be justified. Such discre-
pancies, if any, are believed to be relatively minor.
b. Use of a 20 inch/week land application rate rather than a 10
inch/week rate:
The 10 inch/week application rate to the rapid infiltration
basins is conservative; however, the persons responsible for
reviewing the facility planning documents to date have not
. questioned the design and costing. With an application rate of
10 inches/week, an application area of 10.3 acres within the
beds would be required; doubling the application rate would
halve the application area. Since no site investigations were
conducted, it is probable that the Facilities Planner decided
that a conservative design was appropriate for use until the
initial screening process was completed. If the rapid infil-
tration alternative had been identified as a cost-effective
alternative, site testing would have been appropriate.
2.5. Comments at the St. Croix Falls Public Hearing
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
1. WDNR ownership of land at site of the existing treatment plant:
WDNR has made an informal agreement with the City of St. Croix
Falls to grant the additional land required for the expansion
of the WWTP (By letter, Mr. David A. Jacobson, WDNR, to Mr.
James Erickson, City of St. Croix Falls, 8 May 1980). However,
WDNR cannot make a legal commitment until a detailed proposal
to expand the existing WWTP is presented to them.
2-11
-------
2. Maintenance of the level of treatment during construction:
Refer to response #10 to WDNR written comments.
3. State Administration Code NR110 requires a 500-foot minimum setback
distance between a residence and a wastewater treatment plant:
Refer to Section 5.5.1.
4. Severe limitations at the site and concern regarding the capability
of the site to accommodate further growth:
The expanded WWTP (Alternative 1) has been designed to handle
wastewater needs for the next 20 years, based on population
projections. Expandability was a factor in selection of the
recommended alternative.
Warren White
Refer to responses to Warren 'White's written comments.
Regina Miller
Concern over the additional cost of the recommended alternative because
of the new 5 million dollar school:
Comment noted.
2.6. Comments at the Taylors Falls Public Hearing
tioward A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers, Greg Pederson
Belief that Kuusisto Consulting Engineers have formulated a viable waste-
water treatment alternative to meet the needs of Taylors Falls; comments
on projections for user charges and probable changes associated with
Government cost figures:
Comments noted.
Howard DuFore
Concern over the availability of Federal funds and residents' share of
the costs:
Comments noted. Refer to response #3 to Lower St. Croix Management
Commission.
tioward A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers, Howard A. Kuusisto
Project infeasibility without a grant structure:
Comments noted.
2-12
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1522 K Street. NW
Washington, DC 20005
March 11, 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Sir:
The Council has reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for
the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylor Falls, Minnesota, wastewater
treatment systems circulated for comment pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act. We note that the undertaking
will affect several known prehistoric and historic cultural properties
that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. Circulation of a draft environmental impact statement, however,
does not fulfill your responsibilities under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f, as amended, 90
Stat. 1320).
Prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds or prior
to the granting of any license, permit, or other approval for an under-
taking, Federal agencies must afford the Council an opportunity to
comment on the effect of the undertaking on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in
accordance with the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800) (enclosed). Until these require-
ments are met, the Council considers the draft environmental statement
incomplete in its treatment of historical, archeological, architectural,
and cultural resources. You should obtain the Council's substantive
comments through the process outlined in 36 CFR Sec. 800.9. These
comments should then be incorporated into any subsequent documents
prepared to meet requirements under the National Environmental Policy
Act. Sharon Conway may be contacted at 202-254-3974 for further assistance,
Sincerely,
t- >O
E. Tannenbaum
Chi«f, Eastern Division
of Project Review
Enclosure
2-13
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ST PAUL DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1135 U S POST OFFICE & CUSTOM HOUSE
ST PAUL. MINNESOTA 551O1
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
NCSCO-RF (CC-0588-37)
2 7 MAR 1981
Ms. Marilyn Sabadaszka, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Ms. Sabadaszka:
Thank you for submitting for comments the draft environmental impact
statement on the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
Wastewater Treatment Systems.
We have no comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIS. However, any work
performed below the ordinary highrwater mark of the St. Croix River or fill
material placed in wetlands adjacent to the river will reguire an individual
Department of the Army permit.
Please contact us with specific plans when the proposed project enters the
planning stage. We will then be able to comment more explicitly about
permit requirements.
Sincerely,
Chief, Regulatory F&hctions Branch
Construction-Operations Division
2-14
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
176 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
ER 81/286 April 15, 1981
Mr. James A. Hanlon, Chief
Environmental Engineering Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hanlon:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental impact
statement for wastewater treatment systems, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and
Fergus Falls, Minnesota and offers the following comments, both general and
specific.
We found no discussion of mineral resources in the document. Although available
data indicates that no mining has occurred, known mineral resources of the project
area include sand and gravel, limestone, traprock, and copper. Because the site
selected for the Taylors Falls Stabilization Pond encompasses 40 acres, we
recommend that a discussion of the mineral resources and an analysis of the
project's effect upon such resources be made.
We recommend further study of on-land disposal. The adversity of this alternative
appears to be based on economic rather than environmental reasons. In point of
fact, it is suggested in the document itself that further study is warranted.
If alternative #1 is selected for St. Croix Falls, we believe that the quality of the
effluent discharged into the river should be equal to, but no lower than, the present
river water quality. Waters which are of quality better than the established
standards should be maintained at high quality and not degraded to the standard.
This is a part of the Minnesota W2 standards and should be applied to the whole of
the St. Croix River.
Specific Comments
On page 2-11, first paragraph: It appears that the Wisconsin Interstate State Park
discharges to Taylors Falls. It does not; this should be clarified.
2-15
-------
On page 3-65, the last paragraph refers to "State Route 61 and 35 to State Route 8 .
..." It should be "U.S. Route 61 and Interstate 35 to U.S. Route 8 ---- " Also in
this section (3.2.4.4 Transportation) there is no mention of Wisconsin Route 35
which carries traffic into the area from 1-94 on the south and the Duluth-Superior
area on the north.
On page 3-66, Table 3-23, the headings are incorrect. They should read "Minnesota
State 95, U.S. Highway 8, U.S. Highway 61 and Interstate Highway 35".
On page 3-67, last paragraph, fourth line, "Route 5" should be "County Road S".
On page 4-33, reference is made to the use of a slow-rate irrigation system for
effluent treatment at Dickinson, North Dakota; reportedly the system has operated
successfully for 17 years. We suggest that the discussion of the example should
include or compare significant factors at the Dickinson and Taylors Falls sites,
especially soil characteristics, aquifer types, and depths of water.
On page 7-4, the definition of ground water is too broad to be significant, as it
might include, for example, soil moisture and water in the vapor phase. We suggest
that a more meaningful definition would restrict ground water to that in the zone
of saturation.
On page 7-1, the definition of aquifer should be restricted to geologic strata or
units that will yield useful or economically significant volumes of ground water.
Most rock units contain some water; however, quantities yielded within a
reasonable length of time may be insignificant.
Sincerely yours,
Sheila D. Minor
Regional Environmental Officer
2-16
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT <• i ' : ,
CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE
300 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
'""\ ;',.' ' U .":'•! lii £.0
REGION V
IN REPLY REFER TO:
2 1 APR 1981
Mr. Gene Wojcik
Chief, EIS Section
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the St. Croix,
Wisconsin and Taylor Falls, Minnesota Water Treatment Systems submitted
under cover of letter from your Agency dated February 20, 1981 and have the
following observations.
In general we find the report satisfactory and recommended alternatives
acceptable. We are concerned, however, that improvements made in the Water
Treatment Systems may result in recreation oriented residential development
on both sides of the river adjacent flood plains and wetlands. Such develop-
ment may (a) exacerbate the problem of development in floodplains, (b)
degrade wetland areas and (c) consume additional prime agricultural land.
We recommend that the final EIS attempt to identify where future development
is anticipated and determine local or state controls which may be taken to
mitigate adverse effects. If you have any questions regarding this issue
you may communicate directly with Robert Goulka, Milwaukee Area Office
Environmental Clearance Officer at FTS 362-3356.
Sincerely,
Ron Gatton
Regional Administrator
2-17
AREA OFFICES
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. COLUMBUS. OHIO- DETROIT. MICHIGAN. INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA -MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN
MINNEA POL1S-ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION 5
18209 DIXIE HIGHWAY
HOMEWOOD, ILLINOIS 6O43O
April 23, 1981
IN REPLY REFER TO: HEP~05
Mr. Gene Wojcik, Chief
EIS Section, Water Division : ::
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 r_ -.
Dear Sir:
The draft EIS for the St. Croix, Wisconsin and Taylor Falls, Minnesota
water treatment systems has been reviewed and we offer the following
comments for your consideration in developing the final.
Based upon our review, we note that Alternates 7, 8 and 9 would involve
attachment of a sewage force main to the existing US-8 bridge over the
St. Croix River between Taylor Falls, Minnesota and St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin. We find no mention of the completion of the intergovernmental
coordination that such a proposal would necessitate. We also find no
mention of whether the proposal has been determined to be a viable
alternative based on coordination with the maintaining agency. The
environmental effects listed for such a proposal are serious, e.g., possible
closure of portions of a heavily traveled bridge for extended periods. If
such effects have been discussed with and approved by the maintaining agency,
and the alternative has been determined to be viable, it should be so
indicated.
We must also point out that the deck on the US-8 St. Croix River bridge is
currently scheduled for replacement by WISDOT in their 1983 construction
program. If the implementation of EPA Alternatives 7, 8 or 9 were coor-
dinated with the scheduled bridge rehabilitation, the short term
construction effects of the force main could be minimized.
Sincerely yours,
tsi
onal Administrator
Planning and Program Development
2-18
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
176 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
April;
m
Mr. James A. Hanlon, Chief ^ -^ 0
Environmental Engineering Branch <" 3: 7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77, f~-x
Region V H: 7° fJ"J
230 South Dearborn Street O ^
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ^ ^°
Dear Mr. Hanlon:
o
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental impact
statement for wastewater treatment systems, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
and Fergus Fall, Minnesota. This is a follow-up to our letter dated April
15, 1981, and we request that the following concerns regarding recreational
resources be included in our comments on the project.
The force main route for transfer of raw wastewater from Taylors Falls to
the St.Croix Falls WWTP in Alternative 7, or from St. Croix Falls to Taylors
Falls in Alternatives 8 and 9, would cross Wisconsin Interstate Park, in-
cluding an area that contains a campground and picnic area. It should be
noted that Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance has been utilized
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in the acquisition and
development of the park.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act stipulates that no
property so assisted shall be converted to other than public outdoor
recreation use without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. If
the force main right-of-way would not preclude the use of the land for
outdoor recreation, the State Department of Natural Resources may issue a
permit for the pipeline construction with prior approval by the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior. The permit would include conditions for construction
of the pipeline, operation and maintenance procedures, emergency procedures,
and the like. However, should the development of the force main preclude
public outdoor recreation activities on any of the right-of-way, it would
be necessary for the conversion to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
That Official may approve the conversion only upon such conditions as he
deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties
of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location.
2-19
-------
- 2 -
Regional Director
It should also be noted that Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance
has been provided to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for
Minnesota Interstate Park. The above comments, therefore, also would
apply to this park should any of its land be required for the wastewater
treatment systems project.
Sincerely yours,
Sheila D. Minor
Regional Environmental Officer
2-20
-------
East Central Regional Development Commission
Serving Local Governments in Chisago, Isantl, Kanabec, Mllle Lacs and Pine Counties
Full Commission
Chisago County
Sig E. Stene
Sheldon Porter
Loren Jennings
Barry Blomquist
Isanti County
Ray Stoeckel, Vice-Chmn.
Philip Gelhorn, Sec.-Treas.
Ralph Bloomgren
Laurence Collin
Kanabec County
Robert Monson
Dick Longworth
Robert H. Anderson
Robert Mork
Mille Lacs County
Gloria Habeck, Chrm.
Kenneth Trimble
Andrew Holzemer
Owen Baas
James Bergstrom
March 25, 1981
Mr. Gene Wojcik, Chief EIS Section
US. EPA
230 Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
The East Central Regional Development Commission has
reviewed the draft St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors
Falls, Minnesota Waste Treatment Systems EIS. The
East Central Regional Development Commission concurs
with the recommendation of the EIS for the construction
of the alternatives #1 and #5 treatment facilities.
The EC RDC requests that this comment be made part of
the public hearing record.
Sincerely,
Michael Sobota
Executive Director
Pine County
James Youngbauer
James Tuttle
Keith Selleck
Wayne White
Herbert Sikkink
MS:ak
Executive Director
Michael Sobota
2-21
119 South Lake Street Mora, Minnesota 55051 (612)679-1065
-------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
April 14, 1981
Gene Wojcik, Chief ^~~:
EIS Section, Water Division _
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <•—
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street ~ —
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
This is in reference to the draft EIS on the proposed waste water treatment alter-
natives at Taylors Falls, Minnesota, and St. Croix, Wisconsin.
Our staff has reviewed the draft EIS and has the following comments:
1. Page 2-33. Sludge Disposal
The statement that "Sludge may be disposed at sanitary landfills
and on agricultural or forest land" may be applicable in some
states. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), however,
does not allow disposal of sludge in sanitary landfills.
2. Page 4-9. Floodplains and Wetlands
According to the U.S.G.S. Quadrangle map, substantial wetland exists
in the area of the proposed facility. The EIS points out that there
is adequate area at the site to allow placement of the ponds on
higher ground. If there is a sufficient amount of high ground avail-
able, we do not see any significant problems with locating the ponds
at the proposed site.
Phnnp.(612) 296-7301
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Regional Offices Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
2-22
-------
Gene Wojcik, USEPA
page 2
3. Page 4-15. Table 4-2, alternative 5(a) Groundwater
This statement identifies that the ponds would be lined with a plastic
membrane or clay to minimize seepage to the groundwater. If clay is
to be used instead of a plastic membrane for the liner, care should be
taken to insure that the borrow area is suitable for this purpose and
that there will be no significant environmental damage to this site.
Top soil should be replaced after the clay has been excavated so the
land can revert back to agricultural purposes. Any significant effects
on groundwater supplies should be known prior to construction of the
ponds .
4. Page 4-33. Third paragraph
The statement "A forage crop may be expected to uptake about 120 pounds
per acre per hour, of nitrogen" appears to be in error. More likely
"hour" is supposed to be "year."
5. Page 4-44. Top paragraph
The statement that a stabilization pond system is the most expensive
alternative for Taylors Falls should be clarified.
6. A point emphasized by MPCA Groundwater staff concerns construction of
the proposed stabilization pond in the project area, especially in the
event of high groundwater levels. The pond should be constructed above
the seasonally high water table to insure the integrity of the seal and
prevent the direct discharge of effluent to the groundwater. In con-
junction with this concern, it should be pointed out that the EIS does
not provide adequate information for determining the suitability of a
particular site for land treatment or a stabilization pond. Information
in the report is rather general in nature, and site specific information
needed in locating a treatment facility is not presented. This informa-
tion must be submitted and approved prior to the design of the proposed
system in the Construction Grants program.
Sincerely,
LouisxJ. Breimhffrst
Executive Director
2-23
-------
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
FOUNDEDIN1849 690 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 • (612) 296-6126
23 April 1981
Ms. Terri Ozaki Gedo
WAPORA, INC.
35 East Wacker Drive
Suite 490
Chicago, IL 60601
Dear Ms. Gedo:
RE: Review of the proposed stabilization pond
site for Taylors Falls, Chisago County,
NW^ of Sec. 26, Shafer Twp.
MHS Referral File Number: M 436
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project.
It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State His-
toric Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (36CFR800).
This review reveals that there are no recorded prehistoric or historic
sites located in the above-referenced site location. In addition, archae-
ological survey work conducted in this vicinity as part of a stratified
random sample did not result in the finding of any archaeological material.
Consequently, it is our opinion that the potential for archaeological sites
in this area is quite low and that additional survey work is not warranted.
Therefore, it is our opinion that there are no sites of historic, archi-
tectural, cultural, or archaeological significance listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or eligible for inclusion on the National Regis-
ter, which will be affected by your proposal.
Sincerely,
Russell W. Fridley
State Historic Preservation Officer
RWF/sl
2-24
-------
L>VZ
,„_
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
February 26, 1981
Mr. Gene Wojcik SHSW: 228-81
Chief, EIS Section RE: Draft ElS-St. Croix-Taylor
US Environmental Protection Agency Falls Water treatment systems
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared
for the above referenced undertaking. As described, we do not
believe that the preferred alternative would have any affect on
any properties that are listed on, or eligible for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin. If this
alternative is finally selected there will be no need to undertake
any additional studies to document compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended and the Advisory
Council's regulations (36 CFR 800).
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact me at
(608) 262-2732.
\j
Richard W. Dexter
Compliance Coordinator
RWD:dk
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
tflfi STATE STREET; MADISON ,WISCONSIN 557OC5 RICHARD A ERNEY. DIRECTOR
2-25
-------
MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION
619 SECOND STREET. HUDSON. WISCONSIN 54016
Serving Our Sponsor States on the St. Croix
Minnesota Telephone O/lrf MISSISSIPPI RlVerS SMCC 1965 Wisconiin Telephone
(612) 436-7131 (715) 3B6-9444
April 7, 1981
Gene Wojcik, Chief ..,. ; :
EIS Section : '.:
USEPA
Region 5
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL. 60604 ^
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement "..;.
St. Croix Falls (Wis.)/Taylors Falls (Minn.) wastewater treatment systems
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
The Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission is an interstate agency
charged with conducting studies and making recommendations concerning the wise
use, development and protection of the natural resources of the St. Croix and
Mississippi river valleys that form the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.
As part of that responsibility, the Commission has reviewed the draft
Environmental Impact Statement for wastewater treatment system solutions for
St. Croix Falls, Wis., and Taylors Falls, Minn.
The Commission on March 26 voted unanimously to submit comments to you on the
draft EIS. The Commission offers no specific criticism of the document as a
whole: it contains a fairly complete evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the various alternatives. The Commission does, however, have a difference
of opinion with USEPA concerning its recommended alternatives.
The Boundary Area Commission recommends rejection of the alternatives selected
by USEPA and selection instead of Alternative #9, a regional land disposal
system near Taylors Falls. Both communities currently discharge into the St.
Croix River near the upstream end of the segment designated the Lower St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway, a component (through P.L. 92-560) of the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Downstream from the two communities, the
National Scenic Riverway is used for whole-body contact by more than 500,000
people each summer season, many of them in two state parks located within a
mile downstream of the USEPA-proposed discharges. The Commission feels
strongly that, considering the intensive use of the area and its national
status, every effort should be made to keep all wastewater discharges out of
the river.
Thank you for this oppo
.Ve:
unity to comment.
Steven P. Johnson, Associate Director
SPJ:rmb
2-26
-------
itate of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
April 10, 1981 BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
P.O. Box 7916
Madlton, Wl 53707
Mr. Gene Wojcik, Chief, EIS Section
Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Saint Croix Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors
Minnesota Waste Water Treatment Systems
We have reviewed the above noted document and offer the following comments.
Saint Croix Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, £.
1. We fully agree with the statements on pages 2-62 and 4-24 discussing
problems in placing a force main on the U.S.H. 8 bridge. Our district
office informs us that the "bridge is of a design which is not considered
suitable for the attachment of a force main sewer. The pin connected
spans provide for a considerable movement across the joints between space
members. Opposing forces, caused by pumping in a force main at the
gradient of this bridge, could be critical to the structure's integrity.
Consequently a force main hung on the bridge should not be considered for
any of the regional system alternatives".
We believe that the Final EIS would be more valid if the regional system
alternatives and their costs were based on a force main crossing the river
on a separate structure designed and built specifically for that purpose.
2. Page 3-67 the eastern boundary of the Wisconsin Interstate Park is County
Trunk Highway (CTH) "S" not Route 5.
3. Page 4-1 Item 4.1 Construction Impacts - This portion of the Final EIS
should indicate that a permit frani the Wisconsin Department of Transpor-
tation would be required if sewer lines cross or lie within the right of
way of a highway on the State Trunk System.
4. Page 4-46 Item 4.5.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts - Major deck
repair to the U.S.H. 8 bridge is programmed for the 1983 construction
season and will result in traffic congestion, delays, and minor detours
during that period. To avoid adding to traffic problems in 1983 that
2-27
-------
Gene Wojcik -2- April 10, 1981
may result fran the construction of the waste water treatment systems
we suggest that you coordinate with : D.H. Jorgensen, Director
Transportation District #8
U. W. - Superior
Hawkes Hall
Superior, Wisconsin 54880
Phone (715) 394-0551
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
Sincerely,
t.W. Baker, Director
2-28
-------
Stale of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NAT URAL RESOURCES
Anthony S. Earl
Secretary
April 13, 1981 BOX 7921
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707
IN REPLY REFER TO: 1650~2
Mr. Gene Wojcik
Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn (5WEE)
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
Re: DEIS on St. Croix Falls and Taylor Falls
We have reviewed EPA's Draft Environmenal Impact Statement (EIS) on
wastewater facilities for St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylor Falls,
Minnesota. This review was conducted according to section NR 150.105,
Wis. Adm. Code, regarding the review of EIS's prepared by other agencies.
Our comments and this review do not represent any change in the Department's
earlier finding that the project approvals sought by St. Croix Falls are
not a major and significant action under the Wisconsin Environmental
Policy Act (WEPA). The following comments refer to pages in the DEIS
and follow page sequence.
Cover - The title should be: Environmental Impact Statement - St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylor Falls, Minnesota, Wastewater Treatment
Systems.
Page iv, 2-39, 2-59 - The referenced facilities plan for St. Croix Falls
indicates a total capital cost of $1,071,000; operation and maintenance
cost of $30,000; and a total present worth of $1,332,000. Explain why
the EIS values differ.
Page v-vii - The alternative 5 through 9 discussions should, for con-
sistency, identify the level of treatment provided.
Page 1-3, last paragraph - This paragraph suggests that state funding
under the Wisconsin Fund is a certainty. This is not correct. While
the Wisconsin Fund has successfully funded projects in the past, there
is no guarantee of funding all applicants in the future. The Wisconsin
Fund may provide up to 60% of the eligible construction costs.
2-29
-------
Mr. Gene Wojcik - April 13, 1981 2.
Page 2-12, p. B-6 - The WPDES permit for St. Croix Fall may be revised
to represent the 0.4 mgd design flow rather than the present 0.18 mgd
flow.
Page 2-25 - Disinfection. Ultraviolet disinfection should also be
addressed as a possible alternative.
Page 3-26 - St. Croix Falls Fish Hatchery. Flow and suspended solids
data is available for this discharger through the NR 101 and WPDES self-
monitoring programs. BOD, nutrients, sulfate and chloride are also
reported.
Page 3-40 - Red-shouldered hawk. For Wisconsin, rather than P-priority
species, it should be listed as T-threatened species.
Page 3-47 - Population Projections. This section should at least
mention the population projections developed by the facilities planning
consultants. For St. Croix Falls, the consultant estimated a population
of 2,120 in the year 2000. This compares very favorably with WAPORA's
2,170 population.
Page 4-1 - Construction Impacts. This section should also address the
quality of treatment provided during expansion of the existing plant
when treatment units may be out of service.
Page 4-36 through 39, 42 - In evaluating the economic significance of
any action alternative, cumulative impacts resulting from this wastewater
project and other costly community projects should be considered. For
St. Croix Falls, we understand that local school development costs may
also place a substantial financial burden on households. If there is a
special and substantial school assessment, then the cumulative effects
of both additional school project costs and wastewater facility costs
should be considered.
Page 4-45 - Mitigation of Adverse Impacts. This section on mitigation
measures is rather confusing because several of the measures discussed
are already under some regulatory control. For example: (a) weight
restrictions are already placed on most roads and highways and (b)
effluent monitoring and residual chlorine limits are already specified
by the WPDES discharge permit program. These so-called "mitigation
measures" could be summarized by simply stating the obvious, "obey the
law." But then these wouldn't be "mitigation measures" since they are
already required for the project. Listing regulated activities may be
appropriate, but some justification for their listing is needed. The
final EIS should identify the purpose and need in identifying regulated
activities as mitigation measures.
2-30
-------
Mr. Gene Wojcik - April 13, 1981 3.
Page 4-46, Mitigation of Construction Impacts. This section provides an
extensive discussion of various mitigation measures that could be
implemented to minimize various adverse impacts. It should be recognized,
however, that many more construction related best management practices
(BMP) are available to mitigate adverse impacts. Selection of the best
mitigation techniques for a particular project depends to a great extent
on the weather, equipment, ingenuity, concern and experience of the
contractor. EPA should recognize this in their evaluation and provide
for adequate flexibility in any decisions regarding mitigation requirements.
Page 4-47, Soil Odors - The discussion on soil odors is unclear. Is EPA
suggesting that soil borings be done along the force main route to
locate potentially odorous soils? What "significant impacts" does EPA
expect from short-term, trench-and-cover construction in potentially
odorous soils? Include these impacts then In section 4.1.1-Air Quality
and Odors.
Page 4-47, Spoil Disposal. Wetlands and other sensitive areas should
not be used for spoil disposal.
We hope these comments will be useful to you in the preparation of the
final EIS. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Roger Fritz at
608-266-6780.
Sincerely,
Bureaja of Environmental Impact
toward S. Druckenmiller
Director
cc: L. Sridharan - WW/2
Northwest District - Spooner
2-31
-------
LOWER ST. CROIX
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MEMBER AGENCIES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - STATE OF WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION (EX-OFFICIO)
Cooperation Between Responsible Management Agencies
April 10, 1981
LOWER ST. CROIX
Gene Wojcik, Chief NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY
EIS Section ..-- '-— ~~.
USEPA :L.' __. -^
Region 5 "7 • jr> • ';
230 S. Dearborn St. • " \
Chicago, IL. 60604 '-••-• ~" ."1
Re: Draft EIS: St. Croix: Falls (Wis.)/Taylors Falls (Minn.) Wastewater^Treatmeht
Systems
~^- *• 1
Dear Mr. Wojcik: " • ;
''',.', <-n ""
The Lower St. Croix Management Commission is the coordination agency to assure
proper management of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, a component
of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Management Commission's
Technical Committee consists of the day-to-day field management personnel from
each member agency, and its tasks include reviewing and commenting on all
documents and project proposals that affect the Riverway. Since all proposed
discharges from the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls systems (under all
alternatives) would enter the National Scenic Riverway, the Technical Committee
though it appropriate to comment on the Draft EIS. The committee's comments
were prepared at its April 9 meeting in St. Croix Falls.
The committee feels the Final EIS should contain more information on how USEPA
reached its conclusions concerning the unacceptability of land disposal east
of St. Croix Falls. The DEIS' discussion of this aspect appears weak.
The committee feels the Final EIS should contain more information on how USEPA
reached its apparent conclusions about non-degradation of the receiving stream.
Some calculations must have been made about assimilation of the wastewater, and
they should be explained in the final document.
The Draft EIS does not discuss the federal and state grant picture if a regional
facility were built in Minnesota. Would Alternative 9 receive full 94 percent
funding, for example, or would only Taylors Falls' share of that project be
funded at 94 percent?
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
\Ve'ry rru
c>^
Steven P. Johnson
Associate Director COORDINATION OFFICE
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, 619 Second Street, Hudson, Wisconsin 54016
Minnesota Telephone (612)436-7131 Wisconsin Telephone (715)386-9444
2-32
-------
P.O. Box 5^7
239 Day Road fiorthlj
St. Croix Falls, Wl
March 10, 1981
ii
Mr. Gene Wojcik
EIS Section
U.S. EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 6060k
Re: Draft EIS Wastewater Treatment
St. Croix Falls, Wise./Taylors Falls, Minn.
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
In preparation for the March 30, 1981 public hearing on the referenced
document, I would like to express the following concerns:
Is there a very clear cut, affirmative statement from the
National Park system that the discharge of 30/30 to the
river will always be permitted? If they have not given a
20 year guarantee that the discharge will be permitted, the
land application (Alternative 2) shows far better salvage
value than alternative 1.
Is the existing WWTP proposed to be demolished and replaced
with RBC's? This is suggested by figure 2-2. It appears
that the present facility could be utilized and merely added
onto with RBC's to handle additional flow.
Does adoption of this EIS put St. Croix Falls in the mainstream
to commence Step II of Alternative 1? Can Alternative 1 be
re-evaluated to only add treatment capacity instead of spending
1.2 million dollars on a complete new plant?
In proper soils, a WWTP 30 miles north of St. Croix Falls,
discharges to a "rapid infiltration basin" year round
without apparent difficulty. Thus, the storage basin budgeted
under Alternative 2 may not be necessary. This savings may
readily show Alternative 2 to be most cost effective.
If a WWTP is going to pump 50 ppm BOD water to a storage cell,
is there any sense to the storage lagoon liner required on
page 3-10?
2-33
-------
Mr. Gene Wojcik
March 10, 1981
Page 2
Figures C-5 and C-6 are far too general to adequately
discuss groundwater in section 29 as required by Alternative
2. However, C-6 suggests that, in section 29 the groundwater
is more than 50' below the ground surface.
Page 3~51 discusses that the St. Croix Falls debt load is
very heavy and, by some indicators, at full capacity.
Any savings possible are essential. To that end, I feel
that the party presenting at the hearing should discuss:
1. What funding assistance will EPA provide?
2. What funding assistance will FmHA provide?
3. What funding assistance will Wisconsin provide?
k. How realistic is the interest rate used to
develop the cost per hookup? At today's
interest rates, what is the cost per hookup?
5. How real are the cost estimates?
It is surprising that a Federal EIS should determine that land application
is not viable without conducting some on site testing of the land
application site! To eliminate the concept on a cost basis without
testing the accuracy of the 10"/week loading assumption is not realistic.
If the lowest rate in Wisconsin is 7-8"/week and highest 52"/week, it
seems that 10"/week is too conservative. If loading is instead 20"/week,
the cost of land application would probably be less than that of the
renovat ion.
As a St. Croix Falls resident, I would like to see the soils at the land
application site tested before approval of the EIS. It appears to me
that the decision to renovate the plant was made based on "gut feel"
to protect groundwater and "desire" to build a new mechanical plant.
The purpose of the EIS should be to make decisions based on engineering,
facts, and cost effectiveness, rather than assumptions which reinforce
a decision.
Please call us at 715A83-3010 if you wish to discuss this matter.
Warren White
2-34
-------
3.0. DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
3.1. Existing Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Systems
3.1.1. Existing Service Areas
ST. CROIX FALLS
The St. Croix Falls wastewater collection system consists of approxi-
mately 8.6 miles of vitrified clay, gravity sewers (primarily 8-inch diame-
ter pipe), five lift stations, and an undetermined length of force main
(rtCWRPC 1976). Two of the lift stations pump sewage from the Wisconsin
Interstate State Park. The City is served by separate storm and sanitary
sewer systems. There appears to be sufficient hydraulic capacity in the
system. No sanitary sewer overflows or bypasses because of hydraulic over-
loading have been reported for the sewer system.
The service area includes approximately 347 residential, 82 commercial,
3 industrial, and 3 public customers (WCWRPC 1976). Industrial users pre-
sently discharge only domestic wastewater to the St. Croix Falls sewer
system. There are no known major wastewater discharges in the St. Croix
Falls service area. Approximately 30 residences within the City limits are
served by septic tank-soil absorption systems (By telephone, Mr. Ron Mahaf-
fey, City of St. Croix Falls, to WAPORA, Inc., 11 January 1979).
The wastewater service area also is served by a municipally-owned
potable water supply system. The system serves approximately 356 residen-
tial, 85 commercial, 3 industrial, and 13 public customers.
TAYLORS FALLS
The Taylors Falls sanitary sewer system consists of approximately
25,800 feet of 6-inch and 8-inch, vitrified clay gravity sewer and 1,290
feet of 4-inch, ductile iron force main. Two lift stations and a
5,000-gallon Imhoff tank are included in the wastewater facilities for the
Minnesota Interstate State Park that discharge to the City's sewer system.
3-1
-------
The City is partially served by storm sewers. There are no combined sewers
in the City, and no known instances of sanitary sewer overflows or bypasses
of the sewer system.
Taylors Falls is served entirely by the sanitary sewer system except
for three residences near the intersection of tiill Street and Basil Street.
These residences have septic tank-soil absorption systems and are not con-
nected to the sanitary sewer system because of the steep grade. The most
significant individual major sources of wastewater in the Taylors Falls
service area are the Minnesota Interstate State Park, the Cherry Hill Meat
Processing Company, and the Taylors Falls Public School.
3.1.2. Existing Treatment Systems
ST. CROIX FALLS
The wastewater treatment facility for St. Croix Falls was designed in
1948 and constructed in 1951. The treatment plant is located on the bank of
the St. Croix River on approximately 0.5 acres of land leased from WDNR.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary treat-
ment, biological filtration, final clarification, flow measurement, chlori-
nation, sludge digestion, and sludge dewatering. The facility was designed
to treat 120,000 gallons per day (gpd), with a 5-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD ) loading of grams per day 250 pounds per day (Ib/day) and a
total suspended solids loading of 240 Ib/day. The 1975 yearly average
wastewater flow was 211,400 gpd. The monthly peak flow was 299,400 gpd
(Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc. 1976). Based
on the 1978 average raw sewage BOD concentration of 159 milligrams per
liter (mg/1) and the 1975 average flow, the current BOD loading is 280
Ib/day. This estimate assumes that there has been no significant increase
in wastewater flow since 1975.
Raw sewage from the St. Croix Falls service area enters the treatment
plant from sewers located along River Street. The old outfall sewer that
was used before the construction of the treatment facility could be used as
3-2
-------
an emergency bypass from the River Street sewer. There are no reported
instances of its use. A detailed discussion of the existing facilities at
the St. Croix Falls WWTP is presented in Appendix A, Exhibit A-l.
TAYLORS FALLS
The existing sewage treatment facility for the City of Taylors Falls
was constructed in 1941. The plant is located on the bank of the St. Croix
River immediately north of the US Highway 8 bridge.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary treat-
ment, biological filtration, final clarification, chlorination, sludge
digestion, and sludge dewatering. The existing facilities were designed for
a flow rate of 75,600 gpd and a maximum raw sewage BOD concentration of 250
mg/1 (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1979). A flow measurement and
sampling survey conducted by SERCO (1978) during November 1978 showed that
the treatment plant loading was 90,900 gpd and 105 Ib/day. The peak flow
rate observed during this period was 144,000 gpd. A detailed discussion of
the existing facilities at the Taylors Falls WWTP is presented in Appendix
A, Exhibit A-2.
3.1.3. Existing Effluent Quality
ST. CROIX FALLS
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored three times per week at the
St. Croix Falls WWTP, in accordance with the WPDES permit (Section 3.2.2.).
The monthly averages of the BOD , suspended solids, and fecal coliform data
are presented in Table 3-1. The 1978 mean concentrations for BOD and
suspended solids in the raw sewage were 159 mg/1 and 162 mg/1, respectively.
The 1978 mean concentrations for BOD , suspended solids and fecal coliform
in the final effluent were 69 mg/1, 34 mg/1, and 390 counts/100 ml, res-
pectively. On the basis of these data, the effluent appears to be within
the concentration limits of the interim discharge permit (Section 3.2.2.).
The load calculations (in kilograms per day; kg/day) cannot be determined
accurately because tne flow meter for the facility was not calibrated for
3-3
-------
accurate flow measurements during 1978 (Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.
I960). This deficiency was corrected early in 1979.
Table 3-1. Raw sewage and final effluent data for the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, wastewater treatment plant for 1978 (WDNR 1978).
Raw Sewage
Final Effluent
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Mean
BOD
(mg/1)
156
21U
178
137
159
144
153
116
13b
151
230
141
159
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
Ib5
239
167
211
202
135
148
112
129
144
150
141
162
BOD
(mg/1)
67
89
71
61
65
70
63
67
58
69
95
54
69
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
54
49
21
24
28
32
29
48
32
26
30
33
34
Fecal Coliform
(counts per
100 ml)
—
—
7,100
270
30
900
100
250
890
440
650
220
390
TAYLORS FALLS
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored monthly for the Taylors
Falls facility, as previously required by the expired NPDES Permit (Section
3.2.2.). The monthly averages of the BOD , suspended solids, and fecal
coliform data are presented in Table 3-2. The 1978 mean concentrations of
BOD and suspended solids in the raw sewage were 482 mg/1 and 429 mg/1,
respectively. The 1978 mean concentrations of BOD , and suspended solids in
the final effluent were 66 mg/1, and 33 mg/1 respectively. The mean concen-
tration of fecal coliform was not computed. These data indicate that the
Taylors Falls idWTP effluent generally fails to comply with the interim
effluent limitations (Section 3.2.2.).
3-4
-------
Table 3-2. Raw sewage and final effluent data for the Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, wastewater treatment plant for 1978 (MPCA 19786).
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Mean
Raw
BOD5
(mg/1)
170
290
270
320
460
700
560
300
570
1,480
120
540
482
Sewage
Suspended
Solids
(mg/D
76
200
148
450
135
269
80
32
389
2,100
142
1,130
429
BOD5
(mg/1)
76
56
35
39
90
140
152
41
100
43
9
13
66
Final
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
23
38
23
23
41
40
44
20
52
28
28
38
33
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(counts per
100 ml)
20
20
20
20
20
20
TNTC1
20
TNTC
TNTC
20
20
—
1
TNTC = too numerous to count.
3.1.4. Wastewater Flows
ST. CROIX FALLS
The Facilities Plan for the St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewer-
age District (Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc.
1976) contains information on the base wastewater flow rates and infiltra-
tion and inflow (I/I) quantity for the City of St. Croix Falls. The report
on the wastewater treatment plant at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin (Banister,
Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc. 1973) contains flow
measurements for the City of St. Croix Falls that were made during several
24-hour periods.
3-5
-------
The cost-effectiveness analysis in the Facilities Plan for the elimina-
tion of I/I for the St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewerage District
contains the conclusion that it would be cost-effective to eliminate 30,000
gpd of inflow at St. Croix Falls by sealing the manhole-wet well at the
Virginia Street Pumping Station. This lift station subsequently was re-
paired. Therefore the remaining I/I quantity is 162,000 gpd minus 30,000
gpd, or 132,000 gpd.
According to the Facilities Plan (Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrick-
son, and Associates, Inc. 1976), the base flow of 137,400 gpd for the City
of St. Croix Falls was determined to be equivalent to the potable water sold
by the City during September 1975. The population of St. Croix Falls in
1974 was approximately 1,460, as indicated in the Facilities Plan. Assuming
that the 1975 population was the same size as the 1974 population, a per
capita base flow of 94 gpd was determined.
Wastewater flows from the Wisconsin Interstate State Park are collected
in sanitary sewers tributary to the St. Croix Falls collection system.
Metering devices are not installed on the sanitary sewage collection system
within the Interstate State Park; thus the exact volumes of flow are not
known. The wastewater flows from the Interstate State Park presumably are
included in the base wastewater flow rate presented in the Facilities Plan.
TAYLORS FALLS
The I/I analysis report for the City of Taylors Falls (Howard A.
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1979) contains information on water consump-
tion, base wastewater flows, and I/I quantities. The Draft Facilities Plan
for Taylors Falls, Minnesota (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980),
indicates tuat the I/I report for the City of Taylors Falls has been re-
viewed and certified by both rtPCA and USEPA. The I/I report concludes that
I/I does exist in the Taylors Falls sanitary sewer system but is not exces-
sive relative to the regulations and standards established by USEPA.
The analysis of water pumpage and water records indicated an average
daily consumption rate of 65 gallons per capita per day (gpcd; Howard A.
3-6
-------
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1979). This yields a base domestic and commer-
cial wastewater flow of 41,000 gpd based on a Taylors Falls population of
625 persons in 1979.
Wastewater flow monitoring conducted during the I/I analysis revealed a
peaK. month I/I rate of 102,000 gpd, a peak week. I/I rate of 128,000 gpd, and
a peak day I/I rate of 148,000 gpd. Total flow to the wastewater treatment
plant during the 118 day monitoring period averaged 132,000 gpd (Howard A.
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1979).
The Facilities Plan for Taylors Falls indicates that the I/I rates
monitored during this period are the only data available and do not repre-
sent flows throughout the year. Furthermore, climatic and groundwater
conditions are quite variable and may change the amount of I/1 from year to
year. Therefore, in an attempt to alleviate the data gaps of the flow
monitoring, it was assumed that the I/I rate would average 50,770 gpd for
the six dry montiis (September to February) and 102,000 gpd for the six wet
months (March to August), for an average yearly I/I rate of 76,400 gpd
(Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980).
The Minnesota Interstate State Park, bordering the St. Croix River to
the south of the City of Taylors Falls, contributes a wastewater flow that
fluctuates with the seasonal tourist population. The Park is divided pri-
marily into two separate areas. The northern section serves a day-oriented
tourist traffic and has a low-flow toilet facility that is connected direct-
ly to the Taylors Falls municipal collection system. Park officials esti-
mate that about 200,000 people, out of an average of 430,000 visitors per
year, visit this section of the Park during June, July, and August. This is
an average of approximately 2,000 visitors per day. Using an estimate of 2
gpd per visitor, a daily wastewater contribution of 4,000 gpd could be
expected during an average summer day. The 2 gpd per visitor estimate is
reasonable considering the low-flow toilet facilities and the fact that many
visitors make short visits and would not use the facilities.
The southern section of the Park consists of campground facilities that
include showers, flush toilets, and a wastewater dump for recreational ve-
3-7
-------
hides. The campground wastewater is collected and passed through an Imhoff
tank having a volume of approximately 5,000 gallons. The effluent from the
Imhoff tank is pumped through force mains tributary to a gravity sewer and
the municipal collection system. The wastewater is measured with a time
clock on the two 100 gallons per minute (gpm) pumps in the upper pump sta-
tions. The clocks are read on a yearly basis.
The number of visitors to the campground is included in the total of
430,000 persons per year. The average number of campers during the 15 June
to 15 August peak period was approximately 188 campers per day (based on 4
campers per site and 47 available camping sites). At other times during the
season, the average number of campers per day was about 94. Based on an
estimated 50 gpd per person, the daily average flow from the Park is esti-
mated to be 9,400 gpd. Therefore, the total average daily flow from the
Park is 13,400 gpd.
3.2. Design Factors
Three categories of factors must be considered in the design of a
wastewater treatment system: the present and projected wastewater flows in
the service area, the existing and proposed effluent standards established
by Federal and State authorities, and economic cost criteria (duration of
the planning period, interest rate, service factor, and service life of
facilities and equipment). Each of these factors is discussed in the fol-
lowing sections.
3.2.1. Wastewater Load Factors
ST. CROIX FALLS
The major source of wastewater in St. Croix Falls is from residential
and commercial development, with small contributions from the Wisconsin
Interstate State Park and an 8-acre industrial park located in the southeast
section of the City. These conditions are expected to continue in the
future.
3-8
-------
Wastewater load factors for the St. Croix Falls Service Area for the
year 2000 were developed by WAPORA, Inc., on the basis of information pre-
sented in the Report on Wastewater Treatment Plant, St. Croix Falls (Bani-
ster, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson & Associates, Inc. 1973) and on a pro-
jected year 2000 design population of 2,170 as calculated by WAPORA (Section
3.2.2.2.). The design flows for wastewater from all sources (including the
Wisconsin Interstate State Park, the industrial park, and I/I) were calcu-
lated to be:
• Average design flow: 397,700 gpd
• Peak design flow: 657,000 gpd.
The flow from the industrial park (presently under development) is projected
to be approximately 10% of the design flow from all other sources (361,500
gpd average daily flow), or 36,200 gpd. The peak flow from the industrial
park is estimated to be twice this amount, or 72,400 gpd.
The organic loads were projected on the basis of the accepted design
values of 0.17 pounds (lo) of BOD per capita per day and 0.20 Ib of sus-
pended solids (SS) per capita per day. These values were applied to the
future projected increase in population of 769 for the year 2000 (Section
4.2.2.2.) plus existing and projected data provided by the St. Croix Falls
Facilities Planners, Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. (1980), to obtain the
following estimates:
• Design BOD : 460 Ib/day
• Design SS: 500 Ib/day.
The BOD and SS concentrations were calculated on the basis of the average
design flow of 397,700 gpd and were estimated to be 139 mg/1 and 151 mg/1,
respectively. The average per capita wastewater flow for the residential
and commercial component of the flow is 94 gpd. The individual components
of each total estimate for both wastewater flows and organic loads are given
in Table 3-3.
3-9
-------
Table 3-3. Wastewater load factors projected for St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
for the year 2000 (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980; Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.
1980).
I
I—1
o
Source
St. Croix Falls
Residential and commercial
Wisconsin Interstate State Park
Projected industrial park
Existing infiltration/inflow
Future allowable infiltration
(9 gpcd)
Total
Taylors Falls
Residential and commercial
(includes wastewater flow from
Cherry Hill Meat Processing Co.)
Minnesota Interstate State Park
Cherry Hill Meat Processing Co.
Infiltration/inflow
Total
Regional Total
(sum of totals for St. Croix
Falls WI and Taylors Falls MN)
Average Daily Flow
(gpd)
204,100
19,000
36,200
132,000
6,400
397,700
50,000
13,400
76,400
139,800
537,500
Peak Flow
(gpd)
408,200
38,000
72,400
132,000
6,400
657,000
100,000
27,000
148,000
275,000
932,000
BOD
(Ib/day)
360
35
65
SS
(Ib/day)
380
40
80
460
155
45
10
"210
670
500
230
65
10
305
805
NOTE: All values have been rounded.
-------
TAYLORS FALLS
The primary source of wastewater in Taylors Falls (as it is for St.
Croix Falls) is from residential and commercial development. The Taylors
Falls Public School also is included in this category. The Minnesota In-
terstate State Park, contributes about 20% of the base flow of wastewater to
the Taylors Falls treatment facility. The wastewater flow from the Cherry
Hill Meat Processing Co., the only industry in the community, is insignifi-
cant.
Wastewater load factors for the Taylors Falls Service Area for the year
200U were developed by WAPORA, Inc., on the basis of information presented
in the Draft Facilities Plan for Taylors Falls (Howard A. Kuusisto Con-
sulting Engineers 1980) and a projected year 2000 design population of 769,
as estimated by WAPORA (Section 4.2.2.2.). The design flows for wastewater
for all sources, including the Minnesota Interstate State Park, the Cherry
Hill Meat Processing Co., and I/I were calculated to be:
• Average design flow: 139,800 gpd
• Peak, design flow: 275,000 gpd.
The BOD and SS loads were calculated by applying the design values
mentioned previously (0.17 Ib of BOD and 0.20 Ib of SS per capita per
day) to the projected year 2000 population of 769 people. An additional
BOD load for 140 people was included to account for the contribution from
public school students who reside outside the City but would contribute to
the wastewater system during part of the day. The total BOD and SS loads
from all sources (including the Minnesota Interstate State Park and the
Cherry Hill Meat Processing Co.) were estimated to be:
• Design BOD : 210 Ib/day
• Design SS: 305 Ib/day.
Based on the average design flow of 139,800 gpd, the concentrations of BOD
and SS were estimated to be 180 mg/1 and 263 mg/1, respectively. The aver-
age per capita wastewater flow for the residential-commercial component of
the total flow is 65 gpd. The individual components of each total estimate
also are indicated in Table 3-3.
3-11
-------
REGIONAL
The wastewater load factors for the St. Croix Falls WI and Taylors
Falls MN region were obtained by addition of the totals from the two service
areas for each factor. The following estimates were obtained:
• Average design flow: 537,500 gpd
• Peak flow: 932,000 gpd
• BOD : 670 Ib/day
• SS: 805 Ib/day.
On the basis of the average regional daily flow of 537,500 gpd, the BOD,, and
SS concentrations were calculated to be 150 mg/1 and 180 mg/1, respectively.
These factors have been used in the consideration of regional treatment
alternatives.
3.2.2. Effluent Standards
ST. CROIX FALLS
The City of St. Croix Falls was reissued its original NPDES permit on
30 June 1978 to continue discharging effluent from the WWTP to the St. Croix
River. This permit, Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)
Permit No. WI-0020796-2, will expire on 30 June 1982. The permit establish-
es interim effluent limitations that will be in effect until 30 June 1982,
or until construction of upgraded wastewater treatment facilities is com-
pleted. Both the interim effluent limitations that are applicable during
the duration of the participation by the City in the Construction Grants
.Program and the final effluent limitations applicable after completion of
the upgrading process are presented in Table 3-4. These limitations were
established by WDNR for discharge from the St. Croix Falls WWTP to the St.
Croix River and were based on a design flow of 0.18 million gallons per day
(mgd). Effluent limitations for fecal coliform bacteria are not stated in
the existing permit. A copy of the WPDES permit is included in Appendix B,
Exhibit ti-1. The WPDES permit may be revised to reflect a design flow of
0.4 mgd (By letter, Mr. Howard S. Druckenmiller, WDNR, to Mr. Gene Wojcik,
USEPA, 13 April 1981). However, the effluent limitations would not change
for the increased discharge.
3-12
-------
Table 3-4. Interim and final effluent limitations for the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, wastewater treatment plant (WPDES Permit No. WI-
0020796-2; Appendix B).
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Parameter Interim Final
BOD
^monthly average) 110 mg/1 30 mg/1
(weekly average) 165 mg/1 45 mg/1
Suspended solids
(monthly average) 75 mg/1 30 mg/1
(weekly average) 110 mg/1 45 mg/1
(minimum) 6.0 units 6.0 units
(maximum) 9.0 units 9.0 units
TAYLORS FALLS
The City of Taylors Falls was reissued its original permit to discharge
from the WWTP to the St. Croix River on 13 November 1979. This permit,
NPDES Permit No. MN 0021768, will expire on 30 June 1984. The interim
effluent limitations listed in the permit will be in effect until 30 June
1983. The City is required to comply with the final effluent limitations
listed in the permit by 1 June 1983, and to meet those limitations for the
final year of the permit period. If Federal funds are not available in time
to meet the compliance date of 1 July 1983, the time extension stated in the
permit for the interim limitations will be terminated. A copy of the NPDES
permit is included in Appendix B, Exhibit B-2.
Both the interim and final effluent limitations for a discharge to the
St. Croix River are presented in Table 3-5. These limitations also would
apply to a discharge to Colby Lake, and a 1 mg/1 phosphorus limitation also
would be required for a discharge to Colby Lake or to Dry Creek. Effluent
limitations for a discharge to Lawrence Creek or Dry Creek are shown in
3-13
-------
Table 3-5. Interim and final effluent limitations for the Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, wastewater treatment plant (NPDES Permit No. MN-
0021768; Appendix B).
Parameter
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Interim
Final
BOD
(monthly average)
(weekly average)
Suspended solids
(monthly average)
(weekly average)
Q
Fecal coliform organisms
(monthly average)
(weekly average)
Turbidity
Hd
(minimum)
(maximum)
Floating solids or visible foam
Oil or other substances
50 mg/1
30 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
6.5 units
8.5 units
Trace amounts
only
No visible color
film on surface
of receiving
water
25 mg/1
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
400 MPN/100 ml
25 NTU
6.5 units
8.5 units
Trace amounts
only
No visible color
film on surface
of receiving
water
Both monthly and weekly average limitations are applicable during con-
tinuous discharge periods. The average concentrations during a period
of controlled discharge must not exceed the monthly average limitations,
and the weekly average limitations also must not be exceeded if the period
of discharge is equal to or greater than one week.
Arithmetic mean.
Q
Geometric mean.
Not subject to averaging; must be met at all times.
MPN/100 ml = Most probable number per 100 milliliters.
NTU = Nephelometer turbidity unit.
3-14
-------
Table 3-6. These limitations are more stringent, and include restrictions
on the ammonia and chlorine levels for a discharge to Lawrence Creek because
it has been designated as a Class A fisheries and recreation stream by the
State of Minnesota.
RhCIONAL SYSTEM
The effluent limitations for a regional treatment facility would be
those applicable in the particular State in which the regional treatment
facility would be sited. The discharge to the St. Croix River, to another
body of water, or on land would be within the boundaries of either Wisconsin
or Minnesota.
3.2.3. iiconomic Factors
The economic cost criteria used in the comparison of project alterna-
tives include an amortization, or planning, period from the present to the
year 2UOG, or approximately 20 years; an interest (discount) rate of 7.125%;
a service factor of 25%; and service lives of 15 to 20 years for process and
auxiliary equipment, 40 years for structures, and 50 years for piping and
ponds. Salvage values were estimated using straight-line depreciation for
items that could be used at the end of the 20-year planning period, and
replacement costs were estimated for items with a service life shorter than
the planning period.
Costs of land purchase were estimated for alternatives that include
land treatment or disposal. An annual appreciation rate of 3% over the
planning period was used to calculate the salvage value of the land. All
costs used in this report were updated to third quarter 1979 dollar values.
The total capital cost includes the initial construction cost plus 25% for
engineering, legal, fiscal, and administrative costs. Operation and mainte-
nance costs include labor, materials, and utility (power) costs associated
with the treatment works, pumping stations, and solids handling and disposal
processes and are based on prevailing rates. Annual revenue-producing
benefits, such as irrigation of crops, are subtracted from O&M costs.
3-15
-------
Table 3-6. Effluent limitations for a discharge to Lawrence Creek or Dry
Creek (By letter, Mr. Lanny R. Peissig, MPCA, to Mr. Gregory
Pederson, Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers, 16 May
1979).
EFFLUENT LIMITATION
Parameter
BOD
Suspended solids
Fecal coliform organisms
Turbidity
pH
(minimum)
(maximum)
o
Ammonia (as nitrogen)
Q
Chlorine ,
Phosphorus
Controlled Discharge
25 mg/1
30 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
10 MPN/100 ml
25 NTU
6.5 units
8.5 units
0.2 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
Continuous Discharge
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
10 MPN/100 ml3
25 NTU
6.5 units
8.5 units
0.2 mg/1
0.002 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
Applicable for a discharge to Lawrence Creek only.
Applicable for a discharge to Dry Creek only.
MPN/100 = Most probable number per 100 milliliters.
NTU = Nephelometer turbidity unit.
3-16
-------
3.3. System Component Options
Wastewater management alternatives were developed for the St. Croix
Falls - Taylors Falls study area to meet the needs of the current and future
populations of the service area and to conform with the requirements of
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Federal regulations. The principal objective was
to reduce pollutant loads to surface waters. Other objectives were to
explore the feasibility of various land application and disposal options.
All alternatives must provide treatment to achieve the effluent requirements
set by Federal and State permits or pretreatment requirements for land
disposal (Section 3.3.4.2.).
The development of alternatives began with the identification of func-
tional components within the wastewater collection and treatment system.
The components considered were:
• Flow and waste reduction — including I/I reduction and
water conservation measures
• Collection systems — including an interceptor sewer and
pumping station from one community to a new regional WWTP or
land application site
• Wastewater treatment processes — including biological
and/or physical unit processes for treating wastewater to
the desired effluent quality
• Effluent disposal — including available means for dis-
charge, land application, or reuse of adequately treated
wastewater
• Sludge treatment and disposal — including processes for
stabilization, conditioning, dewatering, volume reduction,
and disposal of wastewater treatment residues.
The methods considered for fulfillment of the functions of each of these
five system components can be termed "component options" or "options". The
selection of options for any one component is, to some extent, dependent on
the options considered for the other components, so that a compatible system
can be produced.
In the following sections, component options for the independent treat-
ment facilities at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, a regional treatment
3-17
-------
facility to serve both communities, and various land treatment processes are
identified and discussed to the extent necessary to justify or reject their
inclusion in system-wide alternatives. Reasonable combinations of component
options that comprise complete system alternatives are identified. For each
alternative the level of technical detail is suitable for this planning
stage. Detailed engineering plans and specifications will be developed by
engineering consultants after the EIS process is completed, with Federal
financial assistance through a "Step 2" grant (Section 1.0.).
3.3.1. Flow and Waste Reduction
3.3.1.1. Infiltration and Inflow Reduction
ST. CROIX FALLS
An I/I analysis of the St. Croix Falls wastewater collection system was
performed by Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson & Associates, Inc. (1976)
to determine the presence, quantity, and type of I/I conditions that were
present. Infiltration is the process through which water enters a sewer
system from the ground through defective pipes, pipe joints, or manhole
walls. Inflow is the water that is discharged into the collector system and
service connections from roof, cellar, yard, area, and foundation drains;
cooling water discharges; drains from springs and swampy areas; manhole
covers; cross connections from storm sewers and combined sewers; catch
basins; storm waters, surface runoff, street washwaters, and other sources.
The sanitary sewage collection system in the City of St. Croix Falls is
separate from the storm sewer system, and no known roof drains or surface
runoff collection points currently are connected to the sanitary sewage
collection system.
The maximum quantity of I/I entering the existing collection system in
1975 was estimated to be 162,000 gpd. Two sources of inflow to the sewer
system were identifed during the I/I survey. As much as 12,500 gpd of
inflow might occur through basement floor drains during periods of high
groundwater conditions. However, waterproofing the approximately 25 base-
ments involved could increase the external hydrostatic pressure and cause
additional cracking of floors and walls. The second known source, contribut-
3-16
-------
ing approximately 3U,UOO gpd of inflow, is the wet well of the pumping
station located on Virginia Street. On tne basis of a cost-benefit analysis
prepared by Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc.
(1976) it was determined and recommended that the manhole of the wet well
could be sealed and 30,000 gpd of inflow eliminated; but the most-effective
alternative for basement inflow (12,500 gpd) would be to transport and treat
this volume of wastewater at an upgraded WWTP.
The net I/I of 132,000 gpd was included as a design factor in the
Facilities Plan for the alternatives considered herein, and a limit of an
additional 6,400 gpd was established for future allowable infiltration
(Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 1980). A check of the 1979 flow records at
the St. Croix Falls WWTP confirms that there have been no changes in the
flows that would affect the conclusions of the 1976 analysis (Short-Elliott-
Hendrickson, Inc. 1980).
TAYLORS FALLS
An I/I analysis was conducted of the wastewater collection system in
the City of Taylors Falls by Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers (1979).
Wastewater flow monitoring conducted during the I/I analysis revealed a peak
day I/I rate of 148,000 gpd and an average yearly rate of 76,400 gpd. Based
on tnis analysis, it was concluded that the largest amount of extraneous
flows are a result of infiltration. itony of the sources of this I/I flow
appear to be on private property. It was determined that the amount of I/I
within the sanitary sewer system is not excessive, according to USEPA pro-
gram requirements, and that no additional steps need to be taken to control
I/I exclusive of the improvement of the wastewater treatment facilities.
This analysis was submitted to and subsequently certified by MPCA and USEPA
(Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980).
3.3.1.2. Water Conservation Measures
Water conservation as a means of significantly reducing wastewater
flows is usually difficult to attain and often is only marginally effective.
Traditional water conservation practices have proven to be socially unde-
sirable except in areas where water shortages exist. Such measures usually
3-19
-------
succeed in limiting only luxury water usages such as lawn sprinkling, car
washing, or swimming pool use, which do not impose loads on sanitary sewer
systems.
One possible method for reduction of sewage flow is the adjustment of
the price of water to control consumption. This method normally is used to
reduce water demand in areas with water shortages. It probably would not be
effective in reducing sanitary sewer flows because much of its impact is
usually on luxury water usage, such as lawn sprinkling or car washing. None
of the luxury uses impose a load on a separated sewerage system, such as the
existing systems at St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls. Therefore, the use
of water price control probably would not be effective in significantly
reducing wastewater flows.
Mandatory water conservation through the imposition of plumbing code
restrictions could reduce domestic sewage flows. Two primary targets would
be toilet tanks and shower heads. Typical plumbing code restrictions in-
clude a requirement that all new or replacement toilets have a 3.5-gallon
capacity and that new or replacement shower heads deliver 3 gpm. Such
measures would reduce water demand and sewage flow directly.
The projected amount of water consumed per capita by the year 2000 in
the two service areas is 95 gpd in St. Croix Falls and 65 gpd in Taylors
Falls. Visitors to the Interstate State Parks would contribute approximate-
ly 2 gpcd, and campers would contribute approximately 50 gpcd (Howard A.
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980). These per capita amounts are relative-
ly small, and thus water conservation measures would be only marginally
effective in reducing wastewater flows in the two communities.
3.3.1.3. Other Reduction Measures
Other conservation measures include educational campaigns, retrofitting
of water-saving devices in toilets and showers, and the installation of
pressure-reduction valves in areas where the water pressure is excessive
(greater than 40 Ib to 60 Ib per square inch; Ib/sq in). Educational
campaigns usually take the form of spot television and radio commercials,
and the distribution of leaflets with water bills or independently. Water-
3-20
-------
saving devices must continue to be used and maintained for flow reduction to
be effective. Pressure reduction valves can be used where water pressure is
higher than necessary, sometimes on a neighborhood basis. Where older pipes
(especially iron pipes) are present, however, this excess pressure may be
necessary to overcome higher head losses through the older pipes.
Because the efficacy of water conservation is complex and must be de-
termined on a case-by-case basis, a comprehensive water conservation al-
ternative is not proposed in this document. However, implementation of con-
servation measures in the future could reduce flows and could extend
the de-sign capacity of the collection and treatment components for each
community.
3.3.2. Collection Systems
The existing collection systems for both St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls are discussed in Section 3.1.1. The sanitary sewer system in St.
Croix Falls has been inspected periodically, and all required repairs and
reconstruction have been completed since the last investigation in 1970
(banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc. 1976). No
repairs or reconstruction are required for this system or for the Taylors
Falls sanitary sewer system.
No new interceptors or other collection facilities would be required
for wastewater management alternatives that involve upgrading or replacement
of either the St. Croix Falls WWTP or the Taylors Falls WWTP. The construc-
tion of a regional conventional treatment facility at St. Croix Falls or the
implementation of a regional stabilization pond or land treatment alterna-
tive near either community would require the construction of a force main
between the two communities that would connect the existing treatment
plants. The line would pass through the Wisconsin Interstate State Park and
be suspended within the bridge support system of the US Highway 8 bridge. A
pumping station would be required in the community of origin and an addi-
tional pumping station would be required in the receiving community if the
wastewater were to be treated at a site remote from the WWTP. A stabiliza-
tion pond or land treatment alternative specific to either community would
3-21
-------
require the construction of a force main from the WWTP to the treatment
site. New pumping stations also would be required for transportation of the
wastewater to the site. The treated wastewater could be sprayed onto crop-
land or applied to land in flooding basins (rapid infiltration) with re-
covery of the treated water for irrigation or reuse. If the effluent will
be discharged to the St. Croix River, an outfall sewer discharge line must
be constructed from the treatment site to the point of discharge. It is
expected that such a line would parallel the raw wastewater line to the
site. The particular conveyance system required for each alternative con-
sidered is discussed in Section 3.4.
3.3.3. Wastewater Treatment Processes
A variety of treatment options were considered for both communities.
In general, wastewater treatment options include conventional physical,
biological, and chemical processes, and land treatment. The conventional
options utilize preliminary treatment, primary sedimentation, secondary
treatment, and tertiary treatment (including addition of chemicals) for
phosphorus removal. These unit processes are followed by disinfection prior
to effluent disposal. Land treatment processes include lagoons, slow-rate
infiltration or irrigation, overland flow, and rapid infiltration.
The degree of treatment required is dependent on the effluent disposal
option selected (Section 3.3.4.). Where disposal of treated wastewater is
by effluent discharge to surface waters, effluent quality limitations de-
termined by rtiJNR and UPC A (Section 3.2.2.) are used to establish the re-
quired level of treatment. Where effluent is disposed on land, groundwater
protection standards, must be met.
3.3.3.1. Preliminary Treatment and Primary Sedimentation
Conventional preliminary treatment and primary sedimentation processes
serve to remove coarse solids, readily-settleable suspended solids, floating
solids, and grease from the influent wastewater. The preliminary treatment
generally consists of a bar screen (a screening device) or a combination of
a coarse bar screen and a comminutor, followed by a grit chamber. Solids
are ground in the comminutor and left in the waste, thereby eliminating the
3-22
-------
separate disposal of screenings. The grit chamber is used for the removal
of inorganic solids such as sand. The next treatment unit is a primary
sedimentation tank, in which heavy solid matter settles to the bottom and
light solid matter floats to the top. The sludge (settled solids) and the
scum (floating solids) are removed to the solids (sludge) handling facili-
ties. The clarified liquid flows out of the primary sedimentation tank to
the subsequent treatment units. It is assumed that these processes will
remove approximately 30% of the BOD,- and approximately 50% of the SS from
the wastewater.
3.3.3.2. Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment consists of biological processes in which soluble
and colloidal-sized organic substances are removed from wastewater. The
most frequently used processes provide a fluid media, such as the activated
sludge process, or a fixed media, such as the trickling filter or the rotat-
ing biological contactor (RBC) process. Three processes were selected for
cost-effective analysis: activated sludge systems, the RBC system, and the
stabilization pond or aerated pond system. These systems were described in
detail in the Facilities Plans. For comparative purposes, a brief dis-
cussion of these processes is presented here.
Activated sludge consists of an aerated suspension of microorganisms
that utilize organic wastewater for respiration and reproduction. Aeration
generally is provided by diffusion of air from the bottom of the tank or
mechanical agitation. Separate settling facilities are used to remove
viable organisms from the treated wastewater. There are a number of modi-
fications to the basic activated sludge process, each specific to a differ-
ent strength of waste. Efficiencies of BOD removal by primary treatment
and conventional diffused air and pure oxygen system options range from 85%
to 95%.
The RBC system is a recent advance in fixed-media-type treatment sys-
tems (trickling filter process). This system is more compact and the cost
of providing a cover over the units to eliminate freezing also is considera-
bly less than the cost of providing a cover for the conventional rock trick-
3-23
-------
ling filter system. RtfCs consist of a fixed medium (disks) on which biolo-
gial growth develops. The disks rotate partially through the wastewater.
Separate settling facilities are used to remove slough (excess biomass) from
the treated wastewater. The efficiency of the RBC process is comparable to
that of an activated sludge system.
A stabilization pond (sometimes called a lagoon) is a shallow, man-made
basin into which wastewater is discharged. The interaction of sunlight,
algae, and oxygen provides treatment of the wastewater. An aerated pond is
a variation of this system in which air is passed through the wastewater to
increase the level of oxygen in the water and the circulation of the waste-
water to increase the rate of the treatment process. Less land is required
to treat the same volume of wastewater in an aerated pond because of the
reduced requirement for surface area for the reaeration to occur. The
effectiveness of the stabilization pond-aerated pond process may vary with
weather conditions, but generally is close to that obtainable by other
methods of secondary treatment. A preliminary cost comparison between these
two variations was performed by the Facilities Planners. It was determined
that the additional capital and O&M costs required for the aerated pond
system were higher than the savings in land area and other costs over the
stabilization pond system.
Compact activated sludge (CAS), RBC, and stabilization pond systems
were selected for detailed costing and analysis as viable alternatives for
secondary treatment processes for both St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls by
the communities' Facilities Planners.
3.3.3.3. Tertiary Treatment
Tertiary treatment or advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) involves
treatment of wastewater beyond the primary and secondary processes. Ter-
tiary treatment processes may include chemical treatment, biological nitri-
fication, and land application. Tertiary treatment is not required by either
State for a WWTP discharge to the St. Croix River. However, any discharge
to Colby Lake and to Dry Creek would require advanced treatment for removal
of phosphorus because of the 1.0 mg/1 phosphorous limitation set by MPCA.
3-24
-------
Chemical treatment consists of adding a chemical to promote the removal
of suspended and/or colloidal matter or to precipitate dissolved pollutants
such as pnosphates. The chemical agents are added in a mixing tank; the
water then is passed through a flocculation chamber and clarifier. Chemi-
cals commonly used for phosphorus removal are lime, alum, and iron salts.
All three secondary treatment processes discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.
are capable of providing nitrification. Basically, an increase in retention
time during the process would produce the effects of nitrification (oxida-
tion of ammonia to nitrate).
Land application consists of applying primary or secondary effluent to
sites that have proper vegetation, soil, bedrock, and groundwater condi-
tions. The application method may be either spray irrigation or rapid in-
filtration. The economics of this process depend on allowable application
rates, site preparation costs, pretreatment and storage lagoon requirements,
and the distance of the application site from the WWTP. These alternatives
are described further in Section 3.3.4., where various methods of effluent
disposal are discussed.
3.3.3.4. Disinfection
Disinfection processes are used to destroy disease-causing organisms.
Four disinfection techniques are gas chlorination, sodium hypochlorite
chlorination, ultraviolet, and ozonation. Chlorine is the least expensive
of these chemicals to produce, to handle, and to provide the necessary
disinfection to meet the present bacteriological standards. Residual chlo-
rine, however, can reach toxic levels in receiving waters if chlorine is not
applied properly or if the retention time is not sufficient. Sodium hypo-
chlorite must be mixed in a dry state in water and fed to the wastewater.
Ultraviolet light can be used for disinfection. An ultraviolet light is
placed in the middle of a tube and the wastewater flows by the light source
in the tube. For the light to be effective, its glass surface must be
cleaned continually. Ozone generation requires large amounts of electric
energy. Ozonation does not leave residual reaction products but is signifi-
cantly more costly than chlorination. Therefore, chlorination is the disin-
3-25
-------
faction process proposed in all system alternatives, assuming that chlorine
will be carefully applied and that residual levels will be monitored and
controlled.
3.3.4. Effluent Disposal
Three WWTP effluent disposal options are available: discharge to re-
ceiving waters, disposal on land or in wetlands, and reuse.
3.3.4.1. Surface Water Discharge
Presently, the most common method of the disposal of treatment plant
effluent is to surface waters. Within the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
service areas, the only major waterway that could be utilized for effluent
disposal is the St. Croix River. Of the ten wastewater facility alterna-
tives considered, five propose direct discharge to the River, two propose
discharge of effluent to the River only at two periods of the year, and two
propose discharge of renovated water or underdrainage from the land treat-
ment of the effluent. Only one alternative proposed the disposal of
effluent at a land application site with no discharge to the St. Croix
River.
3.3.4.2. Land Application
Land application or land treatment of wastewater utilizes natural
physical, chemical, and biological processes in vegetation, soils, and
underlying geological formations to renovate and dispose of domestic waste-
water. Land application methods have been practiced in the US for over 100
years and presently are being used by hundreds of communities throughout the
nation (Pound and Crites 1973).
Land disposal (including subsurface disposal and irrigation) involves
the transport of effluent to a suitable site. The site must have suitable
soil and geological conditions to prevent contamination of groundwater. In
addition to wastewater renovation, the advantages of land application may
include groundwater recharge, soil conditioning, and stimulation of plant
3-26
-------
growtn. The applicability of this disposal option depends significantly on
social acceptance, costs, and the amount of energy required to transport the
effluent from the treatment facility to its disposal site.
The three principal processes utilized in the land disposal of treated
wastewater are:
• Overland flow
• Slow-rate application or irrigation
e Rapid infiltration.
In the overland flow process, the wastewater is allowed to flow over a
sloping surface and is collected at the bottom of the slope. This type of
land application requires a stream for final disposal. Overland flow gen-
erally results in an effluent with an average phosphorus concentration of 4
mg/1. Phosphorus removals usually range from 30% of 60% on a concentration
basis. At Ada, Oklahoma, using raw comminuted wastewater, total suspended
solids concentrations were 6 mg/1 to 8 mg/1 in the runoff during the summer
and 8 mg/1 to 12 mg/1 during the winter. BOD concentrations during the
same period were 7 mg/1 to 11 mg/1 in the summer and 8 mg/1 to 12 mg/1 in
the winter. (USEPA and others 1977).
In the slow-rate method, treated wastewater is applied to the land to
enhance the growth of crops or grasses. Wastewater is applied by spray,
rid&e and furrow, or flood methods, depending on the soil drainage charac-
teristics and the type of vegetation. Application rates range from 0.5
inches to 4.0 inches per week. Renovation of wastewater occurs in the first
2 feet to 4 feet of soil, because organic matter, phosphorus, heavy metals,
and bacteria are retained by adsorption and other mechanisms. Nitrogen is
utilized by plants as they grow, and nitrogen removals at irrigation sites
may be as high as 90%. Water is lost from the system through infiltration
and evapotranspiration. The potential exists for affecting groundwater
quality if the system is improperly designed or operated. A minimum depth
to groundwater of 5 feet is required to allow for treatment of the waste-
water before it mixes with the groundwater (USEPA and others 1977). Rela-
tively large amounts of land are needed for the slow-rate process.
3-27
-------
The rapid infiltration method involves high rates (4 inches to 120
inches per week.) of application to highly permeable soils, such as sands and
loamy sands. Although vegetative cover may be present, it is not an inte-
gral part of the system. Cleansing of wastewater occurs within the first
few feet of soil by filtering, adsorption, chemical precipitation, and other
geochemical reactions. In most cases, SS, BOD, and fecal coliform are re-
moved almost completely. Phosphorus removal can range from 70% to 90%,
depending on the physical and chemical properties of the soils. Nitrogen
removal, however, generally is less significant, unless specific procedures
are established to maximize denitrification (USEPA and others 1977).
In rapid infiltration systems, there is little or no consumptive use of
wastewater by plants, and only minor evaporation occurs. Because most of
the wastewater infiltrates the soil, groundwater quality may be affected. To
minimize the potential for groundwater contamination at a rapid infiltration
site, the minimum depth to the water table should be 10 feet. Due to ex-
tremely rapid rates of infiltration, the permeability of the underlying
aquifer must be high to insure that the water table will not rise signifi-
cantly and limit the usefulness of the site.
Recovery of renovated water from the soil material may be necessary for
the successful operation of a rapid infiltration system. Recovery may be
accomplished oy pumped wells, draintile, or drainage ditches. Recovered
water may have elevated nitrate levels during certain periods and total
dissolved solids that may limit usage of the recovered water for some pur-
poses.
LAND SUITABILITY
Several land areas in the vicinity of the St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls WWTPs were considered through the facilities planning process for land
application of effluent. Most of these areas were rejected because of
unacceptable soil conditions; hydrogeological conditions; environmental, or
aesthetic non-acceptance. Two sites that have potential for land applica-
tion are located in Section 29 of St. Croix Falls Township, Wisconsin, and
Section 26 of Shafer Township, Minnesota. However, detailed geotechnical
3-28
-------
investigations would have to be conducted and design parameters established
to determine the suitability of these sites for land disposal. The Facili-
ties Planners have determined, on the basis of available land area and
existing data, that the site in Section 29 of St. Croix Falls Township is
potentially suitable for rapid infiltration and the site in Section 26 of
Shafer Township is suitable for spray irrigation. The site in Section 29 is
located approximately 1.5 miles east of the existing St. Croix Falls WWTP.
The site in Section 26 is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the exist-
ing Taylors Falls WWTP.
Treatment of Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration
Treatment by rapid infiltration of wastewater requires a relatively
small area of highly permeable soil material (USEPA and others 1977). An
application area of only 18 acres would be required to treat the projected
year 2000 combined community design flow of 0.50 mgd (based on an estimated
application rate of 10 inches per week during 9 months). Areas with slopes
of up to 20% can be considered for use as application areas if site topo-
graphy modification is incorporated into the system design. Both BOD and
SS in the wastewater can be removed to a high degree (up to 99%). However,
nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) removal generally is poor (30% to 80%, and
50% to 90%, respectively, based on Sanks and Asano 1976).
Geotechnical investigations are required to determine suitability of a
site for rapid infiltration of wastewater. Lenses of finely textured ma-
terial can limit the vertical percolation of applied wastewater. This can
result in mounding of the water table, sidehill seepage, and a reduction in
the potential infiltration capacity. Recovery of the infiltrated water may
be necessary in certain cases for monitoring the groundwater quality or to
prevent mounding of the water table. Storage of wastewater during the
winter should not be necessary considering climate conditions, but may be
required to assure system reliability.
3-29
-------
Treatment of Wastewater by Land Irrigation
Treatment of wastewater by the land irrigation process requires a
considerable area of active cropland soils that have a moderately rapid
permeability. Excellent removals of all (BOD and SS, 99%; P, 95% to 99%;
and N, 70% to 90%) except highly soluble salts can be expected. Based on an
application rate of 2.5 inches per week, an annual application period of 26
weeks, and a flow of 0.50 mgd, an irrigation area of 110 acres would be
required. If irrigation were to be limited to compensation for deficiencies
of soil moisture, considerably more land area would be required.
The principal soil characteristic required for an acceptable applica-
tion site is a permeability that will allow a reasonable drain tile spacing
and still dewater the site. Under these conditions, farm equipment can be
operated on the site within one day after the site has been irrigated,
without traction or compaction problems. In addition, it is essential that
the application site does not have a slope that will erode as a result of
effluent applications. The acceptable slope varies according to the exist-
ing plant cover and the rate of infiltration. For example, cropland irriga-
tion would be limited by slopes exceeding 6%, whereas forest irrigation
would be feasible on slopes of up to 20% (Powers 1978).
Artificial drainage would be required on all sites except those where
the water table is naturally low. Artificial drainage can be advantageous
because it allows control of the applied effluent. The outlet point can be
designed to minimize any excess seepage.
During the winter it would be necessary to store the effluent. The
storage pond should be located on naturally fine-textured material to mini-
mize seepage. The soil in the area west of Taylors Falls generally is loam
till, with a moderate permeability and the area south of St. Croix Falls has
similar soils. A pond constructed in this soil type would need to be artifi-
cially sealed.
The overland flow wastewater treatment alternative requires about half
the land area needed for the irrigation alternative. Removals of BOD (30%)
3-30
-------
and N (60% to 90%) are excellent but P (60% to 80%) and SS (80%) removals
are relatively poor. Additional treatment may be required to attain ter-
tiary effluent limitations. Slopes should range from 2% to 4% to keep the
travel distance to a minimum for a specified duration. Particle filtration
accounts for the bulk, of the treatment effect. Internal drainage of the
soil should be minimal to minimize leaching of pollutants through the soil.
The soils in the project area range from moderately permeable to very rapid-
ly permeable; it is recommended that areas for overland flow have slowly
permeable soils. It may be possible to find sufficient land area suitable
for an irrigation-overland flow system within the project area. Storage for
approximately 6 months would be required.
REGULATIONS
Wisconsin
The discharge limitations to the land disposal system are presented in
the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Section NR 214.07. The applicable dis-
charge limitations are summarized as follows:
• Wastewater must receive, at minimum, secondary treatment
prior to disposal on land
• The BOD concentration in the discharge to the land disposal
system must not exceed 50 mg/1 in more than 20% of the
monitoring samples that are required during a calendar
quarter
• The discharge must be distributed on an alternating basis to
individual sections of the disposal system in a manner to
allow sufficient resting periods to maintain the absorptive
capacity of the soil
• The geometric mean of the fecal coliform bacteria counts for
effluent samples taken during a calendar quarter, or such
other period as may be specified in the permit for the dis-
charge, shall not exceed 200 MPN per 100 ml.
Minnesota
The limitations to the disposal of wastewater on land are presented in
MPCA's "Recommended Design Criteria for Disposal of Effluent by Land Appli-
cation," including Addendum I—"Evaluating Land Application in Facilities
3-31
-------
Planning" and Addendum II—"Design Considerations for Land Application
Systems." The MPCA land application program is based on the "Process Design
Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater," prepared by USEPA, the
US Army Corps of Engineers, and the US Department of Agriculture (1977).
Addendum II of the MPCA criteria does not state specific design para-
meters. Rather, it states that system design must be based on a particular
set of circumstances unique to the project and that the facilities planners
are responsible for interpreting field information and designing a land
application system using the Design Manual and other available sources of
information.
3.3.4.3. Wetlands Discharge
Wetlands, which constitute approximately 3% of the land area of the
continental US (USEPA and others 1977), are hydrologically intermediate
areas. Wetlands usually have too many plants and too little water to be
called lakes, yet have enough water to prevent most agricultural or forestry
uses. The use of wetlands to receive and satisfactorily treat wastewater
effluents is a relatively new and experimental concept. In wetland applica-
tion systems, wastewater is renovated by soil, plants, and microorganisms as
it moves tnrougn and over the soil profile. Wetland systems are somewhat
similar to overland flow systems in that most of the water flows over a
relatively impermeable soil surface and the renovation action is more depen-
dent on microbial and plant activity than on soil chemistry. The wetlands
application option is not included in the alternatives considered herein
because there are no suitable wetlands in the proximity of the existing or
proposed WWTP sites. Creating a wetlands area to treat wastewater would
require a large amount of land and could be environmentally unacceptable.
3.3.4.4. Reuse
Wastewater management techniques included under the category of treated
effluent reuse may be identified as:
• Public water supply
• Groundwater recharge
3-32
-------
• Industrial process uses or cooling tower makeup
• Energy production
• Recreation and turf irrigation
• Fish and wildlife enhancement.
Reuse of treatment plant effluent as a public water supply or for
groundwater recharge could present potential public health concerns in the
St. Croix Falls-Taylors Falls area. There are no major industries in the
area that require cooling water. The availability of good-quality surface
water and groundwater and the abundant rainfall, limit the demand for the
use of treated wastewater for recreational and turf irrigation purposes.
Organic contamination and heavy metal concentrations also are potential
problems. Direct reuse would require very costly AWT, and a sufficient
economic incentive is not available to justify the expense. Thus, the reuse
of treated effluent currently is not a feasible management technique for the
study area.
3.3.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal
All of the wastewater treatment processes considered will generate
sludge. The amount of sludge generated will vary considerably, depending on
the treatment process. Sludge is largely water and organic matter; however,
significant amounts of inert chemicals will be present if phosphorus removal
has been performed. A typical sludge management program would involve
interrelated processes for reducing the volume of the sludge and final dis-
posal .
Volume reduction depends on the reduction of both the water and the
organic content of the sludge. Organic material can be reduced through the
use of digestion, incineration, or wet-oxidation processes. Moisture reduc-
tion is attainable through concentration, conditioning, dewatering, and/or
drying processes. The mode of final disposal selected determines the pro-
cesses tnat are required.
The disposal of sludge from the existing WWTPs at St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls is by land application. The sludge produced at the St. Croix
3-33
-------
Falls WWTP is anaerobically digested and hauled away by truck, either in
liquid or dewatered form, and applied on agricultural land. The sludge
produced at the Taylors Falls WWTP is anaerobically digested, dewatered on
sand beds, and hauled away by truck for application on agricultural land.
Because of the availability of adequate land in the proximity of the WWTP
sites, the final disposal selected for the proposed WWTPs is land disposal
of liquid sludge. The associated processes necessary for this selected mode
of disposal are digestion and storage.
3.3.5.1. Sludge Digestion
During sludge digestion, organic solids' are oxidized biologically to
reduce and stabilize the sludge solids. The digestion processes considered
are aerobic digestion and anaerobic digestion. In aerobic digestion, pri-
mary or biological sludges are oxidized by aeration in open tanks. This
process has relatively low capital costs and entails little operational
complexity, but it requires a high energy input. In anaerobic sludge diges-
tion, organic matter in sludge is broken down by anaerobic microorganisms in
a closed tank. Because the biological processes are complex, continuous
control of the operation is required. Although the capital costs for this
process are relatively high, the energy input is minimal, and the methane
produced in the digester usually is used to further reduce operating costs.
3.3.5.2. Sludge Disposal
Sludge hauling and disposal is required for all treatment systems and
is the last step in the sludge handling process. The type of vehicle used
for sludge hauling will vary depending on whether the sludge is in a liquid
or a solid form and whether land application is practiced. Sludge may be
disposed of at sanitary landfills (except in Minnesota where it is not
allowed), and on agricultural or forest land. When sludge is disposed in
sanitary landfills, the sludge and other wastes are covered and the site is
managed to prevent seepage or other environmental hazards. Although land-
fill disposal costs are relatively low, the nutrient value of the sludge is
not utilized. Sludge can be used as a fertilizer and soil conditioner at
agricultural land or forest disposal sites. Its utilization may be limited
3-34
-------
by the metals and pathogens in the sludge and by the soil conditions at the
application site. Costs for utilization of sludge on farms or in forests
are dependent on hauling distance, assuming that there are no costly limi-
tations on the application of the sludge.
The disposal method recommended for both St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls is direct hauling from the digester, land application of the sludge
during non-frozen conditions, and storage of sludge during winter months.
3.4. System Alternatives
Initially, sixteen wastewater treatment alternatives were considered as
potential solutions to improve the quality of effluent from the existing St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs, or to eliminate the direct discharge of
treated effluent altogether. The alternatives include no action, indepen-
dent treatment systems for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, and regional
treatment systems that would serve both communities. A number of combina-
tions of treatment processes, siting options, effluent disposal options, and
sludge processing and disposal options were considered. These alternatives
initially included the following:
Independent Treatment Systems for St. Croix Falls
1. No action
2. Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP (CAS)
3. Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP (RBC)
4. Land disposal system (rapid infiltration)
Independent Treatment Systems for Taylors Falls
5. No action
6. Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP (CAS)
7. Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP (RBC)
8. Stabilization pond system with effluent discharge to River
9. Stabilization pond system with land disposal of effluent by spray
irrigation
10. Land treatment of effluent by spray irrigation
3-35
-------
Regional Treatment Systems
11. Conventional WWTP at St. Croix Falls
12. Conventional WWTP at Taylors Falls
13. Stabilization pond system near Taylors Falls with discharge of effluent
to St. Croix River
14. Stabilization pond system with disposal of effluent on land by spray
irrigation
15. Land disposal by rapid infiltration near St. Croix Falls
16. Land treatment by spray irrigation near Taylors Falls.
These conceptual alternatives were screened on a preliminary basis and
seven (Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16) were eliminated from fur-
ther consideration because of technical infeasibility, low cost-effective-
ness, and/or unacceptable environmental impacts.
After completing the preliminary screening process, nine other poten-
tial wastewater treatment alternatives were further developed and evaluated
for technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and environmental concerns.
These alternatives, including the no-action alternatives (required to be
addressed in the EIS), are described in the following subsections.
The treatment plant construction cost and O&M costs for each alterna-
tive were estimated by the Facilities Planners. The alternatives and their
costs are summarized in the following sections.
3.4.1. No-action Alternative
The "no-action" alternative would entail continued operation of the
existing WWTPs witn discharge to the St. Croix River, without any signifi-
cant expansion, upgrading, or replacement during the current design period
(to the year 2000). The "no-action" alternative implies that USEPA would
not provide funds to support new construction, upgrading, or expansion of
existing WWTPs.
The existing St. Croix Falls WWTP constructed in 1951 is incapable of
achieving the reduction of BOD and SS required by the WPDES discharge
permit. Selection of this alternative would result in continued violation of
State and Federal water pollution laws.
3-36
-------
The existing Taylors Falls WWTP, constructed in 1941, is incapable of
consistently achieving the reduction of BOD and SS required by the NPDES
discharge permit. The non-structural improvements might include improved
scum and solids handling provisions, upgrading filter and digester equip-
ment, and improved chlorination/disinfection measures. In addition, the
operational improvements could be carried out by increased personnel, in-
creased operational budget, and training of personnel. The above non-
structural measures would result in improvement in effluent quality, but
would not meet the proposed limitation consistently. Selection of this
alternative would result in continued violation of State and Federal water
pollution laws.
The costs associated with the "no-action" alternative for both St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls would be minimal, and would constitute the
normal expenditures required for the continuing operation, maintenance, and
repair of the existing equipment. These costs have not been calculated for
comparison with the costs of the other alternatives because the capacity of
the existing WWTPs would be inadequate for treatment of the projected waste-
water flows and effluent limitations could not be met. The reliability and
flexibility of the existing facilities also are limited, and the minor
operational, equipment, and personnel improvements that could be made would
not compensate for the age and deteriorated conditon of the equipment. Thus
the "no-action" alternative for the Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls
facilities is not feasible and will not be given further consideration.
3.4.2. Alternative 1 — Upgrading and Expanding the Existing WWTP at St.
Croix Falls
This alternative consists of upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP
at St. Croix Falls (Figure 3-1) to a 400,000 gpd secondary treatment plant
with direct discharge to the St. Croix River. This alternative would serve
only the treatment needs of the St. Croix Falls service area. The treatment
processes would include: raw wastewater pumping station; preliminary treat-
ment consisting of screening and grit removal; primary clarification; sec-
ondary biological treatment using ah RBC process; final clarification;
chlorination; and anaerobic digestion of sludge. The digested sludge would
be stored in a lagoon and/or hauled by tank truck for land spreading on
3-37
-------
STABILIZATION PONDS AND\.
EXISTIN*
•WTP
Figure 3-1. Existing and proposed site areas for the wastewat«r
treatment facilities alternatives and force main routes.
3-38
-------
A Propo.td Pumping Station
3-39
-------
agricultural land. The schematic flow diagram for this alternative is shown
in Figure 3-2.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,124,000.
The estimated annual O&M cost is $31,000. The estimated salvage value after
20 years of use is $275,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$1,414,000 (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980).
3.4.3. Alternative 2 — Land Disposal System for St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of rehabilitation of the existing WWTP at St.
Croix Falls, followed by land disposal of the effluent. This alternative
only would serve the needs of St. Croix Falls. The existing WWTP would be
modified, upgraded, and expanded to treat the average design flow of 400,000
gpd and to produce an effluent capable of meeting a BOD- effluent limitation
of 50 mg/1. The effluent from the modified existing WWTP would be pumped
through an 8-inch diameter force main approximately 2.0 miles along River
Road, through an area north of Kentucky Street, and along Washington and
Louisiana Streeta to a land disposal site in the northeast quarter of Sec-
tion 29 of bt. Croix Falls Township (Figure 3-1). The effluent would be
discharged into flooding basins at an application rate of 10 inches per week
for a 9-month period, and stored for the 3 winter months in a storage basin.
Tne total land area required for the rapid infiltration system, including
the storage basin and a buffer zone, is approximately 30 acres. The modifi-
cations or additions that would be required to the existing WWTP were not
addressed in the St. Croix Falls Facilities Plan.
An underdrain system or recovery wells may be required, depending on
the hydrogeological conditions at the site. The digested sludge from the
WWTP would be stored in a lagoon and/or hauled by tank truck for land
spreading on agricultural land. The schematic flow diagram for this alter-
native is shown in Figure 3-3.
Capital and O&M costs were supplied by the St. Croix Falls Step 1 Consul-
tant. Costs were updated and broken down by the Taylors Falls Step 1
Consultant.
3-40
-------
Wastewater
•»-
From Existing
Pump Station
Screening and
Grit Removal
Primary
Settling Tanks
^ ^^
f Rotating \
Biological
V Contactors J
^
Final
Settling Tanks
•^ ^**
^
Chlorination
\
^
Sludge
Storage Lagoon
Land Application
Figure 3-2. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 1.
-------
Raw Wastewater
Existing WWTP
(Rehabilitated)
Pumping Station
Storage Pond
I
*•
NJ
C
•3
•H
VM
C
0)
M
Figure 3-3. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 2.
-------
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,181,000
and an estimated annual O&M cost of $40,000. The estimated salvage value
after 20 years of service is $540,000. The total present worth is estimated
to be $1,466,000. The cost associated with underdrains and recovery wells
were not included in the cost analysis for this alternative.
3.4.4. Alternative 3 — Compact Activated Sludge System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for Taylors Falls proposes the demolition of the
existing WWTP and construction of a new 140,000 gpd treatment plant at the
same site utilizing a compact activated sludge secondary treatment process
(Figure 3-1). The treated wastewater would be discharged directly to the St.
Croix River. To implement this alternative all existing wastewater treat-
ment process units would have to be demolished. During the construction
period, interim treatment facilities would be required. The existing final
tank would be utilized for primary settling and disinfection prior to dis-
charge. The raw wastewater would be screened, and ferric chloride would be
added prior to settling to enhance treatment efficiency. Settled solids
would be pumped and disposed of off-site. Some temporary piping and man-
hole structures would be required to reroute wastewater directly to the
final tank. A one-tiine cost is included in the cost estimates for interim
treatment.
The treatment processes would include: preliminary treatment consisting
of screening and grit removal; biological treatment using an extended aera-
tion activated sludge process; final clarification; chlorination; and aero-
bic digestion of sludge. Because of the proximity of the WWTP site to the
community area, most of the unit processes would be covered or enclosed for
aesthetics and to avoid potential nuisance conditions. The digested sludge
will be hauled by tank truck for spreading on agricultural land. The sche-
matic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 3-4.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $988,000 and
an estimated annual O&M cost of $36,000. The estimated salvage value after
20 years of use is $198,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$1,348,000.
3-43
-------
Raw Wastewater
Screening and
Grit Removal
Compact Activated
Sludge System
LJ
I
Chlorination
Land Application
Figure 3-4. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 3.
-------
3.4.5. Alternative 4 — Rotating Biological Contactor System for Taylors
Falls
This treatment system alternative for Taylors Falls would involve
demolition of the existing WWTP and construction of a new 140,000 gpd plant
at the same site utilizing an RBC secondary treatment process (Figure 3-1).
The treated wastewater would be discharged directly to the St. Croix River.
Like Alternative 3, all the existing unit processes would have to be demo-
lished and interim treatment facilities would have to be provided during
construction.
The treatment processes would include: preliminary treatment consisting
of screening and grit removal; primary clarification; secondary biological
treatment using an RBC process; final clarification; chlorination; and
anaerobic digestion of sludge. Because of the proximity of the WWTP site to
the downtown area, most of the unit processes would be enclosed for aesthe-
tic purposes and to avoid the creation of potential nuisance conditions.
The digested sludge would be hauled by tank truck for application on agri-
cultural land. The schematic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in
Figure 3-5.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $985,000 and
an estimated annual O&M cost of $27,000. The estimated salvage values after
20 years of use is $264,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$1,233,000.
3.4.6. Alternative 5 — Stabilization Pond System for Taylors Falls
Ihis alternative for the Taylors Falls area consists of a new stabili-
zation pond treatment facility at a site in the northwest quarter of Section
26 of Shafer Township (Figure 3-1). Implementation of this alternative
would require approximately 30 acres to 40 acres of land. The treated
wastewater would be discharged to the St. Croix River twice a year. This
alternative offers a considerable degree of flexibility, but selecting the
optimum time of the year for discharge by monitoring the receiving stream
and the quality of the effluent is critical to the success of this method.
3-45
-------
Raw
Wastewater ~~
Screening and
Grit Removal
Prin
Sett
Tan
\
lary
ling
ks
^
/Rotating \
\Contactors /
fc / Anaerohi c \tM
Fir
Sett
Tai
\
lal
ling
iks
^
Chlorination
V.'
Digestors
Solids Handling
Land Application
Figure 3-5. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 4.
-------
The existing WWTP would be abandoned in this alternative. The waste-
water would be conveyed to the proposed site using four pumping stations and
approximately 2.5 miles of new force main located along County Road 82,
Folson, Walnut, and Mulberry Streets, and Military Road (Figure 3-1). The
effluent from the new treatment facility would be pumped through 2.5 miles
of force main and would be discharged to the St. Croix River. The effluent
line would be placed adjacent to the raw wastewater line between the St.
Croix River and the treatment ponds. Use of the effluent line as a siphon
should be given consideration during the Step 2 design phase of this pro-
ject. This could reduce energy consumption and prolong the service life of
the effluent pumping station. Provisions for disinfection would be included
in conjunction with the design of the effluent line in case MPCA should
require chlorination in the future. Chlorine could be metered into the
final control structure, which would allow sufficient contact time within
the line before discharge.
The treatment processes include: biological treatment using stabiliza-
tion ponds and chlorination. The stabilization ponds would be sized for 180
days of wastewater detention time. This alternative does not require sepa-
rate sludge processing facilities. The sludge would collect in the bottom
of the pond and would undergo anaerobic digestion. Inert solids which would
not decompose biologically would remain in the pond and would require clean-
out and removal once every 10 to 20 years. The schematic flow diagram for
this alternative is shown in Figure 3-6.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,164,000
and an estimated annual O&M cost of $18,000. The estimated salvage value
after 20 years of use is $572,000. The total present worth is estimated to
be $1,218,000. The cost for the demolition of existing facilities was not
included in these figures by the Facilities Planners.
3.4.7. Alternative 6 — Land Disposal System for Taylors Falls
This alternative for the Taylors Falls system is similar to Alternative
5 except that the treated wastewater from the ponds would be discharged on
land. The treatment facility and the land application site would be located
3-47
-------
Chlorination
Raw _
Wastewater
Pumping
c *- at- 1 nn
#1
Pumping
Station
#2
Pumping
Station
#3
*^
Pumping
Station
#4
^~
Stabilization
Ponds
Pumping
Station
* *\
I
.e-
c»
1
co
n)
I
a)
4-1
n)
CO
rt
3:
Figure 3-6. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 5.
-------
in the northwest quarter of Section 26 of Shafer Township (Figure 3-1).
Approximately 110 acres of land would be required for this alternative.
The treatment processes include: biological treatment, using stabliza-
tion ponds; chlorination for disinfection; and irrigation. The stabiliza-
tion pond system would be sized to provide for 210 days of both detention
and storage of wastewater. The treated wastewater from the storage pond
would be pumped and applied on land using spray irrigation equipment. To
avoid the potential for raising the level of the groundwater, an underdrain-
age system would be provided. The renovated water would be collected as
drainage and pumped through a discharge force main to the St. Croix River.
Tne schematic flow diagram for this alternative is shown in Figure 3-7.
This alternative has an estimated initial capital cost of $1,584,000
and an estimated annual O&M cost of $21,000. The estimated salvage value
after 2o years of use is $996,000. The total present worth is estimated to
be $1,569,000.
3.4.8. Alternative 7 — Regional Conventional WWTP at St. Croix Falls
This alternative consists of upgrading and expanding the existing St.
Croix Falls WWTP to treat wastewater from both the St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls service areas. The existing Taylors Falls WWTP would be
abandoned and an additional 0.25 acres of land would be needed at the St.
Croix Falls WWTP site. A pumping station and force main constructed from
the Taylors Falls WWTP, attached to the US Highway 8 bridge, through the
Wisconsin Interstate State Park, to the St.; Croix Falls WWTP would divert
the wastewater from Taylors Falls to the regional WWTP treatment facility on
the St. Croix Falls side of the River (Figure 3-1).
The treatment processes for this regional WWTP would include: prelimi-
nary treatment consisting of screening and grit removal; primary clarifica-
tion; secondary biological treatment using an RBC system; final clarifica-
tion; chlorination; and anaerobic digestion of sludge. The digested sludge
would be hauled by tank truck and spread on agricultural land. The effluent
from the WWTP would be discharged directly to the St. Croix River. The
schematic flow diagram for. this alternative is shown in Figure 3-8.
3-49
-------
Raw
Wastewater
Pumping
Station
#1
Pumping
Station
#2
1
^
Pumping
Station
#3
^,
Pumping
Station
#4
t
Stabilization.
Ponds
w
Storage
Ponds
— ^
Pumping
Station
OJ
M
0)
4-1
(0
c?
M
0)
4J
CO
cfl
Drainage.
Water
Spray Irrigation
Figure 3-7. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 6.
-------
Raw Wastewater
from Taylors Falls
Collection System
Pumping Station
Taylors Falls
Pumping Station
St. Croix Falls
Screening and
Grit Removal
Raw Wastewater
from St. Croix Falls
Collection System
UJ
i
Ln
Primary
Settling
Tanks
**ifc_ __—••*
/" Rotating "\
TH n 1 n o-f r i 1 V- w..
^ Contactors 1
. Final
Settling
Tanks
•^ ^--
Sludge Storage
Lagoon
Land Application
Chlorination
Figure 3-8. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 7.
-------
This alternative has an estimated initial cost of $2,113,000, and an
estimated annual O&M cost of $62,000. The estimated salvage value after 20
years of service is $636,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$2,657,000. The cost for the demolition of existing facilities at the
Taylors Falls WWTP was not included in the cost analysis for this alterna-
tive by the Facilities Planners.
3.4.9. Alternative 8 — Regional Stabilization Pond System near Taylors
Falls
This alternative consists of a new regional stabilization pond treat-
ment facility to be constructed at a site at the northwest quarter of Sec-
tion 26 of Shafer Township (Figure 3-1), to treat wastewater from both the
St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls service areas. Approximately 90 acres of
land would be needed for this alternative. The treated wastewater would be
discharged to the St. Croix River twice a year.
The existing St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs would be aban-
doned. A pumping station would be constructed at the St. Croix Falls WWTP. A
force main from the WWTP, south through the Wisconsin Interstate State Park
to US tiighway 8, crossing the St. Croix River attached to the highway
bridge, extending to the existing Taylors Falls plant site would be con-
structed. This line would divert the wastewater from the St. Croix Falls
service area to the regional plant. The combined system wastewater col-
lected at the existing Taylors Falls plant site would be transported to the
new stabilization pond system with the assistance of four pumping stations
and approximately 2.5 miles of force main via the same route as discussed
in Alternative 5 (Figure 3-1). The effluent from the stabilization pond
system would be pumped through 2.5 miles of force main and would discharge
to the St. Croix River.
The treatment processes include: biological treatment using stabili-
zation ponds. The stabilization ponds would be sized for 180 days of waste-
water detention. The sludge would collect in the bottom of the pond and
would undergo anaerobic digestion. Inert solids that are not biologically
decomposed would remain in the pond and may require cleanout and removal
3-52
-------
once every 1U to 20 years. The schematic flow diagram for this alternative
is shown in Figure 3-9.
This alternative has an estimated initial cost of $2,660,000 and an
estimated annual O&M cost of $31,000. The estimated salvage value after 20
years of use is $1,390,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$2,652,000. The costs for the demolition of the existing Taylors Falls and
St. Croix Falls WWTPs have not .been included in these estimates by the
Facilities Planners.
3.4.1U. Alternative 9 — Regional Land Disposal System near Taylors Falls
This alternative is similar to Alternative 8 except that the treated
wastewater would be discharged on land and not to the River. The regional
treatment facility and the land application site would be located in Section
26 of Shafer Township (Figure 3-1). Approximately 280 acres of land would
be needed for this alternative. The existing St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls WWTPs would be abandoned and the wastewater would be diverted to the
new regional plant by pumping stations and force mains as described for
Alternative 8.
The treatment processes include biological treatment using stabiliza-
tion ponds and chlorination. The stabilization pond system would be sized
for 210 days to provide for both detention and storage of wastewater. The
treated wastewater from the storage pond will be pumped and applied on land
using spray irrigation equipment. To avoid the potential for raising the
level of the groundwater, an underdrainage system would be provided. The
renovated drainage water would be collected and pumped through a discharge
force main to the St. Croix River. The schematic flow diagram for this
alternative is shown in Figure 3-10.
This alternative has an estimated initial cost of $3,651,000, and an
estimated annual U&M cost of $23,000. The estimated salvage value after 20
years of use is $2,175,000. The total present worth is estimated to be
$3,375,000. The costs for the demolition of the existing Taylors Falls and
St. Croix Falls WWTPs were not included in the cost analysis for this alter-
native by the Facilities planners.
3-53
-------
Raw Wastewater
from St. Croix
Falls Collection
System
Pumping Station
St. Croix Falls
S
Pumping
Station //I
Taylors Falls
^
Pumping
Station
#2
Pumping
Station
#3
Pumping
Station
#4
I
01
Raw Wastewater
from Taylors Falls
Collection System
£
Pumping
Station
Stabilization
Ponds
^J
Figure 3-9. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 8.
-------
Raw Wastewater
from St. Croix Falls
Collection System
^
Pumping Station
St. Croix
^
^
Pumping
Station #1
Taylors Falls
^^
Pumping
Station
#2
Pumping
Station
#3
Pumping
Station
#4
Raw Waatewater
from Taylors Falls
Collection System
Ui
Ul
Ln
•JLf
1*
Spray
Jc -it -At
rf t* f
irrigation
Pumping
Station
Storage
Ponds
^f
Stabilization
Ponds
^ '
Drainage
Water
Figure 3-10. Schematic diagram of treatment processes proposed for Alternative 9.
-------
3.5. Flexibility and Reliability of System Alternatives
3.5.1. Flexibility
Flexibility in wastewater treatment refers to the ease with which an
existing system can be upgraded or modified to accommodate future growth and
changing effluent limitations. The system alternatives considered for St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls include the existing centralized collection
sewer systems, new treatment facilities, and effluent disposal options.
Because most of the components are common to a majority of the alternatives,
the following evaluation is generally applicable to most of the alternatives
unless stated otherwise in the discussion.
For gravity sewer systems, flexibility to handle future increases in
flows greater than the original design flow generally is minimal. The
interceptor sewers usually are designed to accommodate flows in excess of
those expected during a 20-year planning period. Increasing the capacity of
collector sewers is an expensive process. Also, the layout of the system
depends on the location of the treatment facility. The expansion of a sewer
system generally is easy through the addition of new sewers, but is expen-
sive, especially when new large-diameter interceptor sewers are required.
The ability to expand a conventional WWTP depends largely on the pro-
cesses being used, layout of the facilities, and availability of additional
land for expansion. The expansion or upgrading of most of the treatment
processes considered for the proposed systems would be relatively easy.
With proper design of process components of the treatment plant, and proper
planning of the facility layout, the cost and effort required for expansion
may be relatively small. Most conventional treatment processes also have
good operational flexibility because operators can, to some extent, vary
treatment parameters.
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that the majority of
the alternatives considered in this report generally have similar flexibili-
ty for future growth and/or planning. The primary exception is the site of
the existing Taylors Falls WWTP, which is fairly steep-sloped and of minimal
area, which significantly constrains future expansion of the facilities.
3-56
-------
3.5.2. Reliability
Reliability refers to the ability of a system or system components to
operate without failure at its designed level of efficiency. It is par-
ticularly important to have dependable operation in situations where adverse
environmental or economic impacts may result from failure of the system.
A gravity sewer is highly reliable when designed properly. Such sys-
tems require little maintenance, consume no energy, and have no mechanical
components to malfunction. Gravity sewer problems can include clogged pipes
leading to sewer backups; I/I, increasing the volume of flow beyond the
design level; and broken or misaligned pipes. Major contributors to these
problems are improperly jointed pipes and damage to manholes, especially
where they are not located in paved roads. Where large sewers are used to
achieve lower pipe slopes, problems with solids deposition can mean that
frequent flushing with large volumes of water will be necessary.
Pumping stations and force mains increase operation and maintenance re-
quirements and decrease system reliability. Backup pumps must be installed
to provide service in case one pump fails. A backup power source usually is
provided, such as dual power lines or stationary or portable emergency
generators. Force mains generally are reliable; excessive solids deposition
and bursting pipes rarely occur.
Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Waste-
water Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administration 1970)
require that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and
designed so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times.
The facilities should be capable of operating satisfactorily
during power failures, flooding, peak loads, equipment failure,
and maintenance shutdowns.
3-57
-------
The wastewater control system design for the study area will consider
the following types of factors to insure system reliability:
• Duplicate sources of electric power
• Standby power for essential plant elements
• Multiple units and equipment to provide maximum flexibility
in operation
• Replacement parts readily available
• Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency storage of
overflow and adequate pump-back facilities
• Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit
rerouting of flows under emergency conditions
• Provision for emergency storage, or disposal of sludge
• Dual chlorination units
• Automatic controls to regulate and record chlorine residuals
• Automatic alarm systems to warn of high water, power fail-
ure, or equipment malfunction
• No treatment plant bypasses or upstream bypasses
• Design of interceptor sewers to permit emergency storage
without causing backups
• Enforcement of pretreatment regulations to avoid industrial
waste-induced treatment upsets
• Floodproofing of treatment plant
• Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual to have a section on
emergency operation procedures
• Use of qualified plant operators.
Through the incorporation of these types of factors (and all appropri-
ate standards set forth in the Wisconsin and Minnesota Administrative Codes)
in the design and operation of the wastewater control system for the St.
Croix Falls and Taylors Falls service areas, the system will be virtually
"fail-safe." This is necessary to insure that effluent standards would be
met during the entire design life of the system.
3-58
-------
3.6. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of the Recommended Action
The selection of the most cost-effective, environmentally acceptable,
and implementable alternative(s) through the EIS process involved the con-
sideration of technical feasibility, reliability, costs, environmental
effects, public desirability, and the ability to comply with the applicable
effluent discharge standards for the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. The
potential for forming an interstate sanitary district for the regional
alternatives also was considered in the selection process.
3.6.1. Comparison of Alternatives
Project costs were categorized into capital expenses, operating and
maintenance expenses, and salvage values for the equipment and structures
for each alternative. A summary of the estimated costs of project alterna-
tives are displayed in Table 3-7. The system alternatives are grouped into
three categories — independent treatment facilities for St. Croix Falls,
independent treatment facilities for Taylors Falls, and regional treatment
facilities for both communities.
Of Alternatives 1 and 2, which propose independent treatment systems
for the St. Croix Falls service area, the lowest cost alternative of the
two, in terms of total capital cost, total present worth, and annual cost,
is Alternative 1. Of Alternatives 3 through 6, which propose new treatment
systems for only the Taylors Falls service area, the total present worth
cost for Alternatives 3 and 6 is higher than the total present worth cost
for Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternatives 4 and 5 are within $15,000, or less
than 2%, of each other in terms of total present worth. Of Alternatives 7
through 9, which would serve both communities, Alternatives 7 and 8 are
within $5,000, or less than 1%, of each other in terms of total present
worth. Alternative 9 is 27% more costly than the other two.
In summary, expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP at St. Croix
Falls (Alternative 1) appears to be the most cost-effective individual
system for the City of St. Croix Falls. Construction of a new RBC secondary
WWTP at the site of the existing plant at Taylors Falls (Alternative 4) or
treatment by stabilization ponds with return of the treated effluent on a
periodic basis to the St. Croix River (Alternative 5) appear to be the most
3-59
-------
Table 3-7. Summary of estimated costs for the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota
wastewater treatment alternatives (in thousands of dollars).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Construction Land Replacement
Alternatives Cost Cost Cost
Upgrading/ Expanding Existing 899.0 — 95.0
WWTP at St. Croix Falls
Land Disposal System 890.0 68.0
for St. Crlox Falls
Compact Activated Sludge 790.0 — 90.0
System for Taylors Falls
Rotating Biological Contactor 788.0 — 90.0
System for Taylors Falls
Stabilization Pond 895.0 45.0 25.0
System for Taylors Falls
Land Disposal System 1.135.0 165.0 45.0
for Taylors Falls
Regional Conventional 1,690.0 — 150.0
Wastewater Treatment
Plant at St. Croix Falls
Regional Stabilization 2,020.0 135.0 50.0
Pond near Taylors Falls
Regional Land Disposal 2,585.0 420.0 90.0
System near Taylors Falls
Salvage Annual
Cost O&H Cost
275.0 31.0
540. Od 40.0
198.0 36.0
264.0 27.0
572. Od 18.0
996. Od 21.0
636.0 62.0
l,390.0d 31.0
2,175.0d 23.0
Average
, Annual
Present Worth Equivalent
Capital" Replacement
1,124.0 }4.0
1,181.0
988.0 32.0
985.0 32.0
1,164.0 9.0
1,584.0 16.0
2,113.0 53.0
2,660.0 18.0
3,651.0 32.0
Salvage O&M Cost Total
( 69.0) 325.0 1,414.0
(143.0) 428.0 1,466.0
( 50.0) 378.0 1,348.0
( 67.0) 283.0 1,233.0
(144.0) 189.0 1,218.0
(251.0) 220.0 1,569.0
(160.0) 651.0 2,657.0
(351.0) 325.0 2,652.0
(549.0) 241.0 3,375.0
Cost
134.7
139.7
128.5
117.5
116. 1
149.5
253.2
252.7
321.6
All cost estimates are based on the Facilities Plans for Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers 1980; Short-
Elliot-Hendrlckson, Inc. 1980).
Present worth is computed for 20 years at a 7.125% interest rate.
Includes construction cost plus 25% for engineering, administration, legal and contingencies.
Includes land cost appreaclated at 3% annually over the 20-year planning period.
-------
cost-effective individual system alternatives for Taylors Falls. Of the
regionalization alternatives, expanding the St. Croix Falls WWTP to serve as
a regional treatment plant at St. Croix Falls (Alternative 7) and the re-
gional stabilization pond system west of Taylors Falls (Alternative 8)
appear to be equally cost-effective. Alternative 8, having the apparent
least present worth cost of the regional systems ($2,652,000) is only mar-
ginally more expensive, in terms of present worth, than the combined least
cost of individual systems for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls (Alterna-
tives 1 and 5 — $1,414,000 + $1,218,000 = $2,632,000).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Construction of any of the nine alternatives will produce primarily
short-term impacts to the local environment (Section 5.1.). Construction of
alternatives utilizing only the existing WWTP sites (Alternatives 1, 3, and
4) would have the least potential for disruption and environmental impacts.
The stabilization pond and land treatment alternatives (Alternatives 2, 5,
6, 8, and 9) would result in impacts along the force main and/or effluent
discharge routes and the stablization pond and/or land disposal sites. The
regional alternatives (Alternatives 7, 8, and 9) would result in additional
impacts along the force main route through the Wisconsin Interstate State
Parn and across the US Highway 8 bridge. Alternatives 8 and 9 also would
involve the conversion of a significant amount of prime agricultural land
(more than 40 acres) from crop production.
Implementation of any of the independent treatment alternatives or
regional alternatives by the communities would bring them into compliance
witti the effluent discharge standards of the respective States. Operation
of any of the treatment alternatives would produce few significant long-term
impacts (Section 5.2).
The operation of an expanded and rehabilitated St. Croix Falls WWTP
(Alternative 1) with proper maintenance, alternate power supply, and dupli-
cate unit processes would ensure a reliable treatment system that would
improve water quality and create few long-terra adverse environmental im-
pacts. The rapid infiltration land disposal system for St. Croix Falls
(Alternative 2) would have the potential for contaminating groundwater in
3-61
-------
the area and for raising the level of the groundwater. Because of the
limited size of the site area for a new CAS or RBC secondary system for
Taylors Falls (Alternatives 3 and 4) it may be difficult to construct dupli-
cate unit processes to provide for greater reliability in the treatment of
wastewater. The stabilization pond and' effluent spray irrigation systems
for Taylors Falls (Alternatives 5 and 6) offer greater flexibility for
future expansion of the treatment system than the CAS or RBC treatment
system (Alternatives 3 and 4), because they are not limited by the restric-
tive size of the site. The pumps at the pumping stations for Alternatives 5
and 6 will be properly maintained, and a backup power source will be pro-
vided in case a power failure should occur. The regional alternatives
(Alternatives 7, 8, and 9) would present another potentially problematic
system component with the force main supported over the St. Croix River by
the US Highway 8 bridge. The force main would be subject to exposure,
temperature extremes, and bridge flexure that could cause leaks or joint
failures, resulting in a direct discharge of untreated sewage to the St.
Croix River.
IrlPLiMENTATION
One of the potential institutional frameworks necessary to implement a
regional alternative is the formation of an interstate sanitary district. A
review of Wisconsin and Minnesota State laws, undertaken to determine if
provisions for such a district exist, indicated that existing statutes in
both Wisconsin (Wisconsin Revised Statutes 66.30) and Minnesota (Minnesota
Statutes 471.59) provide the legal authority to enable the formation of an
interstate sanitary district by the Cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors
Falls (WAPORA, Inc. 1979). The district generally would be organized with
an elected or appointed board that would be representative of the proposed
service area. The sanitary district would have authority to issue bonds
and to levy and collect appropriate user fees and service charges. Debt
undertaken for capital improvements would be financed through bonds issued
by the district or by the individual member communities. However, the
ability to construct a regional treatment system with Federal funds serious-
ly would be jeopardized because of the difference in funding priorities for
treatment facilities for the two States.
3-62
-------
Finally, the two communities have expressed no desire to join in a
regional system. The City of St. Croix Falls has gone on record preferring
the expansion and rehabilitation of their existing treatment plant and the
City of Taylors Falls has recommended the construction of a new stabiliza-
tion pond wastewater treatment system.
3.6.2. Recommended Action
In consideration of these factors and others described in this EIS,
USEPA recommends that the City of St. Croix Falls upgrade and expand its
existing WWTP (Alternative 1) and that the City of Taylors Falls construct a
new stabilization pond treatment system (Alternative 5) to replace its
existing WWTP. The site plan for the Taylors Falls recommended alternative
is presented in Figure 3-11, and the site plan for the St. Croix Falls
recommended alternative is presented in Figure 3-12. These two alternatives
represent cost-effective, environmentally acceptable, and implementable
solutions to meet the communities' wastewater treatment needs.
3-63
-------
'<5~
-4-
WEST LINE
SECTION 26
£> 9 q a
Q ? WOODLAND
STABILIZATION PONDS
CENTER
SECTION
26
Figure 3-11. Site plan for Alternative 5, Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
-------
Existing
z
o
L 1
isting
11
^^^^^*
Waste I
Treatment 1
plant I
—~*^SZf&*-~i--
\^ 1
f
1
1
1
1
\
I
1 Proposed ^
! Plant
\+ 75'
1
I
)'
i
^-•J
« it
1 ° _...>.. te»
1 < ^
»
1 P.
• n>
1
15'!
•* M
1
•
1
•
*"! Rank ^
I ^y^
^^^
Wall
\ — T —
\ — —
U— •— —— '•— ••—** "~ ^^ x K !
_„. X X X X X X X X X X X »
.+'
•"—"•"""" 1
1
1
r 1
Hatchery!
1 Garage i
Figure 3-12. Site plan for Alternative 1, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin.
-------
4.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1. Natural Environment
4.1.1. Atmosphere
4.1.1.1. Climate
The climate of the project area is classified as moist continental
(Strahler and Strahler 1978). Seasonal weather variations include a cool,
rainy spring; a warm, humid summer; a dry autumn; and a severely cold win-
ter. Climatological conditions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area are similar
to those of the project area (WAPORA, Inc. 1979). Temperatures vary through-
out the year, from an average temperature of 12.2°F in January to average
temperatures of 71.9°F in July. Average monthly rainfall between May and
September is approximately 3.36 inches. This 5-month period (totalling 17.0
inches) accounts for approximately 65% of the annual precipitation. De-
tailed meterological data are available in the DEIS, Section 3.1.1.1.
4.1.1.2. Air Quality
The St. Croix Falls-Taylors Falls project area is located in the West
Central Wisconsin-Minnesota Interstate Air Quality Control Region (ACjCR).
The air quality of the project area is believed to be good (By telephone,
Mr. Doug Evans, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Mr. Greg
Foley, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to WAPORA, Inc., 3 June 1980).
Concentrations of pollutants and oxidants in the St. Croix Falls-Taylors
Falls area are in attainment with the ambient air quality standards of their
respective States (By telephone, Mr. Henry Onsgard, USEPA, to WAPORA, Inc.,
23 September 1980). Applicable air quality standards and data from a nearby
air monitoring station are presented in WAPORA, Inc. (1979). The project
area presently is designated as a "Class II" Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) area, as defined by the Clean Air Act (By telephone, Mr.
Ronald Van Meersbergen, USEPA, to WAPORA, Inc., 24 September 1980). There-
fore, normal development activities will not be restricted in the project
area by existing State and Federal regulations to protect air quality.
4-1
-------
4.1.1.3. Noise and Odor
NOISE
Excessive noise may disturb people who live near the source. There are
no known major noise sources in the project area other than typical automo-
bile and truck traffic. No data are available on ambient noise levels in
the project area.
ODOR
There are no significant odor problems in the Taylors Falls area.
There is an odor problem in the area immediately adjacent to the existing
St. Croix Falls WWTP, caused by the improper operation of the plant's an-
aerobic digestor (DEIS, Section 3.1.1.3.).
4.1.2. Physiography, Topography, and Geology
4.1.2.1. Physiography and Topography
The project area is characterized by a terraced landscape, which re-
sulted from glacial deposition over an irregular bedrock surface. The
eastern part of the project area is characterized by rolling to hummocky
morainal highlands (Figure 4-1). The region west of Taylors Falls generally
consists of nearly level to level wetland. The topography of the area is
discussed in the DEIS, Section 3.1.2.1.
The St. Croix River flows southward through the central part of the
project area. Tributaries to the St. Croix River include Lawrence Creek,
Close Slough, Dry Creek, and numerous minor and intermittent streams. Other
bodies of surface water in the project area include Colby Lake, Folsom Lake,
Wyckstrom Lake, Lake 0" the Dalles, Rice Lake, and Peaslee Lake. These
lakes are characteristic kettle lakes, and their water levels are maintained
primarily through groundwater flow.
4.1.2.2. Geology
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
The bedrock geology of the project area is characterized by Cambrian
rocks formed from sediments that were deposited in a near-shore environment
4-2
-------
Figure 4-1. Topography of the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
project area.
4-3
-------
over an uneven surface of Precambrian basalt (Liesch 1970). Because subse-
quent erosion has removed much of the sedimentary rocks, the occurrence of
Cambrian rocks primarily is restricted to erosional depressions in the
basalt. Well records for the project area indicate that the thickness of
the Cambrian strata ranges from 0 feet to 230 feet. The character of the
bedrock geology is illustrated in Appendix C, Figure C-l.
SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
The surficial geology of the project area is characterized by glacial
deposits of the Wisconsin stage of glaciation. The glacial drift is absent
in many places throughout the central part of the area, but attains thick-
nesses of over 100 feet in the western and eastern regions (Appendix C,
Figure C-2). The character of the glacial deposits in the project area is
depicted in Appendix C, Figure C-3. A brief description of the surficial
geology is presented in the DEIS, Section 3.1.2.2.
4.1.3. Soils
4.1.3.1. Soils of the Project Area
The soils of the project area generally are coarse textured and well
drained on the Wisconsin side, and medium textured and poorly drained on the
Minnesota side. The predominant soil association present in the Wisconsin
section of tne project area is the Onamia-Cromwell-Menahga. The principal
soil associations in the Minnesota section of the project area are the
Hayden-Bluffton and Nessel-Bluffton. The general soil associations within
the project area are presented in Figure 4-2. These soil associations are
described in detail in Appendix C, Exhibit C-l.
The majority of land in the Minnesota portion of the project area is
defined as prime agricultural land according to the classification system
established by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Land within the project
area defined as prime agricultural is presented in Appendix C, Figure C-4.
4-4
-------
GUSHING
|ff£:i;;l AMERY-SANTIAGO
HHU BURKHAROT-DAKOTA
|^.V| ONAMIA-CROMWELL-MENAHGA
[.;.;^] HAYDEN-BLUFFTON
[ j NESSEL-BLUFFTON
^^ SHALLOW TO BEDROCK
Figure 4-2. Soil Associations in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, project area.
4-5
-------
4.1.3.2. Suitability of Soils for Land Treatment of Wastewater
Soil survey information, such as depth to bedrock, slope, depth to
water, and water table contours provides useful data for assessing the
suitability of soils for land treatment of wastewater. Examination of these
data, as illustrated in Appendix C (Figures C-5, C-6, and C-7), in conjunc-
tion with an analysis of the soil maps reveals potentially suitable areas
(Figure 4-3).
4.1.4. Surface Water
The St. Croix River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River. The
River rises near Solon Springs, Wisconsin (elevation 1,016 feet msl), and
continues 164 miles southwesterly and then southerly to join the Mississippi
River at Prescott, Wisconsin (elevation 775 feet msl). The elevational
change is 341 feet between the source of the River and the mouth, or an
average gradient of 2.9 feet per mile. The upper 25-mile segment of the
River is entirely within the State of Wisconsin, while the lower 139-mile
segment forms the boundary between the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
The drainage area for the St. Croix River is 7,650 square miles (sq mi), of
which 4,82d sq mi are within Wisconsin and 2,822 sq mi are within Minnesota.
The locations of the lakes and streams in the project area are shown in
Figure 4-1. Colby Lake, which is in Section 23, directly north of the
wastewater treatment site, in Shafer Township on the Taylors Falls side of
the River, has a surface area of 105 acres and a maximum depth of 4 feet.
Colby Lake discharges intermittently to Dry Creek, which is tributary to the
St. Croix River upstream from Taylors Falls.
Lawrence Creek is an intermittent stream which drains the area to the
west and south of the wastewater treatment site in Section 26 of Shafer
Township. According to a stream survey report by the Minnesota Division of
Game and Fish (riaugstad 1968), the Creek has a total length of approximately
6.4 miles, a maximum depth of 4 feet, and a width of up to 300 feet where
beaver damo create ponding. The report indicated that Lawrence Creek is an
excellent trout stream.
4-6
-------
I I IRRIGATION (2.5 inclws/mtk)
tvVjiJ IRRIGATION (l.25ineh«/HMk)
L .] RAPID INFILTRATION
[V-'3 IRRIGATION (Zfinclm/wMk) or RAPID INFILTRATION
! ] NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Figure 4-3. £•" Potentially suitable for land application of treated waatevater
in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project
4-7
-------
4.1.4.1. Hydrology
The flow of the St. Croix River is measured on a continuous basis by
the US Geological Survey (USGS) at St. Croix Falls in Polk. County, 1,800
feet downstream from the Northern States Power Co. (NSP) hydroelectric
facility. Flows have been recorded since January 1902. The drainage area
upstream from the St. Croix Falls gaging station is approximately 5,930 sq
mi. Gage records are adequate for characterizing river flow variations in
the project area. However, the operation of the NSP plant temporarily may
affect the flow rate of the River downstream from the NSP Dam. A summary of
flow records is presented in Table 4-1. A monthly summary of flow for the
water year 1976 is present in Table 4-2. The monthly records illustrate the
typical seasonal variations in flow, which correspond to low flows in late
summer and autumn and to high flows during the spring.
The 7-day, 10-year low flow for the St. Croix River at St. Croix Falls
is 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs; USGS 1977). The 7-day, 2-year low flow
at St. Croix Falls is 1,700 cfs.
Damaging floods occur infrequently in the St. Croix River Basin (Young
and Hindall 1973). Flood magnitude generally is related directly to the
size of the drainage area and is a result of rapid runoff from precipitation
and snowmelt. Most floods in the basin occur either during the early spring
or during the summer. The most damaging flood occurred during April 1965,
near Stillwater, Minnesota. Backwater from the Mississippi River contri-
buted significantly to the flooding (Young and Hindall 1973).
4.1.4.2. Uses
Recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, and boating are the
primary uses of the St. Croix River, which is designated and managed as a
National Scenic Riverway (Section 4.2.6.). Other uses include withdrawal of
water for the irrigation of private farm lands and stock watering. A survey
of use conducted in 1968 estimated that 3.1 mgd was used for irrigation of
private farm lands and 0.8 ragd for stock watering (Young and Hindall 1973).
4-8
-------
Table 4-1. Summary of flow data for the St. Croix River at St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin, for the period 1902-1977 (USGS 1978).
Average discharge for period of record
Extremes for period of record
Maximum discharge
Minimum discharge
Extremes for the water year 1976-1977
Maximum discharge
Minimum discharge
Flow
cfs
4,172
54,900
75
15,600
896
Date
1902-1977
8 May 1950
17 July 1910
26 Sept. 1977
13 Nov. 1976
Table 4-2. Monthly flow data for the gaging station at St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, for water year 1976-1977 (USGS 1978).
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
Apr il
May
June
July
August
September
Mean
cfs
1,624
1,569
1,492
1,488
1,456
3,252
3,803
2,600
2,686
2,585
2,049
7,784
Maximum
cfs
2,390
2,220
1,800
1,710
1,810
5,500
5,240
3,210
4,910
5,560
5,730
15,400
Minimum
cfs
1,310
896
1,160
1,210
1,150
1,260
2,540
1,760
1,560
1,520
1,230
3,270
Yearly
average:
2,699
4-9
-------
The St. Croix River currently is not used for public water supply by either
St. Croix Falls or Taylors Falls.
4.1.4.3. Quality
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
St. Croix River
According to the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Rules of the Department
of Natural Resources, under the section entitled Environmental Protection,
tne St. Croix River downstream of the northern boundary of Polk County is
required to meet the standards for recreational use, fish and aquatic life,
and public water supply. The most stringent of these standards are listed
in Appendix D, Table D-l. Concentrations of other parameters are limited by
the standards on the basis of information regarding their toxicities.
References used in limiting other substances include Quality Criteria for
Water (USEPA 1976b).
The Minnesota water quality regulations divide the St. Croix River into
two reaches, one above and one below the NSP Dam located at Taylors Falls.
tbcisting discharges from the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs and
from most of the project area are located downstream of the Dam. The most
stringent water quality standards for the St. Croix River downstream from
the Dam are summarized in Appendix D, Table D-2.
Lawrence Creek
Lawrence Creek is classified by the State of Minnesota as a Class A
fisheries and recreation stream. This creek also is classified as Class B
for domestic consumption and industrial consumption. The water quality
standards for Lawrence Creek are somewhat more stringent than the Minnesota
standards for the St. Croix River (Appendix D), with respect to the follow-
4-10
-------
ing parameters:
Parameter
Fecal coilform
Turbidity
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia as nitrogen
Chlorides
Chromium
Limit
10 MPN/100 ml
10 NTU
Not less than 7 mg/1
from 10 October through
31 May and not less than 6 mg/1
at other times
No material increase
0.2 mg/1
5.0 mg/1
0.02 mg/1
Dry Creek.
Dry Creek is the outlet of Colby Lake and is tributary to the St. Croix
River. It is classified as Class ti for fisheries and recreation. The water
quality standards for Dry Creek are listed in Appendix D, Table D-3.
Colby Latce
Colby Lake, located northwest of Taylors Falls, has not been specific-
ally classified by the State of Minnesota. The most stringent water quality
standards for this lake and other Minnesota waters not specifically classi-
fied (such as Wyckstrom Lafce) are listed in Appendix D, Table D-4.
EXISTING WATER DUALITY
Water quality is monitored for the St. Croix River by USGS at St. Croix
Falls and by MPCA at Taylors Falls. The closest station downstream from the
project area for which recent data are available is the USGS station at
Stillwater, Minnesota. Stillwater is located approximately 2y miles down-
stream from St. Croix Falls. Water quality data for Taylors Falls, St.
Croix Falls, and Stillwater are presented in Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5,
respectively.
The physical and chemical water quality data for Stillwater, in
general, appear to be similar to the data for St. Croix Falls and Taylors
4-11
-------
-e-
Table 4-3. Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at Taylors Falls, Minnesota, for 1976 and 1977
(USEPA 1978a).a
Parameter
Temperature
pH°
d
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen
BOD
Turbidity8
Total phosphorus
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate + nitrite
(as nitrogen)
Fecal coliform*'
a
All values are given
Centigrade (°C) .
Number of
Samples
20
21
21
21
19
21
21
21
13
21
in milligrams per
Maximum
28.0
8.4
260.0
14.0
3.9
14.0
0.082
0.430
0.60
1700.0
liter (mg/1)
Min imum
0.0
7.2
130.0
6.8
0.5
1.2
0.016
0.020
0.01
2.0
unless otherwise
Mean
11.2
7.9
190.0
9.3
2.2
5.5
0.05
—
0.2
13.3
noted.
Standard
Deviation
9.5
0.3
2.8
1.8
2.3
3.4
0.02
—
0.2
2.0
Q
Standard units.
Micromhos (umhos) .
eJackson turbidity units (JTU) .
17 samples had values less than 0.200.
^Geometric mean in colonies/100 ml (3 samples had values less than 2).
-------
Table 4-4. Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for 1976 and 1977
(USGS 1977).
Parameter
Temperature
Turbidity
Dissolved oxygen
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococci
Dissolved solids
Nitrate + nitrite
(as nitrogen)
^ Kjeldahl nitrogen
t_0
Total nitrogen
Nitrate
Total phosphorus
Chlorophyll-Af
Carbon dioxide
Number of
Samples
24
20
24
11
24
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
5
20
Maximum
26.5
8.3
6.0
11.2
160.0
2,000.0
133.0
0.71
1.2
1.5
6.8
0.07
22.0
15.0
Minimum
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.5
1.0
10.0
55.0
0.01
0.18
0.25
1.1
0.02
0.0
0.8
Mean
11.3
7.6
2.5
9.1
2.4
39.9
104.4
0.21
0.53
0.74
3.3
0.045
6.0
5.2
Standard
Deviation
9.6
0.4
1.3
1.3
1.12
1.5
17.0
0.17
0.23
0.28
1.3
0.01
8.2
4.3
All values are given in milligrams per liter (mg/1) unless otherwise noted.
Centigrade (°C) .
Q
Standard units.
Jackson turbidity units (JTU) .
Q
Geometric mean in colonies/ 100 ml.
Milligrams per square meter (mg/sq m) .
-------
Table 4-5. Water quality summary for the St. Croix River at Stillwater, Minnesota, for 1977
(USGS 1977).
Parameter
Temperature
pHb
Turbidity0
Dissolved oxygen
d
Fecal coliform
d
Fecal streptococci
Dissolved solids
JL Nitrate + nitrite
** (as nitrogen)
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total nitrogen
Nitrate
Specific conductance
Carbon dioxide
Number of
Samples
7
7
3
7
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
Maximum
24.0
8.3
6.0
13.5
—
146.0
0.40
0.30
0.55
2.4
410.0
3.7
Minimum
0.0
7.6
4.0
7.5
—
124.0
0.20
0.13
0.47
2.1
170.0
1.1
Mean
8.9
7.9
5.0
10.4
16.0
4.0
138.0
0.28
0.23
0.52
2.3
242.0
2.1
aCentigrade (°C) .
Standard units.
Jackson turbidity units (JTU).
Geometric mean in colonies/100 ml.
p
Micromhos (umhos).
-------
Falls. The Stillwater Station receives river water that includes pollutant
loadings from the St. Croix Falls WWTP, the Taylors Falls WWTP, the Dresser
WWTP, the Osceola WWTP, industrial cooling water, the Madsen gravel pit, and
non-point source runoff. The similarity of water quality data for upstream
(St. Croix Falls, Taylors Falls) and downstream (Stillwater) stations can be
attributed to a combination of the dilution that occurs and the effects of
assimilative and physical processes.
Fecal Coliform
Fecal colit'orm levels increased slightly from the project area to
Stillwater, but this increase may not be statistically significant. Fecal
coliform values have been in violation of the water quality standards. MPCA
(iy75b) has indicated that water from the River may not be suitable for
drinking unless treatment beyond chlorination (such as sedimentation and
coagulation) is provided, but that "it is expected that the designated uses
of the St. Croix, such as swimming and maintenance of warm and cool water
game fish, would generally be possible."
Heavy Metals
Concentrations of heavy metals in the St. Croix River were monitored at
St. Croix Falls and at Stillwater by USGS. The values for heavy metals are
recorded by location in Appendix D, Table D-5. The mean iron concentration
at Stillwater was 0.2 mg/1 higher than the concentration at St. Croix Falls.
Apparent violations of water quality standards for iron and manganese were
noted both at St. Croix Falls and at Stillwater. No major point sources of
iron and/or manganese are known. Non-point sources include most soils and
groundwater. No other significant variations in the heavy metal concentra-
tions were observed.
Other Water Quality Parameters
The levels of other parameters, including dissolved oxygen (DO), nitro-
gen, dissolved solids, turbidity, and pH, do not indicate a significant
difference between the water quality of the St. Croix River at St. Croix
4-15
-------
Falls and Taylors Falls and tne water quality of the River at Stillwater.
No water quality violations for these parameters were recently recorded. No
pesticides, herbicides, or other toxic substances were present in the River
during 1976 sampling (USGS 1978; DEIS, Section 3.1.4.3.).
WATER QUALITY SURVEY
Two water quality surveys of the St. Croix River were conducted by
WAPORA during May and August 1979, to evaluate the impact of discharges from
the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs. The effluent from the WWTPs at
Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls were sampled three times during each of
the 2-day survey periods. The St. Croix River upstream and downstream from
the outfalls also was sampled at the same frequency. All sampling stations
are shown in Figure 4-4.
A summary of the survey data for the St. Croix Falls WWTP outfall and
side of the River, monitored at four locations, is presented in Table 4-6.
Similar data for the Taylors Falls outfall and side of the River, monitored
at three locations, are presented in Table 4-7. The average flow of the
River during the May 1979 survey was 9,175 cfs and was 2,485 cfs during the
August 1979 survey (USGS 1980). The flow during the August survey was
approximately twice the 7-day, 10-year low-flow condition and represented
the response of the River during low flow.
The DO and SS concentrations upstream and downstream from the treatment
plants were approximately the same. Increases in BOD , total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, and total P were recorded at the monitoring
station immediately downstream of the discharge point of treatment plant
effluents. However, the concentrations decrease rapidly to background
levels at the subsequent monitoring station. A sharp rise in bacterial
levels, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococci also occurred in the imme-
diate vicinity of the WWTP discharges; however, the bacteria levels also
rapidly decreased downstream. Profiles of the water quality constituents
monitored during the surveys are presented in Appendix D, Figures D-l
through D-6. These profiles reflect that the discharges of WWTP effluent
are not impacting the quality of the River significantly during either high-
or low-flow conditions. The data also indicate that the concentrations of
4-16
-------
May 1979 Water Quality Survey
Taylors Falls
QSTP
St. Croix Falls
STP
August 1979 Water Quality Survey
Taylor Falls
DSTP
St. Croix Falls
STP
North
NO SCALE
Figure 4-4. Water quality sampling sites.
4-17
-------
00
Table 4-6. Water quality
survey of
discharge (WAPORA, Inc.
May 1979
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen
BOD
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate + nitrite
(as nitrogen)
Total phosphorus
Suspended solids ~
Fecal colifonn (xlQ ) 3
Fecal streptococci (xlO )
Station 1
12.3
9.9
2.7
0.7
0.2
0.08
0.09
9.5
0.04
0.02
the St. Croix River
1979).
St. Croix
WWTP Outfall
10.5
9.3
95.7
24.7
20.7
0.9
4.5
35.3
966.6
82.7
to assess
Station 2
12.2
10.2
2.3
1.0
0.3
0.08
0.11
9.9
1.6
0.7
the impact of the St. Croix Falls wastewater
Station 1
St. Croix
WWTP Outfall
August 1979
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen
BOD
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate + nitrite
(as nitrogen)
Total phosphorus
Suspended solids ~
Fecal coliform (xlO )
Fecal streptococci (xlO )
17.6
9.8
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.04
8.8
3.8
12.7
15.3
8.0
170.0
25.6
19.2
1.0
4.0
38.7
26.0
35.0
Station 2
17.4
10.1
4.4
1.3
0.4
0.3
0.16
8.3
1.1
1.1
Station 3
12.
10.
2.
0.
0.
0.08
0.08
8.5
0.8
0.02
Station 3
17.0
10.2
1.4
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.6
6.6
0.8
0.9
Station 6
11.
10.
2.
0.
0.
0.04
0.07
9.5
0.03
0.01
Station 7
,4
1
17.
10.
1.6
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.05
9.2
0.8
0.8
NOTES
Station 1 approximately 300 meters upstream from St. Croix WWTP.
Station 2 approximately 30 meters downstream from St. Croix WWTP.
Station 3 approximately 500 meters downstream from St. Croix WWTP.
Station 6 at mid-section of US Highway 8 bridge.
Station 7 at east bank of US Highway 8 bridge.
All constituents are in mg/1 except temperature (°C) and fecal coliform and streptococci (MPN/lOOml).
-------
Table 4-7. Water quality survey of the St. Croix River to assess the impact of
the Taylors Falls, Minnesota wastewater discharge (WAPORA, Inc. 1979).
Taylors Falls
Station 4 WWTP Outfall Station 5 Station 6
May 1979
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen
BOD
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate + nitrite
(as nitrogen)
Total phosphorus
Suspended solids
Fecal coliform (xlO )
3
Fecal streptococci (xlO )
August 1979
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen
UOD5
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate + nitrite
(as nitrogen)
Total phosphorus
Suspended solids
Fecal coliform (xlO )
3
Fecal streptococci (xlO )
12.5
11.0
2.4
0.7
0.1
0.05
0.06
7.9
0.02
0.01
17.3
10.1
1.1
0.9
0.05
0.1
0.05
6.2
0.2
0.8
8.0
8.3
78.0
15.6
12.8
0.8
2.95
21.3
636.7
180.0
13.6
8.1
122.7
19.9
16.8
3.3
3.4
37.3
204.0
10.6
12.1
11.0
3.0
0.7
0.2
0.05
0.07
8.9
0.6
0.2
17.2
10.2
3.1
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.08
10.0
1.4
4.6
11.9
10.5
2.7
0.7
0.2
0.04
0.07
9.5
0.03
0.01
17.5
10.0
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.06
7.1
0.5
0.5
NOTES
Station 4 approximately 30 meters upstream from Taylors Falls WWTP.
Station 5 approximately 75 meters downstream from Taylors Falls WWTP.
Station 6 downstream from Taylors Falls WWTP at Dock.
Station 6 at mid-section of US Highway 8 bridge.
All constituents are in mg/1 except temperature (°C) and fecal coliform and
streptococci (MPN/100 ml).
4-19
-------
SS and bOi) are much higher than expected from propertly operating WWTP
plants with secondary treatment processes.
A dye-dispersion study was conducted by WAPORA during August 1979 to
determine the transport of wastewater effluent in the River. Dye was added
to the WWTP outfalls and the concentration of dye in the River was monitored
at sampling stations downstream from the WWTP outfalls. It was observed that
the dye released from the outfalls of both the Taylors Falls and St. Croix
Falls WWTPs was dispersed rapidly downstream because of the highly turbulent
condition of the River in the vicinity of the discharge points. The rapid
dispersion of dye in the River indicates that the effluent discharged from
the WWTPs at Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls rapidly mix and are dissi-
pated through transport downstream.
4.1.4.4. Existing Discharges
The significant existing surface water discharges located within the
project area include those from the St. Croix Falls WWTP, the Taylors Falls
WWTP, and non-point sources. The St. Croix Falls Fish Hatchery and Indus-
trial Tool and Plastics, Inc., also discharge to the St. Croix River.
Because of the small volume discharged and the low pollutant loadings, these
discharges are not considered significant (WDNR 1972).
ST. CROIX FALLS WWTP
The effluent quality and flow from the St. Croix Falls 'WWTP are de-
scribed in detail in Section 3.1. The 1978 mean effluent concentrations of
BOD and SS were 69 mg/1 and 34 mg/1, respectively. The geometric mean
concentration of fecal coliform recorded from March through December 1978
was 390 MPN per 100 ml. Based upon a mean wastewater flow rate of
211,490 gpd, measured from February through December 1975, the St.
Croix Falls WWTP contributes an average of 122 pounds of BOD and
60 pounds of SS per day to the St. Croix River. Long-term flow
rates after 1975 are not available for the St. Croix Falls WWTP.
4-20
-------
TAYLORS FALLS WWTP
The effluent quality and flow from the Taylors Falls WWTP are described
in detail in Section 3.1. The 1978 mean effluent BOD and SS concentrations
were 6b mg/1 and 33 mg/1, respectively. The fecal coliform concentrations
were measured as less than 20 MPN per 100 ml for a 9-month period during
1976, and as "too numerous to count" for a 3-month period during the same
year. The only recent wastewater flow data were recorded from 6 November
through 25 November 1978 and averaged 90,170 gpd. Based upon this flow
rate, the Taylors Falls WWTP contributed 50 pounds of BOD and 25 pounds of
SS per day to the St. Croix River.
ST CROIX FALLS FISH HATCHERY
The St. Croix Falls Fish Hatchery is located adjacent to the St. Croix
Falls WWTP. The hatchery uses up to 3 mgd of spring water for the produc-
tion of 40,000 pounds of trout annually (Anonymous 1978), and discharges
directly to the St. Croix River. Three outfalls discharged to the St. Croix
River during the first half of 1980 (discharge from outfall 003 ceased in
May, and from 002 in June). Flows from the outfalls for their period of
operation were as follows (WDNR 1981):
Flow
(mgd)
Average
0.075
1.382
1.325
a
Calculated from monthly estimates.
Based on the Hatchery's self-monitoring program conducted by WDNR
personnel, the following concentrations were recorded in 1980. An average
BOD concentration of 4.9 mg/1; total suspended solids, 6.9 mg/1; nitrogen
as nitrate and nitrite, 2.5 mg/1; Kjeldahl nitrogen, 0.8 mg/1; total phos-
phorus, 0.2b mg/1; sulfate, 13 mg/1; and chloride, 17 mg/1. Fecal coliform
is no longer monitored at the Hatchery.
4-21
Outfall Number
001
002
003
Maximum
0.18
1.44
1.33
-------
INDUSTRIAL TOOL AND PLASTICS, INC.
Industrial Tool and Plastics, Inc., discharges cooling water to the St.
Croix River by means of a storm sewer. The cooling water flow during 1970
was 54,560 gpd and the discharge was sampled in 1971. The following con-
centrations were recorded: BOD,-, less than 1 mg/1; temperature, 12°C; pH,
7.7 units; and phenol, 0.008 mg/1. The discharge enters the St. Croix River
approximately 0.4 miles downstream of the St. Croix Falls WWTP.
NON-POINT DISCHARGES
Non-point source discharges into surface waters may include surface
runoff, groundwater discharge, and atmospheric contributions. Surface run-
off loadings consist of sediment, wildlife wastes, feedlot wastes, plant
residues, agricultural nutrients, herbicides and pesticides, and soil nutri-
ents and organic matter. MPCA (1975a) has classified the Minnesota section
of the project area as part of a region that exhibits an "average" non-point
source pollution potential.
Groundwater discharge and atmospheric loadings on surface waters are
dependent on local hydrology, groundwater quality, air quality, and the
quantity of precipitation. Problems commonly associated with groundwater
include high concentrations of sulfates, chlorides, nitrates, and sodium
ions, and excessive hardness associated with high concentrations of calcium
and magnesium ions (Todd 1967). Common pollutants from atmospheric sources
include compounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur (MPCA 1975a).
4.1.5. Groundwater
4.1.5.1. Resources
Groundwater within the project area occurs in sand and gravel deposits
of glacial drift in Cambrian sandstone, and in fractures of Precambrian
basalt. Domestic wells in the project area generally utilize sand and
gravel aquifers in the glacial drift. However, high-capacity municipal
wells derive water from Cambrian sandstone. The groundwater in Precambrian
rocks is not used for water supply within the project area. Groundwater
resources are discussed in the DEIS, Section 3.1.5.1. and Appendix C.
4-22
-------
Groundwater is used for municipal and rural water supply, stock water-
ing, irrigation, and industrial processes. The quantities of groundwater
used within the St. Croix River basin for 1968 are listed in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8. Uses of groundwater withdrawn from the St. Croix River Basin
(Young and Hindall 1973).
Public Supply (mgd) Private Supply
Use
Domestic
Industrial and
commercial
Irrigation
Stock
Other
Total
Municipal
1.6
2.5
U.I
0.0
1.4
5.5
Other
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
(mgd)
5.3
2.1
0.2
3.3
0.0
10.9
4.1.5.2. Quality
Groundwater in the project area typically has high concentrations of
calcium and magnesium carbonate and a low concentration of total dissolved
solids. One analysis of a well producing from a sand and gravel aquifer
indicated that groundwater from glacial drift aquifers may be characterized
by high levels of alkalinity, hardness, and total dissolved solids, and low
pH relative to groundwater from the Cambrian sandstones. Groundwater from
fractured basalt may be highly mineralized, possibly due to solution of
minerals in joints and fractures over long periods of time. Water quality
analyses for wells in or near the project area are presented in WAPORA, Inc.
(1979).
Indicators of contamination from surface sources include concentrations
of'nitrates and fecal coliform counts. Bacterial contamination is not known
to be a problem within the project area. Nitrate concentrations indicate
that there is some contamination from surface sources (possibly agricultural
operations and/or natural decomposition of organic material). However, all
concentrations analyzed were well below recommended standards for drinking
water (10 mg/1 of nitrates as nitrogen, or approximately 44 mg/1 of nitrate).
4-23
-------
4.1.6. Terrestrial Biota
4.1.6.1. Vegetation and Landscape
A landcover map was prepared for the project area based on aerial
photographs and field verification (Figure 4-5). Seventeen landscape types
were identified, fourteen with vegetation and three (developed, cemetery,
and water) with little or no vegetation. A brief review of the existing
land use/cover of the project area and detailed descriptions of the proposed
wastewater treatment sites and force main routes are presented in the DEIS,
Section 3.1.6.1. A detailed description of each landscape type is presented
in WAPORA, Inc. (1979) .
4.1.6.2. Wildlife
The term "wildlife" includes all land-dwelling vertebrate animals,
amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Many species of wildlife inhabit
the project area because of the diversity of the habitats present. Many
other species pass through the area using the migration corridor formed by
the St. Croix River Valley. These wildlife habitats in the area range from
the forested uplands and bottomlands and open water areas along the St.
Croix River, to the open fields and wetlands west of Taylors Falls, and the
St. Croix River. Species lists compiled from numerous sources (DEIS, Sec-
tion 3.1.6.2.) are presented in WAPORA, Inc. (1979).
4.1.7. Aquatic Biota
Quantitative sampling of algae was conducted on the St. Croix River
near St. Croix Falls from October 1976 through September 1977 (USGS 1977).
Blue-green algae were predominant throughout much of the sampling period.
Other abundant groups included green algae and diatoms. The algae were
collected by whole water grab samples, identified to genus, and counted to
determine the number of cells per milliliter of water. The results of the
study indicated that the phytoplankton populations varied throughout the
year. No studies of the macroinvertebrate fauna in the project area have
been done according to the available literature.
4-24
-------
FOREST TYPES
DRIEST SITES'
^Tf\ PINE FOREST
fvYl'l OAK-PINE FOREST
\r^] CEDAR-OAK-ELM FOREST
f,-4^ OAK-ELM FOREST
INTERMEDIATE SITES'
k&H UPLAND OAK FOREST
[/yB/j BUR OAK-ELM FOREST
WETTEST SITES'
fcrVj ELM-COTTONWOOD FOREST
k'ifel SHRUB MARSH
HERBACEOUS VEGETATION
DRIEST SITES'
E-feVfl OLDFIELDS
WETTEST SITES'
fcuo^:j MARSH
MANAGED LANDSCAPE TYPES
js$$$$j AGRICULTURAL-ROW CROPS
&%% AGRICULTURAL-HAY FIELD
L:>.\y\j PINE PLANTATION
['.//I PASTURE
[Jii^ DEVELOPED
| C | CEMETERY
SITES WITHOUT TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION
I W I WATER
Figure 4-5. Land cover in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
project area.
4-25
-------
A fisheries survey (Kuehn and others 1961) covered 105 miles of the St.
Croix River and included information on the species composition of each
river segment, the relative abundance of fish (except minnows), descriptions
of habitats, and habitats associated with various fish species. Fifty
SpecifiS w&re__raiirii.rprt_ during the._survsy^—The—p-r-edosai-Raat f-ish were—rediiorse
(several species), suckers, yellow perch, walleye, and smallmouth bass. A
limited amount of data also were presented on the spawning activities of
some of the species, including the smallmouth bass, a common fish in the St.
Croix River (WAPORA, Inc. 1979).
Lawrence Creek, a small tributary of the St. Croix River in Chisago
County, Minnesota, is recognized as one of the outstanding brook trout
streams in Minnesota. A more detailed discussion of fish in the project
area is presented in the DEIS, Section 3.1.7.
Little information is available on the mussel populations of the St. Croix
River. Two individuals of the Higgin's eye pearly mussel, including a
gravid female, were collected. This species is listed as endangered by
USFWS (1978). Although Hudson is 35 miles downstream from St. Croix Falls,
the mussel populations in the project area could contain some of these
species. However, no data are available that apply specifically to the
project area (WAPORA, Inc. 1979).
4.1.8. Endangered and Threatened Species
4.1.8.1. Federal Designation
Two species on the Federal list of endangered and threatened species
have ranges that include the project area. These species are the peregrine
falcon (Falco peregrinus), listed as endangered throughout its range (50 CFR
17.11-17.13 and updates), and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
listed as threatened in the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin.
At present, the peregrine falcon does not breed in either Minnesota or
Wisconsin. Both the American and arctic subspecies of the peregrine falcon
may migrate through the project area, but neither has been sited in recent
years. There are recent .breeding records for the bald eagle in both Chisago
4-26
-------
County, Minnesota and Polk County, Wisconsin. The closest active nest for
this species is located at Harris, Minnesota, approximately 18 miles north-
west of Taylors Falls. Bald eagles have been observed during the winter in
other state parks near the project area (By telephone, Mr. Floyd Knudson,
Carlos Avery Game Farm, Forest Lake MN, to WAPORA, Inc., 11 December 1978).
No federally endangered or threatened species of amphibians, reptiles,
mammals, or plants are known to have ranges that include the project area.
4.1.8.2. State Designation
WISCONSIN
The most recent list of endangered and threatened species in the State
of Wisconsin was issued in 1979 (WDNR 1979). Plants also are included in
this list. Endangered or threatened species that may be present in the
project area are listed in Table 4-9. An additional 15 species with watch
status in the State of" Wisconsin that may be in the project area are listed
in Table 4-10. A more complete discussion is presented in the DEIS, Section
3.1.8.2.
MINNESOTA
There is no official list of endangered or threatened species for the
State of Minnesota. The State follows the Federal list. The 12 species
indicated as endangered or threatened (unofficial) that may be present in
the project area are listed in Table 4-9. An additional two species with
priority species designation in Minnesota that may be present in the project
area are listed in Table 4-10 (Moyle 1980). Such species are considered to
be uncommon or local in these states and to require particular management
because of their unusual or unique features, public interest, or the vul-
nerability of their habitat. Minnesota also has a wildflower protec-tion
law. The species of plants that are given protection under this law are
listed in Table 4-11. It is not known if any of these species are present
in the Minnesota section of the project area (DEIS, Section 3.1.8.2.).
4-27
-------
Table 4-9. Endangered and threatened species that may be present in the St.
Croix Falls, Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota project area
(Moyle 1980; WDNR 1979).*
Scientific Name
Rana palustris
Clemmys insculpta
Endo idea blandingi
Phalacrocorax auritus
Casmerodius albus
Accipiter cooperii
Buteo lineatus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pandion haliaetus
Falco peregrinus
Sterna hirundo
Common Name
Pickerel frog
Wood turtle
Blanding's turtle
Double-crested cormorant
Great egret
Cooper's hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Bald eagle
Osprey
Peregrine falcon
Common tern
Mountain cranberry
KEY:E - Endangered in State
FE - Endangered in US
FT - Threatened in US
P - Priority species
T - Threatened in State
The species listed have legal endangered or threatened status within Wisconsin;
their comparable unofficial designation for these species in Minnesota also is
s hown.
Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Wisconsin Minnesota
E
T
E
T
T
T
FT, E
E
FE, E
E
E
FT, T
FE, E, R
P
4-28
-------
Table 4-10. Species in the project area with watch status in Wisconsin and
with priority species designation in Minnesota (Moyle 1980; WDNR
1979).
Common Name
Common loon
Great blue heron
Black-crowned night heron
Common merganser
Red-breasted merganser
Marsh hawk
Common flicker
Eastern bluebird
Dickcissel
Vesper sparrow
Field sparrow
Short-tail shrew
Gray fox
Bobcat
White-tail jackrabbit
Scientific Name
Gavia immer
Ardea herodias
Nycticorax nycticorax
Merr\'" iierganser
Mergus serrator
Circus cyaneus
Colaptes auratus
Sialia sialis
Spiza americana
Poocetes gramineus
Spiza pucilla
Blarina brevicauda
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Lynx rufus
Lepus townsendi
Wisconsin Minnesota
W
W
W
W
W
W P
W
W P
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
KEY: W - Watch status.
P - Priority status.
4-29
-------
Table 4-11. Species of plants that are protected under the Minnesota Wild-
flower Protection Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 17, Section
17.23).
Gentians
Lilies
Lotus lily
Orchids
Trailing arbutus
Trilliums
All species of the genus Gentian
All species of the genus Lilium
Nelumbo lutea
All members of the family Orchidaceae
Epigaea repens
All species of the genus Trillium
4.2. Man-made Environment
4.2.1. Economics
4.2.1.1. Income
The 1980 estimated median family incomes for the two Counties in the
project area are shown in Table 4-12, relative to the estimated median
incomes for their respective States. The per capita personal incomes for
the proposed service area are presented in Table 4-13. Data from the US
Bureau of Economic Analysis (USBEA 1980a; 1980b), reveal an increasing trend
in the per capita incomes of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Polk County, and Chisago
County from 1973 to 1978. Census data (US Bureau of the Census 1979a;
1979b) for the Cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, also indicate an
increase in the per capita incomes of these areas from 1969 to 1975.
Table 4-12. Estimated 1980 median family income (By telephone, Mr. Mac-
Donald, HUD, to WAPORA, Inc., 30 September 1980).
Area
Wisconsin
Polk County
Minnesota
Chisago County
Estimated Median Family Income
$19,685
$18,625
$19,847
$23,625
4-30
-------
Table 4-13. Per capita personal income in thousands of dollars (USBEA
1980a, 1980b).
Year
Area
Wisconsin
Polk County
1969 1973
4,754
3,923
1974
5,183
4,249
1975
5,616
4,427
1976
6,087
4,798
1977
6,776
5,377
Percentage
Change
1969
to
1978 1975
7,532
6,014
1973
to
1978
37
35
St. Croix Falls 3,041 4,920 38
Minnesota 5,113 5,424 5,795 6,214 7,086 7,904 35
Chisago County 3,933 4,070 4,479 4,955 5,686 6,027 35
Taylors Falls 3,254 4,869 49
4.2.1.2. Employment
Total employment in Chisago County, Minnesota, increased by 38.3% from
1971 to 1976, and by 13.1% in Polk County, Wisconsin, during the same period
(Table 4-14). These County-level increases were significantly higher than
the State-wide increases of 14.8% and 10.4% for Minnesota and Wisconsin,
respectively (USBEA 1978). The service, wholesale trade, and retail trade
sectors experienced the greatest growth in employment in Chisago County. In
Polk County, the greatest increases in employment occurred in the wholesale
trade, service, finance, and government sectors.
The growth of employment in Chisago and Polk Counties reflects the de-
centralization of commercial and industrial business from the Minneapolis-
St. Paul area. The growth of local employment in Chisago County and Polk
County is a factor for potential growth in the population of the proposed
service area.
4-31
-------
Table 4-14. Employment by category, 1971 and 1976 (USBEA 1978).
Wisconsin
Polk County
Minnesota
Chisago County
Employment
Category
TOTAL
Proprietors
Farm
Non-farm
Total wage and salary
Farm
1 Non-farm
U>
M Private
Agriculture, fish-
eries, and forestry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance
and real estate
Services
Government
1971
1,883
235
115
121
1,647
35
1,613
1,303
3
3
64
481
81
68
276
64
262
310
1976
2,079
234
107
127
1,845
46
1,799
1,464
5
3
65
522
81
86
300
79
322
335
Change
1971 to
1976
10.4
-0.6
-6.8
5.5
12.0
33.2
9.7
12.4
46.1
-1.1
0.9
8.6
0.2
26.3
8.6
23.3
23.1
8.0
Employment
1971
10,752
3,603
2,454
1,149
7,149
411
6,738
4,743
DC
Dc
DC
1,463
330
80
1,478
157
877
1,995
1976
12.158
3,687
2,366
1,231
8,471
597
7,874
5,777
0
DC
DC
1,510
344
375
1,512
236
1,439
2,097
Change
1971 to
1976
13.1
2.4
-3.6
14.9
18.5
45.3
16.9
21.8
—
—
—
3.2
4.2
368.8
2.3
50.3
64.1
51. 1
Employment
1971
1,620
234
128
106
1,386
30
1,356
1,078
4
14
63
299
82
80
231
65
241
278
1976
1,860
234
122
112
1,625
42
1,583
1,272
5
15
65
321
90
106
278
79
312
311
Change
1971 to
1976
14.8
0.2
-4.3
5.7
17.3
42.3
16.7
18.0
45.1
7.5
4.5
7.4
10.2
31.8
20.0
22.4
29.7
11.9
Employment
1971
5,082
1,954
1,241
713
3,128
150
2,978
1,773
1
0
175
599
79
60
481
81
297
1,205
1976
7,030
2,097
1,221
876
4,933
177
4,756
3,210
DC
DC
284
878
103
183
872
137
729
1,546
Changeb
1971 to
1976
38.2
7.3
-1.6
22.9
57.7
18.0
59.7
81.0
—
—
62.3
46.4
30,4
305.0
81.3
69.1
145.5
28.3
Employment in thousands.
Percent change for states calculated on the base of exact number of employees.
cNot reported to avoid disclosure.
-------
4.2.2. Demographics
4.2.2.1. Historical Population Trends
Past population trends can be identified at the State, county, town-
ship, and local levels. The trends observed at each level are summarized in
Table 4-15. They also are described in the DEIS, Section 3.2.2.1.
An analysis of historical population trends (DEIS, Section 3.2.2.1.)
indicated that the populations of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls have
grown at remarkably constant rates from 1950 to 1977. The average rate of
increase for this period was 1.4% per year for St. Croix Falls and 0.7% per
year for Taylors Falls. The rates of population growth for Polk County and
Chisago County accelerated during the 1950 to 1977 period, with the result
that St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls have represented a generally declin-
ing share of their respective county populations during this period.
4.2.2.2. Population Projections
Previous projections for the year 2000 population (1980-2000 is the
wastewater facilities planning period) have ranged from 1,681 to 3,217 for
St. Croix Falls and from 626 to 1,623 for Taylors Falls. The wide range of
values in these projections results from the use of different base years for
data compilation and from different projection methodologies. Because of
the wide range in these existing projections, a new series of population
projections have been developed that are based on a thorough consideration
of applicable methodologies, most recent population data, and available
judgemental inputs. Section 3.2.2.2. of the DEIS presents a discussion of
specific local factors and growth trends in the project area.
Based on consistent growth trends, the availability of land for addi-
tional growth, and the absence of major development plans within the pro-
posed service areas, population projections for these areas were produced.
The projections assume a continuation of the 1950 to 1977 historical growth
rates. Projected populations for St. Croix Falls, Taylors Falls, and the
combined service areas for 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 are presented
4-33
-------
Table 4-15. Historic population trends in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
Percentage Change8
Area
Wisconsin
Polk County
City of St.
Croix Falls
St. Croix Falls
Township
Usceola Township
Minnesota
Chisago County
City of
Taylors Falls
Shafer Township
Combined areas
1920a
2,632,067
26,870
825
915
1.211
2,387,125
14,445
570
927
1,395
1930a
2,939,006
26,567
952
852
765
2,563,953
13,189
527
758
1,479
1940b
3,137,587
26,197
1,007
817
736
2,792,200
13,124
552
698
1,559
Population
1950b
3,434,575
24,955
1,065
670
678-
2,982,483
12,664
520
633
1,585
1960C
3,951,777
24,968
1,249
677
716
3,413,864
13,419
546
583
1,795
1970C
4,417,731
26,666
1,425
783
769
3,806,103
17,492
587
636
2,012
1977
4,627,384d
30,211d
A
l,576d
A
82 4°
988d
3, 975.0006
23,033e
640
7666
2,216
1920
to
1930
11.7
-1.1
15.4
-6.9
36.8
7.4
-8.7
-7.5
18.2
6.0
1930
to
1940
6.8
-1.4
5.8
-4.1
-3.8
8.9
-0.5
4.7
-7.9
5.4
1940
to
1950
9.5
-4.7
5.8
-18.0
-7.9
6.8
-3.5
-5.8
-9.3
1.7
1950
to
1960
15.1
0.1
17.3
-1.0
5.6
14.5
6.0
5.0
-7.9
13.2
1960
to
1970
11.8
6.8
14.1
15.7
7.4
11.5
30.4
7.5
9. 1
12.6
1970
to
1977
4.7
13.3
10.6
5.2
28.5
4.4
31.7
5.6
20.4
9.1
US Bureau of the Census 1932a, 1932b.
bUS Bureau of the Census 1952a, 1952b.
CUS Bureau of the Census 1972a, 1972b.
Wisconsin Department of Administration 1977.
Minnesota State Demographer 1978.
£Average of Taylors Falls Village clerk estimate (1979) and ECURC estimate (1978), computed by WAPORA, Inc.
As calculated by WAPORA, Inc.
g
-------
in Table 4-16. The projections given in this table assume 1977 populations
of 1,576 for St. Croix Falls and 640 for Taylors Falls (Section 4.2.2.1.).
These projections also assume a continuation of the 1.4% per year growth
rate for St. Croix Falls and the 0.7% per year growth rate for Taylors Falls
that occurred during the 1950 to 1977 period.
Table 4-16. Population projections for St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1980 to 2000 (WAPORA, Inc. 1979).
Year
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
St. Croix Falls
1,643
1,761
1,888
2,024
2,170
Taylors Falls
655
682
710
739
769
Service Areas
2,298
2,443
2,598
2,763
2,939
The estimate for the population of St. Croix Falls in the year 2000 is
2,170. This is near the lower end of the range of 1,921 to 3,217 included
in the "208" Small Area Projections in the Areawide Wastewater Management
Plan. It also is within the anticipated population range for St. Croix
Falls presented in the Master Plan for St. Croix Falls (Max Anderson and
Associates 1971). The population projection of 769 for Taylors Falls in the
year 2000 is within the range projected by the East Central Regional
Development Commission (626 to 1,623) for that year, but is well below the
projection of the Chisago County Zoning and Building Department (1,310) for
the year 1990 (the year 2000 projection was not available for comparison).
The estimate for the combined St. Croix Falls-Taylors Falls service area for
the year 2000 is 2,939, a 33% increase over the 1977 population.
4.2.3. Public Finance
4.2.3.1. Revenues and Expenditures
In 1979, the City of St. Croix Falls collected revenues totaling
$1,012,855 while its total expenditures were $986,034 (City of St. Croix
4-35
-------
Falls 1980). The year-end fund balance was $296,414, which included the
1979 surplus and funds retained from 1978. The City obtains revenues from
three basic sources:
• General operation
• Enterprises
• Capital projects.
In 1979, the City of Taylors Falls collected revenues totaling $214,287
and had expenditures of $240,346 (City of Taylors Falls 1980). City reve-
nues and expenditures are categorized into seven basic fund types:
• General fund
• Utility fund
• Library fund
• Fireman's relief fund
• 1961 Waterworks Improvement Fund
• 1978 Sewer Survey Project
• 1977 Waterworks Improvement Fund.
Complete discussions of the revenues and expenditures for the City of St.
Croix Falls and the City of Taylors Falls are presented in the DEIS, Sec-
tions 3.2.3.1. and 3.2.3.2., respectively.
4.2.3.2. Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Assessments
In 1979, St. Croix Falls property taxes were levied at a rate of $42.10
per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Equalized assessed value is the full or
market value of a property. The total equalized assessed valuation in St.
Croix Falls was $27,496,760 in 1979. The assessed value against which taxes
are levied is 49.4% of the equalized value, or, in St. Croix Falls,
$13,579,095. Taxes on a specific property cannot be estimated solely on the
basis of assessed valuation and tax rates, however, because of the avail-
ability of various tax credits. In 1979, Taylors Falls property taxes were
assessed at a rate of $125.00 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Property
taxes levied by Chisago County and Independent School District //140 on
4-36
-------
property owners in Taylors Falls are based on the same tax rate that is
levied against non-City residents of the County and School District. The
assessed valuation of Taylors Falls is $2,385,233, and taxes on specific
properties are based on their assessed valuation.
4.2.3.3. Local Indebtedness
Both the City of St. Croix Falls and the City of Taylors Falls appear
to be financially sound. Table 4-17 summarizes the common municipal debt
measures for these two cities. Indicators suggest that the City of St.
Croix Falls is approaching its recommended capacity for incurring debt. The
City of Taylors Falls apparently has the ability to incur additional debt.
A more complete discussion of municipal indebtedness is presented in the
DEIS, Section 3.2.3.
4.2.3.4. User Fees
Residents of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls are assessed user fees
for wastewater collection and treatment. Rates are established by their
respective City Councils and are revised periodically. Present user fees
are presented in Appendix E, Exhibit E-l, and are discussed in Section
3.2.3. of the DEIS.
4.2.4. Land Use
4.2.4.1. Existing Land Use
The project area is largely rural in character with over 90% of the
total land area undeveloped (Table 4-18). Approximately 34% of the project
area is devoted to agriculture (.Figure 4-6). Natural areas are found in
over 28% of the project area. Recreation areas and parklands account for
another 9% of the land in the project area. The remaining 28% of the proj-
ect area is located within the corporate limits of St. Croix Falls and
Taylors Falls. However, nearly 24% of this land is classified as vacant
with no identifiable use. Thus, only 352 acres (4.6% of the project area)
have been developed for residential, commercial, industrial, or public use.
4-37
-------
Table 4-17. Common municipal debt measures (adapted from Moak and Hillhouse 1975).
Debt Ratio
Debt per capita
Low income
Middle income
High income
Standard Upper Limits
$ 500
$1,000
$5,000
St. Croix Falls
$1,347
Taylors Falls
$473
Debt to market value
of property
10% of current
market value
8.0%
13.0%
OO
Debt service to revenue
(or budget)
25% of the local
government's total budget
9.0%
11.7%
Includes St. Croix Falls residents share of County and School District debt; debt in general obligation
bonds, except for debt supporting the County Nursing Home.
Does not include County or School District debt; all existing debt is in revenue bonds that are repaid
through water service charges.
t
"Is ratio to assessed valuation which is between 30% and 43% of market value depending on available credits;
thus, the upper limit is not exceeded.
Calculations based on municipal data; County and School District figures are not included.
-------
Table 4-18. Existing land use in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin - Taylors
Falls, Minnesota project area.
Land Use
Agriculture
Natural
Recreation and parkland
Incorporated lands
Vacant
Developed
Area
Acres
2,558
2,145
702
1,798
352
7,555
% of Project Area
33.9
28.4
9.3
23.8
4.6
100.0
In the developed portions of both communities, residential areas com-
prise the largest percentage of urbanized land (Table 4-19). Residential
areas are located in the northern and western portions of Taylors Falls and
in the northern and eastern portions of St. Croix Falls (Figures 4-7 and
4-8). Commercial land use, concentrated along the main streets of Taylors
Falls and St. Croix Falls in the central business district (CBD), account
for approximately 10% of the total area in both communities.
Table 4-19. Existing developed land uses in Taylors Falls, Minnesota, and
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin.
Taylors Falls St. Croix Falls
Developed % Developed % Developed
Land Use Acres Land Acres Land
Residential
Single-family 84 77.8 146 60.0
Multifamily 1 0.9 6 2.4
Commercial 11 10.2 22
Industrial 3 2.8 26
Public and institutional 9 8.3 ^4_
108 100.0 244
4-39
-------
INCORPORATED AREA
».'-••••••-•'••••'
K ' ] 'I AGRICULTURAL LAND
fcg&l NATURAL LAND
FT^l PARKLAND
Figure 4-6. Existing land uses in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, project area, 1979.
4-40
-------
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE - FAMILY
Eg?fl RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY
bBjJl COMMERCIAL
m PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
B| INDUSTRIAL
RiJ INTERSTATE
[ [ VACANT LAND
PARK
Jo.
Figure 4-7. Existing land uses in Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1979.
4-41
-------
RESIDENTIAL SHMLE - FAMILY
NOnCNTUi. MULnMMILY
COMMfMCUU.
PtMJC AND MtmunONAI.
INDUSTRIAL
MTCMTATC MMC
Figure 4-8. Existing land uses in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, 1979.
4-42
-------
Approximately 3% of trie developed land in Taylors Falls is used for
industrial purposes. All industrial land is located at the northern edge of
town near the St. Croix River. St. Croix Falls has developed an industrial
park, at the southeastern edge of the City. The industrial park currently
includes 26 acres (lU.6% of the developed land), 18 of which were recently
added to the original 8 acres to allow sufficient room for expansion (By
telephone, Mr. Ron Mahaffey, St. Croix Falls Public Works Director, to
WAPURA, Inc., 1U June 1980).
Public and institutional uses occupy 18% of the developed land in St.
Croix Falls and approximately 8% of the developed land in Taylors Falls.
The land is used to house a variety of public facilities including schools,
a hospital, a public power company, and water supply facilities.
4.2.4.2. Future Land Use
Population growth will be a major factor governing the future growth of
the proposed service area and, thus, the future land use patterns. Develop-
ment controls and transportation networks (DEIS, Section 3.2.4.4.) also will
have an impact on regional land use.
Much of the future development will be in the residential sector.
Single-family housing will continue to comprise the largest percentage of
urbanized land in the proposed service area. Between 1977 and 2000, Taylors
Falls will need 39 additional single-family units and 5 multifamily homes to
accommodate the expected 20% population growth (Table 4-20). The 21 acres
of land required for this new housing will increase the total area devoted
to residential uses by 23%.
Projections for St. Croix Falls indicate that the community's popula-
tion will increase 38% between 1977 and 2000. As a result, there will be a
need for approximately 181 single-family units and 18 multifamily units
(Table 4-21). Approximately 97 acres of land will be needed for these new
housing units. Thus, land used by the residential sector will increase by
approximately 63% over existing residential areas. However, the projected
levels of growth for both communities will occur only if the problems area
4-43
-------
-p-
I
Table 4-20. Projected residential acreage in Taylors Falls, Minnesota, 1977 to 2000.
Total Additional Units Total Additional Acreage
Year
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Totals
o
Population
640
655
682
710
739
769
Single-
f amily
4.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
39.0
Multi-
f amily
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
Single-
family0
—
2.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
19.5
Multi-
family
—
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.5
Cumulative
Housing Acres
85.0
87.3
91.6
96.4
101.2
106.0
aSee Section 4.2.2.
Total additional units calculated by dividing the population change by 2.98 persons per household. It was
assumed that 90% of additional units would be single-family and 10% would be low-density, multifamily housing
(Real Estate Research Corporation 1974). Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Q
Based on 2 units per gross acre including streets and sidewalks (Real Estate Research Corporation 1974).
Based on 3.3 units per gross acre (Real Estate Research Corporation 1974).
-------
Table 4-21. Projected residential acreage in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, 1977 to 2000.
Total Additional Units Total Additional Acreage
Year
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Totals
Q
Population
1,576
1,643
1,761
1,888
2,024
2,170
Single-
family
—
20.0
36.0
39.0
41.0
45.0
181.0
Multi-
f amily
2.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
18.0
Single-
family c
—
10.0
18.0
19.5
20.5
22.5
90.5
Multi-d
family
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
6.0
Cumulative
Housing Acres
152.0
162.6
181.8
202.5
224.5
248.5
aSee Section 4.2.1.
Total additional units calculated by dividing the population change by 2.95 persons per household. It was
assumed that 90% of additional units would be single-family and 10% would be low-density, multifamily housing
(Real Estate Research Corporation 1974). Estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Q
Based on 2 units per gross acre including streets and sidewalks (Real Estate Research Corporation 1974).
Based on 3.3 units per gross acre (Real Estate Research Corporation 1974).
-------
which limited new housing construction during the 1970s are resolved (DEIS,
Section 3.2.4.3.)*
Currently, there are no plans for major industrial or commercial ex-
pansion in the proposed service area. If this trend continues, the commer-
cial and industrial sectors will remain small and will not require large
amounts of land. Public and institutional lands are not expected to in-
crease significantly during the planning period.
4.2.4.3. Development Controls
Development control of the study area is under the jurisdiction of
Chisago County, Taylors Falls, Polk County, and St. Croix Falls. Chisago
County, Minnesota, has a comprehensive development plan, a zoning ordinance,
a floodplain zoning ordinance, and building codes. The comprehensive de-
velopment plan includes land use policies, land use trends, and environ-
mentally sensitive areas.
Polk County, Wisconsin, has a comprehensive land use ordinance, a
shoreland protection zoning ordinance, a floodplain zoning ordinance, and
building codes. In Wisconsin, zoning regulations must be adopted by the
individual townships and incorporated areas; townships are not under the
jurisdiction of the County without adoption of the County regulations.
Presently none of the project area in Wisconsin is under County jurisdiction
for zoning.
Both St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls have development codes. St.
Croix Falls has zoning, housing, building, plumbing, electrical, and fire
prevention codes. Taylors Falls has building codes; codes for mobile homes
and parks; camping, picnic, recreational, transient parking facility, and
subdivision regulations; and on-lot sewage disposal system regulations.
4.2.4.4. Housing Characteristics
Dwellings in the project area may be characterized by size, age, struc-
tural condition, and value. Dwelling sizes in the proposed project service
4-46
-------
generally are very similar to County and State averages. One exception is
the high proportion of large houses (seven or more rooms) in Taylors Falls
(WAPUKA, Inc. 1979). A detailed discussion of housing characteristics in
the project area is presented in the DEIS, Section 3.2.4.3.
4.2.4.5. Transportation
From the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, highway access to the study area
includes US Highway 61 and Interstate 35 to US Highway 8 and State Highway
95 to US Highway 8. Traffic loads on State Highway 95 and US Highway 61
have increased substantially at the Washington County-Chisago County line
(Table 4-22). Both State Highway 95 and US Highway 61 have relatively low
traffic volumes relative to US Highway 8 and Interstate 35.
Table 4-22. Traffic volumes between Chisago County and Washington County,
Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Transportation 1977).
Minnesota
o
Year State Route 95
1972
1974
1977
Percent increase
1972 to 1977
1,260
1,360
1,565
24%
US
a
Highway 8
6,300
6,685
6,750
7%
US
Q
Highway 6 1
1,900
2,450
2,950
55%
Interstate
Highway 35
10,860
10,965
12,430
14%
Q
Number of cars passing stationary points.
4.2.4.6. Recreation
All recreation activity centers around the St. Croix River and the two
State Parks adjacent to it. The River provides a variety of water-related
activities, while each park offers camping and day-use areas.
Attendance at the Minnesota Interstate State Park averages about 99% of
capacity from 1 May through 25 October. The family campground normally has
4-47
-------
about 17,6b5 visitors each season while the group campground has 2,924
visitors each season. The annual number of recreational visitors has re-
mained stable over the past 10 years because of the limited space of only 46
campsites. However, the campground has been modernized to provide facili-
ties for recreational vehicles and campers (By interview, Mr. Duane Ellert-
son, Minnesota Interstate State Park, with WAPORA, Inc., 8 March 1979).
The State of Minnesota recently purchased 42 acres and plans to
acquire an additional 58 acres. Plans include the construction of a
new entrance on the eastern side of the park and additional hiking trails.
The campgrounds will not be expanded however (By interview, Mr. Duane
Ellertson, Minnesota Interstate State Park, with WAPORA, Inc., 8 March
1979).
)
Over 414,OUU people visited the Wisconsin Interstate State Park in 1978
(Table 4-23). The park has approximately 90 camping units and approximately
30 acres of day-use area. Plans have been proposed to vacate the part
of County Trunk Highway (CTri) S that is on the eastern boundary of the Park
and to establish a new entryway with a visitor center on the northeastern
edge of the Paric (By interview, Manager, Wisconsin Interstate State Park,
with WAPORA, Inc.,
Table 4-23. Recreational visitation in the Wisconsin Interstate State Park
(By letter, Mr. B. McGaver, Park Superintendent, to WAPORA
Inc., 11 January 1979).
1976
Recreational visitors 364,155
Family camper days 30,616
Outdoor group camper days 3,115
1977 1978
358,050 414,650 (16%)
25,688 30,327
3,140 2,501
8 March 1979). No further acquisition of land is anticipated. The St.
Croix River is a designated National w/ild and Scenic Riverway upstream of
the project area and a designated National Scenic and Recreational River
downstream of the project area (Section 4.2.6.).
4-48
-------
4.2.5. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources
4.2.5.1. Archaeological Sites
An inventory of known prehistoric and historic cultural resources
within the project area was conducted by WAPORA. A search of the Wisconsin
Archaeological Codification Files of the State Historical Society of Wis-
consin, Historic Preservation Division, indicated a total of five known
archaeological sites in the Wisconsin portion of the project area. These
sites include an extensive mound complex, a prehistoric bison kill, two
Chippewa campsites, and a Chippewa-Sioux and Fox battle site. The battle
site has potential for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
(By letter, Mr. Albert P. Seidenkranz, US National Park Service, St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway, to WAPORA, Inc., 18 January 1979).
Existing information on cultural resources is not sufficient to de-
scribe existing conditions in the Wisconsin portion of the project area.
There is a need for detailed cultural resource inventories in the Wisconsin
section of the project area, concentrating on archaeological surveys (By
interview, Mr. Richard Dexter, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, with
WAPORA, Inc., 14 December 1978; by letter Mr. Richard Dexter, State His-
torical Society of Wisconsin, with WAPORA, Inc., 23 October 1979). No known
sites of archaeological significance are located within the Minnesota sec-
tion of the project area (By letter, Mr. Russel W. Fridley, SHPO, to Mr.
Gene Wojcik, USEPA, 6 September 1978; Ms. Susan Queripel, Minnesota Histori-
cal Society, to WAPORA, Inc., 30 January 1979; and Mr. Russel W. Fridley,
SHPO, to WAPORA, Inc., 26 October 1979).
The Minnesota Interstate State Park and the Wisconsin Interstate State
Park are potential sources of undocumented prehistoric and historic archae-
ological sites. According to Pond (1937):
Interstate Park and the shores of the St. Croix were important
Indian country before the coming of the White man. The river was
a recognized thoroughfare for travel between the Great Lakes and
the Mississippi but the steep rapids (Falls) made a portage
necessary at what is now St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls. This
region seems to have been about the boundary between the terri-
tories of the Sioux and Chippewa tribes and the scene of impor-
tant battles between these tribes in historic times.
4-49
-------
The prehistoric and historic archaeological resources of the project area
are discussed in detail in WAPORA, Inc. (1979).
4.2.5.2. Historical Sites and Cultural Resources
The Angel's Hill Historic District, the Taylors Falls Public Library,
and the Munch-Roos House all are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. The Angel's Hill Historic District consists of 34 structures,
primarily houses, and are predominantly a New England variation of Greek
Revival. A 1979 survey in Chisago County for standing structures of his-
torical significance did not identify any other significant structures in
the vicinity of the project area.
The Wisconsin Inventory of Historic Places lists seven sites in the
Wisconsin portion of the project area, all located in St. Croix Falls.
Information from the Polk County Historical Society concerning other his-
torical or architectural sites in the Wisconsin section of the project area
indicated 18 additional sites of local significance in the St. Croix Falls
area (By letter, Mr. Frank J. Werner, Polk County Historical Society, to
WAPORA, Inc., 23 April 1979). The historic, cultural, and architectural re-
sources of the project area are discussed in detail in WAPORA, Inc. (1979).
4.2.6. National Scenic Riverway
The St. Croix River has been designated a National Wild and Scenic
Riverway in the reaches upstream of the study area and a National Scenic and
Recreational Riverway downstream of the study area.
The National Park Service (NPS 1975) has described the St. Croix River
from north of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, to the mouth as follows:
Below the former (Nevers) dam site, the wild character reappears
for a few miles, but shortly the river slows and widens into the
St. Croix Falls Flowage. This 10-mile long lake partially fills a
half-mile-wide valley. The lake is impounded by a 60-foot hydro-
electric dam at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin/Taylors Falls, Minne-
sota.
4-50
-------
At Taylors Falls the river flows through a narrow, metamorphic
rock gorge, the Dalles, which has been protected by inclusion in
the Interstate parks of Minnesota and Wisconsin. From below the
Dalles to the Soo Railroad swing bridge a mile below the Chisago
County line, the river flows through a heavily wooded, steep-sided
valley with occasional sandstone and limestone bluffs... Islands,
sloughs and backwater areas make the river scene ideal for the
river user to explore.
[Once past the study area]... the character of the Lower St. Croix
Rvier begins to change. The river becomes wider and gradually be-
gins to lose its intimate island and slough environment. From
Stillwater [Minnesota], the largest city on the river, to its
mouth at Prescott [Wisconsin], the river is relatively deep and
wide....
Approximately 185,000 people use the recreational and surface water facili-
ties on the Lower St. Croix Riverway each year.
Easements and property bordering the River in the reach from Taylors
Falls downstream to Stillwater was recently acquired by NFS (By telephone,
Mr. Jack Pattie, NPS, Land Acquisitions Officer, to WAPORA, Inc., 10 June
1980). NPS also is planning a visitors center and canoe take-out along the
River, although the exact location is still undecided. NPS headquarters for
the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is located at St. Croix Falls, just
north of the dam site. There are no plans to acquire land in the project
area upstream of Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls. Most of this land
currently is owned by the Northern States Power Company.
4-51
-------
5.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The potential environmental consequences of the implementation of any
of the nine proposed wastewater treatment system alternatives are described
in the following sections. The "no-action" alternative (Section 3.4.1.) is
not considered because it is not a viable solution to the need to improve
the quality of the wastewater discharges at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and
Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
The effects of various aspects of the construction (Section 5.1.) and
operation (Section 5.2.) of the facilities proposed by the alternatives may
be beneficial or adverse, and may vary in duration and degree of signifi-
cance. Environmental effects are classified either as primary or secondary
impacts. Primary impacts are those effects that would be related directly
to construction and operation activities (i.e., the noise produced by con-
struction equipment). Secondary impacts (Section 5.4.) are indirect or
induced effects (i.e., stimulation of population growth because of the
availability of excess wastewater collection and treatment capacity). Many
of the potentially adverse effects may be reduced or eliminated by various
techniques (Section 5.5.).
5.1. Construction Impacts
The rehabilitation and/or construction of new independent wastewater
treatment facilities for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, or the construc-
tion of a regional wastewater treatment facility to serve both communities,
primarily will produce short-term environmental impacts. These impacts
would be localized in the area affected by construction, which depends on
the wastewater treatment alternative that is selected. The potential physi-
cal, biological, and socioeconomic impacts from the construction of each of
the nine alternatives are presented in comparative fashion in Table 5-1.
The effects are quantified where possible.
Clearing, grading, and construction activities at the proposed treat-
ment plant sites, excavation and backfilling of trenches for force main
5-1
-------
Table 5-1. Potential major primary impacts from the construction of new waste-
water treatment facilities at St. Croix Falls Wl and Taylors Falls MN.
Environmental
Component
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Air Quality
and Odors
a) Nut sane
be gene
tot Ion
existin
llshmen
a ted fr
nd expa
UWTP a
s in Sc
nsion
nd ma
nab 111-
of
y be ob-
. Croix Fa
In the WI
b-
llB,
• by 2
Louis
site
miles of
lana Str
(aee Fig
force
eets co
.2-1)
nut
th
commerlcal establishments
State Park.
of
in
the adjacent Fish Hatchery.
• from clearing, grading.
in NE k of Sec. 29, St.
Croix Falls TVp., for
Land application site.
b) Emissions of hyd
and fumes from c
t ion equipment m.
Jccttonable to 1,
dents and coursen
lishraents in St. Ci
rcsl-
estab-
x Falls
to the adjacent Fish
b) Same as Alt. Ib, plus
effects to commercial
establishments and resi-
dents along the 2 mile
Washington, ,ind Loulflian
Streets (see Fig. 2-1).
b) Emissions of hydrocarbons and
fumes from construction equip-
ment may be objectionable to
atlonlsts in the MN Interstate
State Park.
Noise
the existing WW
by con- a) Same as Ale. la, plus
and construction octivt
the existing WUTP site
and the MN Interstate S
Park.
be
e
Topography,
Geology, and
Soils
a) No significant Impacts
tlons of the 30-acre land
application site in NE m „ Mt ,._
ased In the river.
WUTP durln
facility.
a) Temporary disturbance of
vegetation and wildlife In
area adjacent to existing
UWTP during demolition and
a) Same an Alt. 3a
b) Short-tena disruption
of vegetation and wlld-
1 Ife along 2 miles of
c) Loss of approximately
30 acres of oldfleld
vegetation for con-
struction of infil-
In the NE ^ of Sec. 29,
St. Croix Falls Twp.
5-2
-------
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
a)
a)
a)
a)
-)
Ing WUTP 100 ncr«s In NW k of Sec. 26,
altc and along Councy Road
62. Poison. Walnut, and
Rood (aee Fig. 2-1)
2-1)
• from clearing, grading, and
excavating 60 acres In NW
k of Sec. 26, ShaCer Tvp. ,
for stabilization ponds .
to residents along 2.5 miles
of force main/discharge line
from existing UtfTP site and
along Councy Road 82. Folson,
2-1).
line and 4 pumping station
locations and along County
Road 62, Folsom. Walnut, and
Road.
pond site In NW k of
Sec. 26, Shafer Twp . . would
alter existing topography
and soil regime. Dikes
around the pond would be
fa to 8 ft. above ground
Same as Alt. 3a, plus a) Sa-ne as Alt. 5a .
burface runoff from the
disturbed area on the
40-acro pond stablll-
of force main trenching
could contribute to
increased turbidity and
ways.
Same aa Alt. la. a) Same an All. la.
be generated from: generated from: generated from:
Taylors Falls WWTP excavating 90 acres in excavating 280 acres In
State Park.
plus effects from noise
a force main route from the
Taylors Falls pumping station
State Park.
a) No significant Impacts a) Same as Alt. 5a, except a) Same as Alt. 8a .
site would be 90-ecres.
a) Same as Alt. la and Alt. a) Same as Alt. 5a and Alt. 7a. a) Same as Alt. 6a and Alt. 7a.
3a, plue surface runoff
and turbid waters pumped
from UWTP excavations and
force main trench through
St. Croix River, causing
some short-term degrada-
a) Same as Alt. la. a) Same 39 'Alt. la. a) Same as Alt. la.
.1) No significant Impacts
a) Same as Ale. ia.
a) Same as Alt. 5o.
a) Sane as Alt. 5a.
.grlculLur.1 -"O^""
along approximately 2.5
.miles of force main and
at 4 pumping stations.
acres of forest vegetation
Twp.
c) Permanent displacement of
zat Ion pond site. Re-
duction in number of
individuals of forest
in number of individuals
ol "edge" spec Les.
nent loss of 0.25 acres of
facility.
on most of additional 70 acres site to St. Crolx Falls crops can be cultivated on
required for this alternative. WWTP through WI Interstate most of additional 190
State Park. acres required for this
alternative.
c) Same as Alt. 5c. c) Same as Alt. 5e .
5-3
-------
Table 5-1. (Continued)
Environmental
Component
Alternative 1
sice as a result of
ild the area.
Alternative 2
-..IT. ,is AIL. la.
Endangered anJ o) No significant Impacts
n) Same as Alt. la.
Alternative 3
a) Short-term .lugr-idal i. • '• ~
water quality near WW1H aiu
as a result of erosion and
sedimentation during
ties. Fish wo Id
a) Same as Alt
Alternative A
a) Same .i:, Alt. |j.
Economics and
a) An estimai
of constn
be needed
of conatri
of local (
15 man-years a) Same as Alt. la.
on labor would
•ing the period
.on. The amount
loyment will
tices of contractors.
b) Little, if any, additional
In the St. Croix Falls-
b) Same as Alt. Ib
b) Same as AH. Ib.
c) Same as Alt. Ic.
a) Same as Alt. la, except 14
man-years of labor needed.
b) Same as Alt. Ib.
c) Same as Alt. Ic.
City of St. Croix Falls
able):
share
• $708
would be:
,600 from
State
would
• S148
• $ 98
e City o
share co
.200 fro
.800 fro
f lay
m MN
m Cit
ors Falls
tlon cost:
• 5738
• $147
• S 98
800
500
d be
from
from
US EPA
City.
• S624.000 from Wl Gran
• S449.600 from City.
(See Section 4.3) This
use of public funds.
a) The existing WWTP site
would be utilized; no
change In existing land
a) Same as Alt. \a
a) Same an Alt. la.
and wooded land in NE *t of
Sec. 29, St. Croix Falls Twp.,
application site.
b) Force main
River, Washlngtt
land application site would
be a public utility rlght-
5-4
-------
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
a) Sane as Ale. la.
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
a) Same as AU- la and Alt. 3a
and because of erosion and
Loately 0.5 mile force main
route between SL. Crotx
mgh the
Alternative 9
a) Sane as Alt. la.
a) Same 09 Alt. la.
a) Same as Ale. la.
a) Same as Alt. la
:ded. man- years of labor needed.
b) Sumc aa Alt. Ib.
b) Same as Alt.
b) Same as Alt. Ib.
c) Same as Alt. Ic.
c) Same as Alt. Ic.
shores would be: shares would be:
• $873.000 from US EPA • SI, 346. 000 from US EPA
• SI 74, 600 from State • $ 142,000 from State
• $116.400 from City. • $ 95,000 from City.
and wooded land In the wooded land In the HV ^ of
NW k of Sec. 26, Shafer Sec. 26, Shafer Twp., would
site.
b) Force main from existing b) Same aa Alt. 5b .
Road 82. Poison, walnut, and
Mul erry Streets, and Military
sit would be a public
utl Ity right-of-way
-------
Table 5-1. (Concluded)
Environmental
Component
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative
Transportat ion
Ion equipment and delivery
rucks in St. Crolx Falls
car MVTP site.
lay he dIsrupied i
tlio WI Interstate: State alonfi River, Washington.
Park to the existing WWTP. llnd Louisiana Streets.
to recreatlonlsts in the
Recreation a) No significant Impacts ii) Sane as Alt. la. n) Same as All. Ij
expected.
Historical, and site already la developed, or cultural sites are known to
main route or at the lai
of Sec. 29, St. Crolx Fa
Tvp; however no field su
has been completed. It
possible that signtflcan
archaeological aites ecu d be
the 30-acre land application
site.
Resource Use a) 51, 24,000 of public capital a) $1,181,000 of public capital
a) Same as Alt. la
a) Same as Ale. la
abl
ably.
iquantlflablc amount of b) Same as Alt. tb.
ably.
b) Same ,IH All . th.
a) $985,000 of public capital
ably.
b) Some as Alt. Ib.
be committed to the project.
or the expansion and
xlsting UWTP.
application site and 2 mile
committed trretr
for the demollLli
rably
of the
d) The extstlns
(SO years).
committed a
Lseful life
be committed ;u least for th<
useful lllc ot the facllltle
(50 yt-ars) .
5-6
-------
Alternative 5
Same as Alt. 3n, plus vehic-
ular traffic would be dis-
rupted by trenching of the
force main along County
Road 82. Poison, Walnut, and
Mulberry Streets, and Military
Road (Sec Fig. 2-1).
Alternative 6
3) Same as Alt. 5a.
Alternative 7
Vehicular traffic would be
by construction equipment
and delivery trucks:
Alternative R
State Park
entering and exiting the
Taylors Falla WUTP a 11r
near the Re. 8 bridge
on the Rt. 8 bridge
(possibly closing one
several weeks between
the hours of 8 an to
tlon of the force main
across the bridge.
Same as Alt. 7a.
traffic disruptl-
trenching of Lhe
82 Folsom, Walnut
Mulberry Streets ,
Military Road (Se
Fig. 2-1).
plus
'n by
Road
, and
md
Alternative 9
Same as Alt. 8a.
a) Same ae Alt. la
fatlonists would be
ivenienced and dis-
tlon of a force main
through the WI Inters!
State Park.
a) Same as Alt. 7n.
a) Sane as Alt. la
a) Because the existing
St. Crolx Falls and
Taylors Falls WWTP
sites already have
been developed, no
significant impacts
locations.
b)
a)
b)
c)
-------
emplacement, and construction activities at pumping stations would create a
variety of effects:
e Fugitive dust and emissions of hydrocarbons and fumes from
construction equipment
• Noise from excavating and other construction equipment
• Destruction of vegetation
• Disturbance of wildlife
• Erosion tnat potentially would increase sediment loads in the
St. Croix River
• Disrupt local traffic flows
• Impair aesthetics
• Potentially destroy or uncover important archaeological or
historical sites.
The rehabilitation and/or construction of new treatment facilities would
irretrievably commit various quantities of public capital, energy resources,
land, labor, and materials. A number of short-term construction jobs would
be created.
Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance was utilized by WDNR in the
acquisition and development of the Wisconsin Interstate State Park. There-
fore, construction of the force main through the Park for Regional Alterna-
tives 7, 8, and 9 will require a permit issued by WDNR with prior approval
from the US Department of the Interior. However, if the development of the
force main will remove any portion of the right-of-way from public outdoor
recreational use, the Secretary of the Interior must approve the conversion
of use (By letter, Ms. Sheila D. Minor, US Department of the Interior, to
Mr. James A. Hanlon, USliPA, 28 April 1981). The Wisconsin Department of
Transportation also must issue a permit if any of the new sewer lines will
cross or be placed within the right-of-way of a highway in the State Trunk
System.
Impacts of significant public concern, as evidenced by specific Execu-
tive Orders concerning their consideration and/or those impacts that require
additional explanation, are described further in the following sections.
5-8
-------
The impacts of system construction and operation on local government finance
are described in Section 5.3.
5.1.1. Air Duality and Odors
The air quality of the project area would not be affected significantly
by any of the proposed alternatives. Short-term, adverse impacts could
result from the generation of fugitive dust during the demolition of exist-
ing facilities and the construction of new facilities. Fugitive dusts
include respirable particulates less than 30 micrometers (urn; 0.0012 in) in
diameter, which might remain in suspension and be transported by wind more
than 1U miles from their source. Particles larger than 30 um tend to settle
out within 20 feet to 30 feet of their source (USEPA 1976a). The very small
particles can be inhaled by people and wildlife, and be deposited deep in
the most sensitive areas of the pulmonary region. Thus increased fugitive
dusts from construction activities can contribute to acute and chronic
respiratory problems.
In addition to particle size, the chemical composition of the dust
particles and the prevailing wind speeds determine how fugitive dust emis-
sions will affect air quality (Cowherd, Bohn, and Cuscino 1979). Wind
speeds must be significant to carry the dust away from its source. Other
factors affecting fugitive dust emissions include source activity, moisture
content of the disturbed surface material, humidity, temperature, and time
of day.
5.1.2. Floodplains and Wetlands
Although no significant impacts to floodplains or wetlands are expected
during construction of any of the nine alternatives, the US Army Corps of
Engineers must issue a permit if any work will be performed below the
ordinary high-water mark of the St. Croix River or if fill material is to be
placed in wetland areas adjacent to the River. An MDNR statute also re-
quires a Chapter 105 permit that applies to all grading, filling, or
dredging to be performed in a public waterway. The southeast area of the
stabilization pond site in Section 26 of Shafer Township (Alternatives 5, 6,
5-9
-------
8, and 9) is wet during most of the year. There is adequate area at the
site, however, so that the stabilization ponds can be located on higher
ground to the west of this area. Provisions to prevent runoff or leakage of
wastewater or drainage water to this wetland area also would be required.
Construction of a new conventional WWTP for Taylors Falls (Alternatives
3 and 4) at tne site of the existing WWTP would be above the 100-year flood-
plain elevation of the St. Croix River. However, during construction of a
new plant under either of these alternatives, interim wastewater treatment
for Taylors Falls would include the use of the existing settling tanks,
which are located within the River's floodplain. Any significant flooding
during the construction phase would result in the inundation of the settling
tanks. This could cause short-term degradation of river water quality;
however, because of the extremely high flow associated with flood condi-
tions, the partially treated wastewater would be diluted. Bacterial con-
tamination would be the only significant concern in such case.
5.1.3. Prime Agricultural Land
The majority of tne land in Section 26 of Shafer Township, including
the proposed wastewater treatment site, is defined as prime agricultural
land according to the classification system established by SCS. Only a
small portion of the land in Section 29 of St. Croix Falls Township, vir-
tually none within the proposed wastewater treatment site, is defined as
prime agricultural land. The irreversible loss of agricultural lands to
other land uses is a growing national concern. The Council on Environmental
Duality (CEy) issued a memorandum (1976) to all Federal agencies requesting
that efforts should be made to insure that prime and unique farmlands (as
designated by SCS) are not irreversibly converted to other uses unless other
national interests override the importance or benefits from their protec-
tion.
US EPA has a policy of not allowing the construction of a treatment
plant or the placement of interceptor sewers funded through the Construction
Grants Program in prime agricultural lands unless it is necessary to elimi-
nate existing point discharges and accommodate flows from existing habita-
5-10
-------
tion that violate the requirements of the Clean Water Act (USEPA 1979a).
The policy of USEPA is to protect prime agricultural land from being ad-
versely affected by primary and secondary impacts. It is considered to be a
significant impact if 40 or more acres of prime agricultural land are di-
verted from production.
Alternatives 5 and 6 may adversely impact as much as 40 acres of prime
agricultural land. Regional Alternatives 8 and 9 would each impact up to 90
acres of agricultural land. These lands would be taken out of crop produc-
tion for use as stabilization and holding ponds, control facilities, buffer
zones, and access roads. The actual amount of acres of prime agricultural
land taken out of crop production for these treatment alternatives is de-
pendent on the actual location and placement of the treatment sites and
interceptor route within Section 26 of Shafer Township.
5.1.4. Endangered and Threatened Species
No significant impacts to species designated as endangered or threat-
ened are expected during construction of any of the alternatives. The
majority of the species designated as endangered or threatened by the State
of Wisconsin, or given priority status by the State of Minnesota, are typic-
ally present in extensive tracts of forests or wetland habitats. Therefore,
these species are not likely to be present in the primarily agricultural and
oldfield lands proposed for use in the stabilization pond and land appli-
cation alternatives, or in the developed areas where the existing treatment
plants are located. No species classified as endangered or threatened were
noted in tne vicinity of the sites involved in the various wastewater system
alternatives by an ecologist during a site visit in October 1979 (WAPORA,
Inc. 1979). Sufficient habitat is available in the vicinity of the project
area for relocation of any endangered or threatened animals in the remote
case that any may be present and displaced by implementation of any of the
alternatives.
5-11
-------
5.1.5. Cultural Resources
Construction of the facilities proposed for the various alternatives in
the Taylors Falls portion of the project area (Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
and 9) will not impact any identified archaeological sites. An archaeologi-
cal survey of the project area and its environs indicated that no archae-
ological sites were located in the vicinity. Therefore, no further archae-
ological investigations are necessary in the Taylors Falls portion of the
project area (By letter, Mr. Russell W. Fridley, Office of the Minnesota
State Historic Preservation Officer, to WAPORA, Inc., 26 October 1979). In
addition, a review of the site of Alternative 5 revealed "that there are no
sites of historic, architectural, cultural, or archaeological significance
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for inclusion
on the National Register," that will be impacted by the recommended alterna-
tive (by letter, Mr. Russel W. Fridley, Minnesota Historical Society, to
WAPORA, Inc., 23 April 1981).
The proposed force main/discharge route for Alternatives 5, 6, 8, and 9
would be located near the northern border of the Angel's Hill Historic
District in Taylors Falls. If one of these alternatives is selected, care
should be taken that the proposed route is outside the boundaries of the
historic district to minimize impacts to botn the architectural components
of the district and to any associated archaeological remains within the
district.
The St. Croix Falls portion of the project area contains several ar-
chaeological sites and a number of documented historic structures. A review
of the site of Alternative 1 conducted by the State Historical Society of
Wisconsin revealed that construction of the recommended alternative would
not have an impact on any properties on or eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin (By letter, Mr. Richard W.
Dexter, State Historical Society of WI, to Mr. Gene Wojcik, USEPA, 26 Febru-
ary 1981). However, no systematic archaeological or architectural survey
work has been conducted in those portions of the project area that might be
directly affected by construction of Alternatives 2, 7, 8, and 9. The
presence of known archaeological and architectural sites in the vicinity
5-12
-------
indicates that the potential for finding unidentified sites in and near the
proposed construction areas is high. Because there is the potential that
unidentified archaeological and architectural resources may be impacted by
the proposed construction activities, a thorough archaeological and archi-
tectural investigation should be completed during the "Step 2" design phase,
prior to the construction of any of these alternatives.
5.2. Operation Impacts
The operation of rehabilitated and/or new independent wastewater treat-
ment facilities for St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls, or the operation of a
regional wastewater treatment facility to serve both communities, will
affect the local environment. The long-term significance of such effects,
however, is expected to be minimal.
The potential physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts from the
operation of each of the nine alternatives are presented in comparative
fashion in Table 5-2 (pages 5-14 through 5-19). The effects are quantified
where possible. Impacts of significant public concern and/or those impacts
that require a more detailed explanation are addressed in the following
sections. To avoid the redundancy involved in addressing similar alterna-
tives, the nine alternatives have been grouped for discussion purposes.
Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7 involve conventional treatment plants and are
discussed in Section 5.2.1. Alternatives 5 and 8 involve stabilization pond
treatment systems and are discussed in Section 5.2.2. Alternative 2, 6, and
9 propose land disposal of the treated effluent and are discussed in Section
5.2.3. The impacts of the alternatives on local government finance and the
users of the system are described in Section 5.3.
5.2.1. Conventional Treatment Plant Alternatives
The operation of expanded and upgraded conventional secondary treatment
facilities, utilizing an RBC secondary treatment process at St. Croix Falls
and a CAS or RBC secondary treatment process at Taylors Falls (as proposed
in Alternatives 1, 3, and 4), each would create similar operational impacts.
The regional conventional treatment plant alternatives (Alternative 7) also
5-13
-------
Table 5-2. Potential major primary impacts from the operation of new wastewater
treatment facilities at St. Croix Falls WI and Taylors Falls MN.
Environmental
Component
Air Quality
and Odors
Alternative I
UWTP would release low-
level malodorufl gases
and vapors because most
of the treatment pro-
Sludge pumping and haul-
odora.
release of methane gas
from the existing WWTP
would he eliminated.
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
a) Same as Alt. la.
b) Same as Alt. Ib.
Alternative 4
;i> Same as Alt. la.
would be noticeable when the
pond ice thawa In the spring.
Also, if the storage pond la
completely dowatered, some
a) Noise levels would rei
impacts expected.
the same at the existing
UUTP; no significant Im-
pacts expected.
a) Same as Alt. 3a.
b) Noise levels at th
Infiltration site
Geology , and
Soils
would require disposal on future, need to be remo
use of existing sites Is rate. Disposal of thla
anticipated. No slgnlfi- material should not csiu
toxic^substanres are^no
he J5 tons of sludge pur
«
.1) Same as Alt. la, except
24 Lona of sludge per
turbidity, or aqu
vou Id Increase ba
0.017 mg/1. The
L not „«„ d,.ch.r.e d.rln,
k- during a power failure or
SS by
ffluent
St. Croix River would not
turbidity, or aquatic
and SS by 0.006 mg/l . The
effluent will be disinfected
to discharging to River
to eliminate potential
bacterial health hazard.
u) Same as Alt.
eltmlnaie potential
a) No Impact expected.
a) No Inpact expected.
from the tnf 111ration basins.
5-14
-------
Alternative 5
Ponds likely would experi-
ence * spring "turnover"
moulting In anaerobic
conditions and aeptlc
sewage odors chat may
persist aa long aa a
nonch.
Alternative 6
a) Same aa Alt. 5a.
Alternative 7
a) Operation of the Regional
UUTP would release only
low-level malodorous gases
and vapors because most of
the treatment processes
would be covered. Sludge
pumping and hauling would
produce some odora.
Alternative 8
t.) Sane as Ale. 5a.
Alternative 9
a) Same aa Alt. 5a.
Odors at pumping stations
normally would be Inter-
pcrlods of low flow when
they could be more prob-
b) Same as Alt. 5b.
b) Odors generated by the
release of methane gas
from the existing St.
Crolx Falls WWTP would
be eliminated.
b) Same as Alt. 5b.
b) Same as Alt. 5b.
a) Noise levels would rental
the existing WWTP site.
b) Holac levels woult
the 3 pumping '-
main route, near the Inter-
sections of County Road 82
and West St; Walnut and
Chestnut St.; and Military
Road and the center line of
Sec. 26 of Shafcr Twp. (See
Fig. 2-D.
from the naturul back-
a) Samu is Alt. 5a.
c) Noise levels
and land application
create little i
Noise levels would remain
essentially the same at
St. Crolx Falls WWTP
sites; no significant
impacts expected.
c) Same us AH . fie .
a) No significant Impa
expected.
occur. No significant harm-
ful Impacts are expec ted.
n) No slgnlflci
cclvlng water flow and quality tlnuous basis.
would minimize Impacts on
St. Croix River. Growth of
algae in pond and release of
algae-laden pond effluent
could be a potential prob-
The-cffluent would be dis-
infected before discharge.
hazard.
and Rfvcr may occur during
St. Crolx River would not times more flow. more flow.
turbidity, or aquatic
biota. The discharge
would Increase back-
by 0.022'mg/l and SS by
0.023 mg/1. The effluent
would be disinfected
the River to eliminate
the potential for
bacterial health
hazard .
a power failure or major
ponds <•
to mini
wul In i
detect
rould be 1 Ined wl th °f ponds is approximately 3 additional pond and Irrigated
Imize seepage to the hl-' larger. times larger, so effect
jonld hu used 10
lining failures and
for potable wate
i of potnblu
expected.
5-15
-------
Table 5-2. (Continued)
Environmental
Component
Wetlands
Terrestrial
Threatened
Species
Economics and
aphicS
Municipal
[ndcbtedneos
Land Use
T™..por«.i=n
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
expected.
a) No impacts expected. a) No significant impacts a) Siime ns Alt. In. a) Same as Alt. la.
operating conditions.
Alt 1
uxpcc tiid .
) 1 1
a) Although more treatment a) Sane as Alt. la. a) Snme as Alt. la. a) Some aa Alt. la.
available. It is unlikely
raent capacity would induce
population growth or eco-
nomic development above
the levels projected
(See Sec. 1.2).
would pay the annual treat- annual coats for a family would pay the annual annual costs for a house-
dot ermine significant fl- financial impact.
none la 1 Impact.
b) The level of Indebtedness b) Same as Alt. Ib. b> Compared to recommended b) Same as Alt. 3b.
projects.
n) No significant impacts a) Same as Alt. la. a) Same aa Alt. la. a) Same as Alt. la.
expected.
a) No significant Impacts a) Same as Alt. la. a) Same as Alt. la. a) Same as Alt. la.
expected.
system components of
untreated or partially
charged to the St. Crolx
Impacting water recre-
stream of the discharge.
5-16
-------
Alternative 5
a) Same aa Alt. la.
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Same as Alt. la.
Alternative 8
a) Snme as Alt. In.
Alternative 9
Some ns Alt. lu.
a) Snn.e im Alt. !>a.
a) No signlflcnnt inpac
during normal operat
however, periodic
liana of heavy metals, other toxic
raicronutriunta
a) Sane as Alt. la.
a) No significant Impacts
expected during normal
operating conditions.
o) Same as Alt. 60.
a) Same as Alt. la
a) Sane 39 Alt. la.
a) Same aa All. la
a) Same as AH.
n) Snme as Alt. In.
.1) Sana- as All. la.
a) Same as Alt. In.
n) Same aa Alt. In
n) S.int AH Alt. la
n) Same as Alt. la.
n) Same na Alt. la.
Same as All. In
n) Snme ns Alt.
median family Income med an family Income A typical household of
resents 1 .5Z of median
family income, which
does not exceed USEPA
guidelines. For Taylors
S109/yr. a 381 increase
family Income . which does
nut exceed USEl'A nultlelines .
b) Same a» Alt. 3b. b) Same as AH. 3b . b) For St. Crolx Falls, sane
for Si. Croix Falls, a for St. Cro.'n Falls, a
household of 3 would household of 3 would pay
This represents 1.4X of represents I.7Z of mudlun
med inn family Income, fa ily income, which docs
hold of 3 would pay wh ch ,1s a\jUlj;hL rcdncilun
S85/yr, an 8X incronac in current costs. Thin
b) Same as AH. 7b. b) Some ns AH. 7b.
a)
a)
Depending o
and locjiLlo
facility, n
of prime ng
Same ns Alt
n final design
n of the pond
ccess road , and
ricu
la
Hural land
location of ihe ponds /I and 90 acres of prime ngrl- 90 acres of prime agri-
«nt .,.«„ ..y r,»o.e 40 production. production.
"" C
a) Same as AH. la. a) Sane as Alt. la. a) Same as AH. la. a) Same as Alt. U.
existing WWTP site could
cause untreated waste
lo be discharged to ihc
allty
ely
a) Same as Alt. 5n.
n) Same as AH.
ncross the Route fl bridge
would result In untreated
the St. Crolx River,
causing short-term water
quality degradntlon nnd
adversely tmpuctlng water
tic
5-17
a) Same as Alt. 5a
n) Same na AH.
h) Same as AH. 7b.
-------
Table 5-2. (Concluded)
Environmental
Component
Resource Use
Public Health
Alternative 1
a) Operation of the 0.40 mgd
WWTP (at design flow)
would consume:
• 178,000 kuh/yr of
electricity
chlorine
eluding Labor, 500 gal.
of fuel, materials, and
an estimated $31,000 in
(I960 dollars).
a) Potential failure of dia-
hazard In the St. Croix
outfall.
Alternative 2
a) Operation of the 0.40 mgd
WWTP (at design flow)
wou i consume:
• 2 .000 kwh/yr of
e ctriclty
c ding labor, other
a estimated £40,000 In
04M costs per year
(1980 dollars).
a) No signlfi ant quantities
of aerosol that may harbor
[nflltratl n basins.
Alternative 3
a) Operation of Che 0.14 mgd
WWTP (at design flow) would
consume:
• 80,000 kwh/yr of
lectrlclty
hlorine
ng labor, 400 gal. of
fuel, materials, and an
estimated 536,000 in
(1980 dollars) .
a) Same as Alt. la.
Alternative 4
a) Operation of the 0.14 mgd
WWTP (at design flow) would
consume:
• 55,000 uh/yr of
electrl ity
chlorln
labor, 00 gal. of fuel.
materia s, and an esti-
mated S 7.000 In 06H
(L980 dollars).
a) Same as Alt. la.
5-18
-------
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
(at design flow) would con- (at design flow) would would consume: ' (at design flow) would
oumc: consume: • 240,000 kwh/yr of consume:
• 155,000 kwh/yr of . 240.000 kwh/yr of electricity • 300,000 kwh/yr of
eloc rlclty electricity • 16,400 Ibs/yr of electricity
Ing abor, fuclfl, labor, fuels, materials, • other resources, includ- ing labor, fuels,
mate Inls, and an estl- and an estimated £21,000 Ing labor, fuels, materials, materials, and an cstl-
cost per year (1980 dollars). In OiH costs per your coats per year
(1980 dollars). (I9BO dollars). (I960 dollars).
non-disinfected waatewater
bo t potcn lal disease
atcrfowl; he potential
to be instg iflcant.
for health hazard.
(at design flow) would
• 360.000 kwh/yr of
Ing labor. 700 gala, of
fuel, materials, and an
estimated $23,000 In OiM
(I960 dollars).
a) Some as Alt. 5a .
b) Sane as Alt. 6b.
5-19
-------
would generate operational impacts similar to those associated with Alterna-
tives 1, 3, and 4, though of greater magnitude. Additional impacts would be
associated with the conveyance system needed to transport raw wastewater
from Taylors Falls to the regional treatment facility located on the St.
Croix Falls side of the River proposed in Alternative 7. The operational
impacts associated with these treatment facilities, discharge of treated
wastewater, sludge disposal, and wastewater conveyance system are described
in the following subsections.
5.2.1.1. Wastewater Treatment Facilities
AIR DUALITY AND ODORS
The potential emissions from the operation of conventional secondary
wastewater treatment plants include aerosols, hazardous gases, and odors.
If not properly controlled, the emissions could pose a public health risk or
be a nuisance.
Aerosols are defined as solid or liquid particles, ranging in size from
0.01 to 50 urn that are suspended in the air. These particles are produced
at wastewater treatment facilities during various treatment processes. Some
of the constituents of aerosols could be pathogenic and could cause respira-
tory and gastrointestinal infections. Concentrations of bacteria or viruses
in aerosols, however, are generally insignificant (Hickey and Reist 1975).
The vast majority of the microorganisms in aerosols are destroyed by solar
radiation, dessication, and other environmental phenomena. There are no
records of disease outbreaks resulting from pathogens present in aerosols.
Therefore, no adverse impacts are expected from aerosol emissions for any of
the alternatives.
Discharges of hazardous gases could have adverse affects on public
health and the environment. Explosive, toxic, noxious, lachrymose (causing
tears), and asphyxiating1 gases can be produced at wastewater treatment
facilities. These gases include chlorine, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sul-
fide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur, and phosphorus. The know-
ledge of the possibility that such gases can escape from the facilities or
5-20
-------
into work areas in dangerous or nuisance concentrations might affect the
operation of the plant and the adjacent land uses. Gaseous emissions,
however, can be controlled by proper design, operation, and maintenance
procedures.
Odor is a property of a substance that affects the sense of smell.
Organic material that contains sulfur or nitrogen may be partially oxidized
anaerobically and result in the emission of byproducts that may be malodor-
ous. Common emissions, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, are often
referred to as sewer gases and have odors of rotten eggs and concentrated
urine, respectively. Some organic acids, aldehydes, mercaptans, skatoles,
indoles, and amines also may be odorous, either individually or in combina-
tion with other compounds. Sources of wastewater treatment related odors
include:
• Fresh, septic, or incompletely treated wastewater
• Screenings, grit, and skimmings containing septic or putres-
cible matter
• Oil, grease, fats, and soaps from industry, homes, and
surface runoff
• Gaseous emissions from treatment processes, manholes, wet
wells, pumping stations, leaking containers, turbulent flow
areas, and outfall areas
• Chlorinated wafer containing phenols
• Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge.
No odor problems associated with any of the alternatives are expected to
occur if the wastewater treatment facilities and collection systems are
designed, operated, and maintained properly.
NOISE
Noise during the operation of the wastewater treatment facilities would
be generated predominantly by pumps and aeration equipment. The alterna-
tives proposing the use of a CAS system would generate more noise than other
alternatives, such as the RBC system.
5-21
-------
POWER FAILURE AND EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS
As discussed in Section 3.6., the proposed wastewater treatment systems
would be equipped with either an alternate power source or auxiliary power
generator. Therefore, no adverse environmental consequences should occur
because of an extended electrical power failure. Impacts related to the
malfunction of some or any of the treatment units would be minimal if the
facilities are designed (i.e., duplicate units), operated, and maintained
properly.
5.2.1.2. Discharge of Treated Wastewater
The effluent from the St. Croix Falls, Taylors Falls, and regional
conventional treatment plant alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, A, and 7)
would be discharged on a continuous basis to the St. Croix River through the
existing outfall sewers. The treatment systems proposed by these alterna-
tives would provide secondary treatment and reduce the loadings of BOD,-, SS,
and other pollutants to the St. Croix River.
BUD AND SUSPENDED SOLID LOADS
Expanding and upgrading the existing WWTP at St. Croix Falls (Alterna-
tive 1) to a design flow of 400,000 gpd would contribute an average of 100
pounds of BOD per day and 100 pounds of SS per day to the St. Croix River
wnen operating at design flow. A new WWTP at Taylors Falls (Alternatives 3
and 4) operating at the design flow of 140,000 gpd would contribute 30
pounds of BOD and 35 pounds of SS per day. These loadings represent a
reduction of 18% and 42%, respectively, relative to the BOD loads dis-
charged to the River by the existing St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls
plants. These reductions would be obtained through upgraded treatment
processes, even considering that at design flow, significantly more BOD
will be entering tne treatment plant than at present. The suspended solids
loads at design flow would increase by 40% and 66%, respectively, from the
expanded/upgraded facilities at Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls, because
of the increase in wastewater flows .relative to the present condition and
the proposed effluent limitation for SS.
5-22
-------
The combined total BOD load of 130 pounds per day from expanded/up-
graded facilities at both communities (Alternatives 1 and 3 or 4) or from
one regional facility at St. Croix Falls (Alternative 7), would increase the
BOD concentration of the St. Croix River by approximately 0.022 mg/1 at the
7-day, 10-year low-flow condition 1,100 cfs — a "worst case" condition).
The insignificant increase in BOD concentration in the River would not have
any discernible impact on the DO levels in the St. Croix River. The
combined community design flow SS load of 135 pounds per day also would
create an insignificant effect, increasing ^he SS concentration of the St.
Croix River by about 0.023 mg/1 at the 7-day, 10-year low-flow condition.
The treatment facilities proposed in Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7 all
would provide for disinfection of the treated wastewater prior to discharge
to the River. The use of a reliable disinfection system and controls would
eliminate the potential bacterial health hazard associated with wastewater
discharge. The discharge of treated effluent from expanded/upgraded treat-
ment facilities directly to the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway therefore
would not adversely affect recreational opportunities downstream.
5.2.1.3. Sludge Disposal
The conventional WWTPs proposed in Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7 each
would generate sludge—the product of the removal of solids from the waste-
water. The sludge is proposed to be digested in aerobic or anaerobic sludge
digesters. The digested liquid sludge would be pumped directly from the
digester into a tank truck and hauled to disposal sites.
At present, sludge from the existing St. Croix Falls WWTP is hauled by
tank truck and spread on land at two 80-acres fields located north and
northeast of St. Croix Falls in Section 19 and Section 16 of St. Croix Falls
Township. The fields, owned by Mr. Duane Chinander and Mr. Art Bishop, are
used on an alternating basis throughout the year, depending on weather
conditions and cropping. Grass and grain crops are grown at these sites,
which are used for cattle feed. No adverse environmental impacts from this
practice have been reported. It is proposed that this sludge disposal
practice will continue in the future at these two sites.
5-23
-------
At present, dewatered sludge from the existing Taylors Falls treatment
plant is hauled to the Blood Farm, located north of Taylors Falls in Section
14 of Shafer Township, for ultimate disposal. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose
to continue this practice; i.e., digested liquid sludge would be pumped
directly into a tank truck and hauled to the Blood Farm for final disposal.
Truck traffic to and from the proposed WWTPs would be associated with
liquid sludge hauling to the sludge sites for diposal. Other infrequent
truck traffic to the treatment facilities can be expected for delivery of
supplies and chemicals such as chlorine. Automobile traffic also can be
expected, but is not considered to have as great an impact as the potential
truck traffic.
The primary traffic will arise from trucking sludge from the proposed
treatment facilities to the sludge disposal sites. The sludge hauling
trucks would probably be small, single-axle, gasoline- or diesel-powered
trucks. Sludge would not necessarily be hauled weekly; the sludge digesters
at the treatment facilities would be designed for several weeks of storage.
Sludge hauling would have minimal impacts on traffic and residential
areas. Aside from noise, emissions, and hazards associated with any truck-
ing operation, occasional ephemeral odors from the truck may be noticeable.
Good "housekeeping" at the sludge transfer location would prevent sludge
deposits on the outside of the truck tank and should minimize potential odor
problems.
5.2.1.4. Conveyance System
The regional, conventional WWTP proposed in Alternative 7 includes a
pumping station located at the existing Taylors Falls WWTP site and a force
main to convey the raw wastewater from Taylors Falls to the regional plant
at St. Croix Falls. A force main generally is trouble-free and requires
little maintenance. The pipe rarely leaks because the fluid pressure is
low. Because force mains are buried at a depth just below the frost line,
the main is subject to breakage from unrelated excavations.
5-24
-------
To convey the raw wastewater across the St. Croix River, the force main
would be attached to the US Highway 8 bridge. Exposure to temperature
extremes and bridge flexure would subject the force main to stresses that
could cause leaks or joint failures. A direct discharge of untreated sewage
to the St. Croix River would result in short-term degradation of water
quality in the River.
The most significant environmental impacts associated with the convey-
ance line involve the proposed pumping station, to be located at the exist-
ing Taylors Falls WWTP site. During normal operation, the pumping station,
would emit noises and odors. When the pumps are operating a low "hum" would
be heard nearby. The noise would be produced on an intermittent basis.
Certain measures are available for reducing or masking the odors and should
be included as part of the routine operation of the system. During normal
operation of the pumping station, the bar screen must be inspected and
cleaned regularly. Large solids must be removed and disposed of in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
The environmental consequences of a power outage or a pumping station
malfunction would be a raw sewage spill to the St. Croix River, resulting in
short-term degradation of water quality. Provisions should be included for
providing alternate power by either obtaining backup service from another
independent distribution system or by installing an auxiliary gasoline- or
diesel-powered emergency generator.
5.2.2. Stabilization Pond Treatment System Alternatives
The operation of the conveyance facilities, the treatment and storage
ponds, and the outfall facilities proposed in Alternatives 5 and 8 would
create environmental effects different from the conventional treatment plant
alternatives. These effects are described in the following subsections.
5.2.2.1. Treatment and Storage Ponds
The location of the treatment and storage ponds proposed in Alterna-
tives 5 and 8 is presented in Section 3.4. The stabilization pond system
5-25
-------
would be operated so that the water would be discharged semiannually, during
high river flows, in April and November.
AIR QUALITY AND ODORS
The proposed ponds would have a potential to create odor problems,
particularly in the spring. The ponds would likely experience a "turnover"
in the spring because of the water temperature differential, which would
result in resuspension of solids. The increase in organic loading due to
resuspension would result in anaerobic conditions and septic sewage odors
that may persist for as long as a month.
POWER FAILURE AND EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS
The treatment and storage ponds operate by natural biochemical pro-
cesses without any power inputs; thus, the treatment system is immune to
power outages. Also, the treatment system easily can accommodate "slugs" of
unusual wastes without affecting the quality of the discharge. The only
noise associated with the pond system would be from the use of maintenance
equipment.
GROUNDWATER
The proposed stabilization ponds are not expected to impact the quality
of ground water. The ponds must be lined with either clay or a plastic mem-
brane in a manner that meets MPCA design criteria (1975b) for controlling
leakage. Monitoring wells would be installed to monitor for pond leakage.
5.2.2.2. Discharge of Treated Wastewater
The effluent from the stabilization ponds would be discharged to the
St. Croix River on a semiannual basis. The quality of the pond water would
be tested prior to discharge and approval for discharge would be obtained
from MPCA. The success of this method depends on the selection of the
optimum time for release of the pond effluent, considering the flow in the
St. Croix River and the pond water quality. Most often, disinfection of
5-26
-------
stabilization pond effluent is not required, but may become necessary if
sampling of pond effluents indicates high levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
Because of the potential for seepage to groundwater, odors, and aero-
sols, MPCA guidelines state that a pond should be at least 0.25 miles from
the nearest dwelling or 0.5 miles from a city or cluster of residences.
There are no residences within this distance from the proposed pond loca-
tion.
5.2.2.3. Conveyance System
The conveyance systems for the wastewater stabilization pond alterna-
tives are described in Section 3.4.6. for the Taylors Falls stabilization
pond system (Alternative 5), and in Section 3.4.9. for the regional stabili-
zation pond system (Alternative 8). In both alternatives, four pumping
stations along the force main route in Taylors Falls are proposed to convey
the wastewater the 2.5-mile distance. The four stations are needed to
overcome the 150 feet increase in elevation from the pumping station located
on the existing Taylors Falls WWTP site to the proposed stabilization pond
located in Section 26 of Shafer Township.
The force mains generally are trouble-free and require little mainte-
nance. Leakage is rare because the fluid pressure is low. Because the
force main would be buried at a depth just below the frost line, it may be
subject to accidental breakage from unrelated excavations.
NOISE
The four pumping stations during normal operation would emit low-levels
of noise. When the pumps are operating a low "hum" would be heard nearby
and may be considered a nuisance.
AIR DUALITY AND ODORS
Odors at each pumping station normally would be intermittent except
during periods of low flow when odor might be more problematic. Because the
variation in flow between the wet weather and dry weather condition is so
5-27
-------
large, the residence time of the sewage in the force main may exceed eight
hours and a considerable amount of hydrogen sulfide may be generated. The
odor would be released as the sewage is discharged into the wet well of the
next pumping station. Certain measures are available for reducing or mask-
ing odor problems, and provisions should be included in the operation plan
for the system.
During normal operation of the pumping stations, the bar screens must
be inspected and cleaned regularly. Large solids must be removed and dis-
posed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.
POWER FAILURE AND EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS
The environmental consequences of a power outage or a pumping station
malfunction would be a raw sewage overflow from the pumping station at the
present treatment plant site or at another pumping station along the force
main route. The sewage would be discharged directly into the St. Croix
River or into a roadside ditch. Such a spill would cause either short-term
water quality degradation of the St. Croix River or odor, aesthetic, and
potential health hazard impacts in the residential area surrounding the
pumping station where the spill occurred. Spills from pumping station
malfunctions would be difficult to prevent. To guard against system failure
from a power outage, either another major electric distribution system tie
or an auxiliary generator would be necessary.
The regional stabilization pond alternative (Alternative 8) would
present an additional potential hazard. Attaching the force main from St.
Croix Falls to the US Highway 8 bridge over the St. Croix River could be
problematic. Exposure to temperature extremes and bridge flexure would
subject the force main to stresses that could cause leaks or joint failures.
A direct discharge of untreated sewage to the St. Croix River from a rupture
of the pipe would result in short-term degradation of water quality to the
River.
5-28
-------
5.2.3. Land Application Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
The operation of the conveyance facilities, the treatment and/or stor-
age ponds, and the application systems proposed in Alternatives 2, 6, and 9
would create environmental effects somewhat different from the other alter-
natives. These effects are described in the following subsections. First,
the alternative proposing rapid infiltration east of St. Croix Falls (Alter-
native 2) will be discussed; followed by the land application alternatives
which incorporate slow-rate, spray irrigation at a site west of Taylors
Falls.
5.2.3.1. Rapid Infiltration Land Application System for St. Croix Falls
AS proposed in Alternative 2, the existing St. Croix Falls treatment
plant would be rehabilitated to produce an effluent with a BOD concentra-
tion of 50 mg/1. The effluent conveyance system would consist of a pumping
station at the treatment plant and a force main to the application site. A
pond capable of storing 3-months of flow and the flooding basins would be
located at the effluent disposal site (the northwest 40 acres of the
northeast quarter section of Section 29 in St. Croix Falls Township). No
recovery of the renovated water (the effluent that has percolated through
the soil) was considered necessary by the Facilities Planners in the preli-
minary design of the system. The environmental impacts of the operation of
each of the major components are presented in the following subsections.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
The operational impacts of a rehabilitated wastewater treatment plant
for St. Croix Falls are discussed in Section 5.2.1. The upgraded treatment
plant under this alternative would meet the BOD, treatment requirement of 50
mg/1, which is not as stringent as the 30 mg/1 standard required for a
direct river discharge. Thus, new or rehabilitated treatment units would be
designed with less detention time and possibly fewer components.
5-29
-------
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
A pumping station would be located at the rehabilitated WWTP for con-
veying the partially treated effluent to the rapid infiltration site. The
pumping station would not handle raw sewage; thus, the environmental impact
of its operation would be minimal. A power failure or malfunction would
mean that the effluent would be discharged to the River for as long as
repairs would require. The quality of this discharge would be better than
the effluent currently discharged from the existing WWTP.
The force main would be approximately 2 miles long and would lift the
effluent to the top of the bluffs, an increase in elevation of about 350
feet. The operational impact of the force main would be minimal. Because
the internal pressure in the pipe near the treatment plant would be great,
some potential for pipe bursts would exist.
STORAGE AND INFILTRATION BASINS
A storage basin would be used to retain the effluent for 3 months
during the winter when frozen ground and operational difficulties would
preclude use of the infiltration basins. The storage basin would be lined
to limit movement of the partially treated effluent to the groundwater.
When the pond ice thaws in the spring, some odors from the storage pond
would be noticeable. Also, if the storage pond is completely dewatered,
some odors may be generated from the organic material accumulated at the
bottom of the pond.
The infiltration basins should not produce odors during normal opera-
tion. No significant quantities of aerosols that may harbor bacteria or
viruses are expected to be generated by operation of the basins. The sur-
face of the infiltration basins may, at some time in the future, need to be
removed and replaced by new material to restore the infiltration capability
of the basin. Disposal of this material would not create an environmental
problem, because toxic substances would not be expected to accumulate in the
material.
5-30
-------
Evaluation of the level of treatment provided by long-term operation of
infiltration sites reveals that total organic carbon is almost completely
removed (USiiPA 1980). Phosphorus also is almost completely removed, al-
though the phosphorus concentration in the groundwater may be higher than
background concentrations. The USEPA report (1980) also indicates that some
potential for movement of fecal coliforms into the groundwater exists at
such sites, though bacterial counts were not found to be significantly
elevated.
Nitrate potentially can reach excessive concentrations relative to
water quality standards for groundwater. With proper loading and resting
cycles, good nitrate removals consistently have been obtained (USEPA 1980).
Because the chemical balance of the soils is altered by effluent applica-
tion, the potential for leaching of different elements from the soils ex-
ists. For example, elevated levels of iron have been found in the ground-
water below rapid infiltration sites. Elevated levels of iron in domestic
water supplies results in the staining of plumbing fixtures and unpleasant
tastes. Iron removal is costly for individual water supplies.
The disposition of the infiltrated effluent is difficult to predict.
The lack of site specific information concerning the geology of the area
makes difficult the evaluation of the underground flow away from the site.
In general, the flow path would be toward the west, down gradient toward the
St. Croix River. While springs and high water tables are not evident at the
present time, except in the terrace immediately above the River, the in-
creased flow could cause an undesirable rise in the local water table and
the potential for springs in the area to the west of the site.
More information concerning this area must be gathered before a reason-
able prediction of effects can be made. A possible impact may be that
inadequate treatment would occur because the depth of unsaturated material
under the site would be too thin due to shallow bedrock.
5.2.3.2. Spray Irrigation Land Application System
The components that constitute the wastewater stabilization pond alter-
natives also are included in the spray irrigation alternatives (Alternatives
5-31
-------
6 and 9). The conveyance system would be identical; the treatment and
storage ponds would be similar; and the outfall discharge line also would be
similar. These major components either are discussed in the following
subsections or reference is made to the sections where the specific impacts
are discussed.
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
The environmental impacts of the conveyance system are discussed in
Section 5.2.2.1. The most significant impacts are odors emanating from the
pumping stations during normal operation and the potential for raw sewage
spills to occur during a power outage-or pumping station malfunction.
TREATMENT AND STORAGE PONDS
The treatment portions of the land treatment alternatives would be
similar to other alternatives. The wastewater stabilization ponds would be
similar for both the intermittent discharge alternatives and the land
application alternatives (Alternatives 5, 6, 8, and 9). The operational
impacts of these treatment systems are discussed in Section 5.2.2.2.
The storage component of the land treatment alternatives is similar to
the wastewater stabilization pond alternatives in terms of storage volume,
but would have slightly different operating procedures. The capacity of the
storage systems would be sized for six months of flow. For the land treat-
ment alternatives, the effluent would begin to be irrigated in the late
spring and would continue to be irrigated throughout the summer, until late
autumn. No significant difference is expected between the environmental
effects of storage for the intermittent discharge (Alternatives 5 and 8)
relative to the land treatment alternatives.
SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
The long-term effects of irrigated wastewater on vegetation, soils, and
groundwater are not expected to result in adverse impacts. Generally, the
vegetation grown with effluent irrigation has tended to outproduce adjacent
5-32
-------
cropland, because nutrients and water are in ample supply. The vegetation
usually contains a greater percentage of inorganic elements due to luxury
uptake, though the crop rarely is harmful to animals that ingest it. Waste-
water that derives from industrial sources can have elevated contents of
metals which can be toxic to animals when certain crops are grown. Neither
Taylors Falls nor St. Croix Falls have industrial sources of metals that are
considered harmful. The soils irrigated with wastewater generally experi-
ence a noticeable build-up of organic matter, phosphorus, and other waste-
water constituents (USEPA 1979b).
Organic constituents in the irrigated wastewater would be oxidized by
natural biological processes within the top few inches of the soil, much
like crop residues decompose (USEPA and others 1977). At the Muskegon,
Michigan, spray irrigation site the BOD of renovated water from the under-
drainage system ranged from 1.2 mg/1 to 2.2 mg/1 (Demirjian 1975). SS in
the applied water also are removed by the soil through filtration.
Phosphorus would be present in the storage pond effluent in an inor-
ganic form, in addition to that contained in the organic life. Dissolved
inorganic phosphorus applied to soils would be absorbed by soil material
and/or precipitated through reactions with soluble iron, aluminum, or cal-
cium. The extent to which these processes remove phosphorus from the per-
colating water depends on its concentration, soil pH, temperature, time,
total loading, and the concentration of other wastewater constituents that
react directly with orthophosphate, or that affect soil pH and oxidation-
reduction reactions (USEPA and others 1977). Soils generally can accept and
hold large quantities of phosphorus before it begins to leach to the under-
drainage water or groundwater. A slow-rate irrigation site has been operat-
ing at Dickinson, North Dakota, for 17 years. At the present rate of ac-
cumulation of phosphorus in the soil, the soils have sufficient capacity for
another 100 years of irrigation (USEPA 1979b). The soils at the Dickinson
site are deep sandy alluvium overlying sand and gravel. The typical soil
material in the top 51 inches is layered dark grayish brown fine sandy
loam and loamy fine sand. The soils at Taylors Falls at the proposed irri-
gation site are loam and sandy loams which could be expected to have similar
phosphorus removal capabilities. At the proposed rate of irrigation at
5-33
-------
Taylors Falls, phosphorus levels in the underdrainage water are expected to
be elevated only slightly above natural, background levels.
Of greater concern than the phosphorus is the potential for pollution
of the groundwater by nitrate. Nitrate is highly soluble and readily
leaches to the groundwater if not utilized by the vegetation or denitrified.
The nitrate level deemed safe for human consumption is 10 mg N/l. Total
nitrogen levels in wastewater stabilization pond effluents usually are
within the 10 mg/1 to 15 mg/1 range. A forage crop may be expected to
uptake about 120 Ib/ac/yr of nitrogen, which would be all the nitrogen from
about 36 inches of effluent. For this reason, excessive levels of nitrates
in the groundwater would not be expected.
The irrigation site is proposed to be underdrained to remove the excess
irrigated water. This collected drainage water is proposed to be conveyed
to the St. Croix River by the same route that is proposed for the effluent
line for the wastewater stabilization pond alternatives. This drainage
water is expected to be rather clean and clear. It would contain almost no
organics and very little phosphorus. The quality of the drain tile water at
the Muskegon, Michigan, land treatment site serves as a good example of the
water quality potentially achievable (Table 5-3).
The depth to the existing water table would probably be lowered on part
of the proposed irrigation sites by the installation of underdrains. The
soil mapping sheets for the site indicate the presence of soils with a water
table of less than 60 inches below the surface. Lowering the water table
with underdrains in these soils would facilitate vehicle movement and improve
soil temperatures during the spring. Areas where the water table depth is
more than the proposed drain depth would experience a water table rise with
irrigation, though the rise is expected to be minimal.
5.3. Public Finance Impacts
5.3.1. User Costs
The cost for construction of any of the nine wastewater treatment
system alternatives will be shared among the Federal, State, and City gov-
5-34
-------
Table 5-3. Quality of drain tile water at Muskegon, Michigan, land treat-
ment site (Deinir jian 1975) .
Parameter
Unit
Drain Tiles
BOD
DO
Temp
pH
Sp. Cond.
TS
TVS
SS
COD
TOC
Nti.+
4
NO^/NO
P0.3~
4
soj-
Cl~
Na
Ca
rtg
K
Fe
Zn
Mn
Color
Turbidity
Total Coli
Fecal Coli
Fecal Strep
mg/1
mg/1
°C
s.u.
umhos
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
s .u.
Jackson units
(#/100 ml)
(///100 ml)
(#/100 ml)
2.2
2-9
7
600
—
—
—
—
5
0.40
2.8
0.05
140
50
40
70
25
2.8
4.0
0.06
0.15
20-150
0.1-50
10-1,000
0-440
2-700
5-35
-------
ernments. The local construction costs and the entire cost of system opera-
tion and maintenance will be born entirely by the system users. As dis-
cussed in Section 1.1., Federal funding through the National Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program will provide funds to
cover 75% of the eligible planning, design, and construction costs of con-
ventional wastewater treatment facilities. "Innovative/alternative" com-
ponents of the proposed treatment systems, such as land treatment/disposal,
are eligible for 85% Federal funding. The State of Minnesota provides an
additional 15% of the funds for conventional systems, or an additional 9%
when the Federal share is 85%, through a State grant program. Thus, in the
case where the Federal and State shares totaled 90% of the cost, Taylors
Falls would be obligated to contribute only 10% of the eligible planning,
design, and construction costs (or 6% where the Federal and State shares
total 94%), and 100% of the ineligible costs, such as interest on borrowed
capital during the construction period (prior to when the State and Federal
grant funds would be received).
Wisconsin does not have a program to provide supplemental funds for
communities receiving a Federal grant. Therefore, St. Croix Falls would be
obligated to contribute either 25% of the eligible planning, design, and
construction funds for a conventional wastewater treatment system, or 15% of
the eligible construction costs for an innovative/alternative system, in
addition to 100% of any ineligible costs.
As discussed in Section 1.1., the State of Wisconsin does have a grants
program that can provide 60% of the costs of design and construction of
wastewater facilities for municipalities that are not funded by the Federal
program. Under the Federal Construction Grants Program, the States develop
priority lists for the allocation of the limited funds. Presently, St.
Croix Falls holds priority number 93 for Federal grant funds. According to
WDNR (By telephone, Ms. Anna Rasmussen, Bureau of Water Grants, to WAPORA,
Inc., 7 November 1980), the, anticipated amount of Federal funds available to
Wisconsin will only accommodate projects with a priority number of 20 or
less. Therefore, St. Croix Falls will have to rely on a 60% State grant and
finance the remaining 40% with local funds.
5-36
-------
Taylors Falls holds priority 250 on the Minnesota Priority List.
According to MPCA (By telephone, Mr. Duane Anderson, Construction Grants
Section, to rtAPORA, Inc., 7 November 1980), the City likely will have a wait
of several years before Federal funds will be available for construction of
new wastewater facilities at Taylors Falls. Because there is no independent
State fund in Minnesota as in Wisconsin, Taylors Falls either must wait
until Federal grant monies become available or fund the entire construction
cost locally.
ST. C.KOIX FALLS
The annual user casts for wastewater service for families in St. Croix
Falls have been estimated for each of the proposed alternatives (Table 5-4).
Assuming that 40% of the construction cost will have to be derived locally,
the estimated annual user charge for a typical family of three would be $120
for the expansion and upgrading of the existing facility (Alternative 1),
and $138 for the rapid infiltration land treatment system (Alternative 2).
These costs cover the operation and maintenance of the treatment facility
and the debt service on the bonds used to finance the local share of con-
struction. A description of how the user charges were calculated is in-
cluded in Appendix E, Table E-l. To estimate the total user costs, the
existing costs for operation and maintenance of the collection system also
must be added. Current costs for wastewater collection for families of
three are approximately $45 per year (Table 5-4). The total user costs,
therefore, would be $165 for Alternative 1 and $183 for Alternative 2.
Compared to current user costs, this represents increases of 28% and
42% for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. Thus, regardless of which
non-regional alternative is considered, the construction of a new wastewater
facility at St. Croix Falls will significantly increase the local costs of
wastewater service.
If regional alternatives are considered, assuming 40% local financing,
user costs for St. Croix Falls residents would range from $158 for stabili-
zation ponds near Taylors Falls (Alternative 8) to $194 for a regional land
treatment system near Taylors Falls (Alternative 9; Table 5-4). Adding the
5-37
-------
Table 5-4. Estimated annual user costs for typical families of three for wastewater treatment and collection
for Alternatives 1 through 9.
Alternative
WWTP
O&M and Debt Service
St. Croix Taylors
Falls
Falls
Collection System
Operation and Maintenance"
St. Croix Taylors
Falls Falls
Total Costs for
Treatment and Collection
St. Croix Taylors
Falls Falls
Ui
OJ
oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
120.00
138.00
—
—
;;
170.00
158.00
194.00
__
—
152.00
131.00
104.00
108.00
77.00
53.00
41.00
45.00
45.00
—
—
— —
45.00
45.00
45.00
__
—
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
165.00
183.00
—
—
—
215.00
203.00
239.00
—
—
184.00
163.00
136.00
140.00
109.00
85.00
73.00
Assumes that 35% and 40% of current charge is for operation and maintenance of the collection system in St. Croix
Falls, and Taylors Falls, respectively.
3For alternatives for St. Croix Falls, 40% local funding is assumed.
-------
current costs of wastewater collection ($45), this represents increases in
user costs from 57% for Alternative 8 to 85% for Alternative 9. Thus, for
residents of St. Croix Falls, regional alternatives are more expensive than
non-regional alternatives.
The economic significance of the impact of the proposed wastewater
alternatives on users of the new system in St. Croix Falls can be evaluated
by relating estimated user charges to various established guidelines. Two
such guidelines for determining economic hardship are if (USEPA 1978b):
• More than 2% of median family income will be spent on user
fees
• More than 1% of median family income will be spent on debt
service for the new system.
Because the user fee concept includes the annual O&M, the debt service, and
collection system maintenance costs, it is the better indicator of the two.
Current USEPA guidance concerning funding of wastewater treatment
projects that require treatment more stringent than secondary (PRM #79-7;
USEPA 1979a) indicates that:
A project shall be considered high-cost when the total average annual
cost (debt service, operation and maintenance, and collection costs) to a
domestic user exceeds the following percentage of median household incomes:
• 1.5% when the median income is under $6,000
• 2.0% when the median income is $6,000 to $10,000
• 2.5% when the median income is over $10,000.
System users in Polk County (St. Croix Falls) have a median family
income of $18,625 (Section 4.2.1.1.). As indicated in Table 5-5, a typical
family of four is projected to spend between 1.1% and 1.7% of median family
income on wastewater user fees, depending on which alternative is imple-
mented (for this analysis, user fees for a typical family of four have been
5-39
-------
Table 5-5. Comparison of user charges and debt service as a percentage of
median family income.
Parameter
Total user
charges as percentage
of median family income
Total debt
service as percentage
of median family income
Recommended
Upper Limit
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
St. Croix Falls
Taylors Falls
Alternative 8
St. Croix Falls
Taylors Falls
Alternative 9
St. Croix Falls
Taylors Falls
2% - 2.5%
1.1%
1.2%
1.0%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
1.5%
0.6%
1.4%
0.4%
1.7%
0.4%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.7%
0.1%
0.9%
0.1%
1.2%
0.1%
Based on USEPA (1978c) and USEPA (1979a).
5-40
-------
calculated; these are presented in Appendix E; Table E-2). None of the
alternatives surpasses either suggested upper limit for user fees as a
percentage of median family income, indicating that none of the alternatives
would be a "high cost" system that would pose a significant financial burden
on system users. Debt service costs for each alternative, except Alterna-
tive 9, the regional land treatment system near Taylors Falls, are well
below the suggested 1% guideline comparing debt service to median family
income (Table 5-5). Thus, this parameter also indicates that none of the
proposed alternatives for St. Croix Falls would pose financial burdens on
residents of St. Croix Falls.
TAYLORS FALLS
The annual user costs for wastewater service for families in Taylors
Falls are presented in Table 5-4. The user costs for alternatives for
Taylors Falls range from $4 I/year for Alternative 9, the regional land
treatment system near Taylors Falls, to $152/year for Alternative 3, the
independent, conventional CAS WWTP for Taylors Falls. These costs include
the O&M costs and the debt service costs for the new treatment facility.
When current estimated collection costs are added to obtain total user
costs, the estimated annual costs range from $73 for Alternative 9 to $184
for Alternative 3.
Compared to current annual user costs of $79, these represent changes
in costs that range from a slight decrease to an increase of approximately
133%. Thus, the costs to Taylors Falls residents will vary significantly,
depending on which alternative is implemented. It should be noted that the
lowest costs for Taylors Falls residents would result from implementation of
a regional system. For example, implementation of Alternative 7, the re-
gional, conventional WWTP at St. Croix Falls (the most expensive regional
alternative), would increase current costs to Taylors Falls residents by
only 38%. By comparison, implementation of Alternative 5, stabilization
ponds near Taylors Falls (the least cost non-regional alternative), would
increase costs to Taylors Falls residents by 72%. Thus, the regional alter-
natives appear to be the most economical options for Taylors Falls resi-
dents.
5-41
-------
Compared to the USEPA guidelines presented in Table 5-5, it appears
that none of the alternatives would pose an economic hardship to the resi-
dents of Taylors Falls. Families in Chisago County have a median income of
$23,625 (Section 4.2.1.1.). This is relatively high. Compared to costs for
St. Croix Falls, the costs for wastewater treatment are low. Thus, regard-
less of which alternative is implemented, residents of Taylors Falls should
not be unduly burdened by increased wastewater treatment user fees.
5.3.2. Municipal Indebtedness
ST. CROIX FALLS
A new wastewater treatment facility will increase the amount of indeb-
tedness supported by residents of St. Croix Falls from $449,600 (20%) to
$1,080,700 (49%), depending on which alternative is implemented. Compared
to the criteria suggested by Moak and Hillhouse (1975; Section 4.2.3.),
implementation of any of the alternatives would exceed the recommended upper
limit for debt per capita for middle income families, but would remain
within the recommended upper limit for the ratio of debt service to revenues
(Table 5-6). Neither of the non-regional alternatives would exceed the
recommended upper limit for the ratio of debt to total valuation, although
implementation of any of the regional alternatives would exceed this guide-
line.
It thus appears that St. Croix Falls is approaching its capacity for
incurring additional debt. Because other capital projects probably will be
required before the debt for the wastewater treatment plant is retired, it
is important to minimize the new burden on the finances of the City. This
will help the City to retain bonding capacity for additional projects.
Alternatives 1 and 2, which are similar in cost, would have the least
impact on municipal finances and are therefore most desirable from an eco-
nomic viewpoint. The regional alternatives are significantly more expensive
and would pose a much greater burden on municipal finances.
5-42
-------
Table 5-6. Per capita debt levels associated with financing new wastewater treatment facilities at St.
Falls, Wisconsin and Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
Croix
1
-0
(^
Parameter
Debt/Capita
St. Croix Falls
Taylors Falls
Debt/Total Valuation
St. Croix Fal^s
Taylors Falls
Debt Service/Revenues
St. Croix Falls
Taylors Falls
Standard Upper Limit
Low Income - $5,000
Mid income - $1,000
High income - $5,000
10% of current market
value
25% of. total revenues
Current .
Level of Debt '1 2 3
$1,347 $1,621 $1,635
$ 473 — — $624
8.0% 9.7% 9.8%
NAe — — NA
9.3% 13.1% 13.3%
11.7% — — 15.1%
Alternatives
4 5
—
$623
—
NA
—
15.1%
—
$651
—
NA
—
15.8%
6 7
$1,728
$618 $ 557
11.5%
NA NA
14.6%
15.0% 13.6%
8
$1,826
$ 579
12.3%
NA
16.0%
14.1%
9
$2,005
$ 560
13.9%
NA
18.4%
13.7%
In general, these criteria are used to analyze the full faith and credit limits of the City in relation to general obligation bonds retired through
tax revenues. The bonds Issued for the wastewater treatment plant probably would be revenue bonds retired with revenues collected from users of the
system. Nonetheless, these same quantitative criteria will be used to assess the impacts of revenue bonds because they both depend on the g^nnrnl
economic health and resources of the community.
See Sections 4.3.1. and 4.3.2. for explanations of how these values were computed.
For St. Croix Falls, assumes local share of capital costs will be 40% of total costs.
Information required to compute this ratio is not available.
NA - not available.
-------
TAYLORS FALLS
A new wastewater treatment facility will increase the amount of indeb-
tedness supported by residents of Taylors Falls from $54,900 (18%) to
$116,40U (38%), depending on which alternative is implemented. Despite this
increase, however, none of the guidelines suggested by Moak and Hillhouse
(1975) for evaluating the ability of a community to incur debt would be
exceeded (Table 5-6). It also appears that Taylors Falls has the ability to
incur a significant amount of debt in addition to a new wastewater treatment
plant. For example, if Alternative 5, a stabilization pond system for
Taylors Falls (Section 3.6.1.), was implemented the City still could incur
an additional $349 of debt per capita before exceeding the suggested guide-
lines for middle income families.
For Taylors Falls, the regional alternatives cost significantly less
than the non-regional alternatives. However, because the City appears
capable of financing the non-regional alternatives, and because the regional
alternatives would impose a significant burden on St. Croix Falls, it ap-
pears that Alternatives 5 and 6 are most desirable for Taylors Falls.
5.4. Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts include the indirect or induced effects that result
in land use, demographic, and other socioeconomic changes. These changes
may be manifested by higher population density and increased development
made possible by the availability of wastewater treatment capacity in excess
of presently needed capacity, or lower rates of growth in St. Croix Falls
and Taylors Falls versus the surrounding area because of high user charges
for wastewater services. As these changes would occur, associated impacts
may be created. These include: air and water pollution; changes in the tax
base; increased consumption of energy and other resources; increased noise
levels; demand for expanded public infrastructure; conversion of agricul-
tural lands, wetlands, and environmentally sensitive areas to other uses;
decreased wildlife habitat; increased employment and business activity;
change in property values; and changes in the cost of public services.
5-44
-------
Because each of the nine alternatives under consideration will provide
only moderately expanded wastewater treatment capacity for the St. Croix
Falls and Taylors Falls area, no significant secondary impacts are antici-
pated. The portion of the 2.5-mile force main to be placed along
Military Road in Alternatives 5, 6, 8, and 9, may allow for additional
residential growth along the sewer line that could not be supported by
individual wastewater disposal systems. New local collection sewers serving
such areas could discharge to the force main system at the pumping stations.
Such developments could affect prime agricultural land. The owners of
frontage land along the segment of Military Road, where the force main would
be placed, may experience economic pressures to sell frontage road property
for residential lots. Unless the local property taxes are structured to
assess farmland at its farmland value, the increased taxes that would result
from the property being assessed as developable land would induce the sale
of the land. The extent of such growth would be limited by the maximum
carrying capacity of the force main system. If local population growth by
the year 2000 is greater than the projected growth for the project area, the
wastewater treatment system(s) would need to be expanded.
A possible concern of local residents related to the secondary effects
of stabilization lagoons or land treatment of wastewater at the St. Croix
Falls or Taylors Falls sites is whether land values of surrounding property
would be affected by the presence of the system. The perceived psychologi-
cal effect related to the concept of odors generated by the storage lagoons
and irrigation of wastewater, and applying domestic wastewater on land would
make selling adjacent property, especially for residential use, extremely
difficult. The literature has not dealt with this subject and little case
study information is readily available. No evidence of differential pro-
perty values is evident in the area of Muskegon County, Michigan, where a
7,000 acre) wastewater spray irrigation system has been operational
for several years. A new land treatment system in the project area likely
would have to prove itself a "good neighbor" to. ensure that neighboring
property values were not affected adversely.
5-45
-------
5.5. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
i
As previously discussed, adverse impacts would be associated with each
of the alternatives. Many of these adverse impacts could be reduced signi-
ficantly by the application of mitigative measures. These mitigative mea-
sures consist of a variety of legal requirements, planning measures, and
design practices. The extent to which these measures are applied will
determine the ultimate impact of the selected action. The following sec-
tions discuss potential measures for alleviating construction, operation,
and secondary effects presented in Sections 5.1. through 5.3.
5.5.1. Mitigation of Construction Impacts
The construction oriented impacts presented in Section .5.1. primarily
are short-term effects resulting from construction activities at the WWTP
site or along the route of the proposed raw wastewater or effluent force
mains. Proper design should minimize the potential impacts and the plans
and specifications should incorporate mitigative measures consistent with
the following discussion.
Fugitive dust from the excavation and backfilling operations for the
force mains and treatment plants could be minimized by various techniques.
Frequent street sweeping of dirt from construction activities would reduce
the major source of dust. Prompt repaving of roads- disturbed by construc-
tion also could reduce dust effectively. Construction sites, spoil piles,
and unpaved access roads should be wetted periodically to minimize dust.
Soil stockpiles and backfilled trenches should be seeded with a temporary or
permanent seeding or covered with mulch to reduce susceptibility to wind
erosion.
Street cleaning at sites where trucks and equipment gain access to
construction sites and of roads along which a force main would be con-
structed would reduce loose dirt that otherwise would generate dust, create
unsafe driving conditions, or be washed into roadside ditches or storm
drains. Trucks transporting spoil material to disposal sites should cover
their loads to eliminate the escape of dust while in transit.
5-46
-------
Exhaust emissions and noise from construction equipment could be mini-
mized by proper equipment maintenance. The resident engineer should have,
and should exercise the authority, to ban from the site all poorly main-
tained equipment.
Spoil disposal sites should be identified during the project design
stage ("Step 2") to ensure that adequate sites are available and that dis-
posal site impacts are minimized. The Step 2 consultant and the Step 3
(construction) resident engineer should assume the responsibility for ap-
proval of spoil disposal sites, both location and final disposition, so that
wetlands and other sensitive area are not filled. Landscaping and restora-
tion of vegetation should be conducted immediately after disposal is com-
pleted to prevent impacts from dust generation and unsightly conditions.
Lands disturbed by trenching for force main construction should be
regraded and compacted as necessary to prevent future subsidence. However,
too much compaction will result in conditions unsuitable for vegetation.
Areas disturbed by trenching and grading at the plant site should be
revegetated as soon as possible to prevent erosion and dust generation.
Native plants and grasses should be used. This also will facilitate the
reestablishment of wildlife habit. If fill material is necessary at the
existing Taylors Falls WWTP site, a US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit
may be required.
Construction-related disruption in the community can be minimized
through considerate contractor scheduling and appropriate public announce-
ments. The State and County highway departments have regulations concerning
roadway disruptions, which should be rigorously applied. Special care
should be taken to minimize disruption of access to frequently visited
establishments. Announcements should be published in local newspapers and
broadcast from local radio stations to alert drivers of temporary traffic
disruptions on primary routes. Street closings should be announced by
fliers delivered to each affected household. If a regional treatment facil-
ity is constructed, special care should be taken to minimize traffic dis-
ruption on the US Highway 8 bridge. The bridge is scheduled for major deck
5-47
-------
repair in 1983. The resulting traffic congestion associated with this
construction may be compounded by the construction of any of the regional
alternatives if construction schedules coincide. To alleviate the traffic
problems, construction of the wastewater alternatives should be coordinated
with the Director of Transportation District #8 of the Wisconsin Department
of Transportation.
Planning of routes for heavy construction equipment and materials
should ensure that surface load restrictions are considered. In this way,
damage to streets and roadways would be avoided. Trucks hauling excavation
spoil to disposal sites or fill material to the WWTP sites should be routed
along primary arteries to minimize the threat to public safety and to reduce
disturbance in residential environments.
Erosion and sedimentation must be minimized at all construction sites.
USEPA's Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1 establishes requirements for
control of erosion and runoff from construction activities. Adherence to
these requirements would serve to mitigate potential problems:
• Construction site selection should consider potential occur-
rence of erosion and sediment losses
• The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the
local topography and soil conditions
• When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be kept
at a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating runoff and
erosion problems which require extensive control measures
• Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled
before grading begins
• Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time
• Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as quickly
as possible by means of mulching or vegetation
• Natural vegetation s.hould be retained whenever feasible
• Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
runoff and sedimentation should be provided during and after
construction
• Early completion of stabilized drainage system (temporary and
permanent systems) will substantially reduce erosion poten-
tial
5-48
-------
• Access roadways should be paved or otherwise stabilized as
soon as feasible
• Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm
construction schedule is known and can be effectively co-
ordinated with the grading and clearing activity.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593
(1971), The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the
1973 Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation require
that care must be taken early in the planning process to identify cultural
resources and minimize adverse effects on them. USEPA"s final regulations
for the preparation of EISs (40 CFR 1500) also specify that compliance with
these regulations is required when a Federally funded, licensed, or per-
mitted project is undertaken. The State Historic Preservation Officer must
have an opportunity to determine that the requirements have been satisfied.
Once an alternative is selected and design work begins, a thorough
pedestrian archaeological survey may be required for those areas affected by
the proposed facility. In addition to the information already collected
through a literature review (WAPORA, Inc. 1979) and consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer and other knowledgeable informants, a
controlled surface collection of discovered sites and minor subsurface
testing should be conducted. A similar survey would be required of historic
structures, sites, properties, and objects in and adjacent to the construc-
tion areas, if they might be affected by the construction or operation of
the project.
In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, it would
be determined if any of the resources identified by the surveys appear to be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequently, an
evaluation would be made of the probable effects of the project on these re-
sources and what mitigation procedures may be required. Prior to initiation
of the proposed Federally funded project, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation in Washington DC should be notified of the intended undertaking
and be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed project.
5-49
-------
The State of Wisconsin's Administrative Code NR110, requires a minimum
setback distance of 500 feet between a wastewater treatment plant and a
residence. This setback distance applies to the construction of a new WWTP
and/or to the expansion of an existing facility. Because the proposed
expansion of the existing WWTP will violate this code, a variance will be
required before construction can begin.
5.5.2. Mitigation of Operation Impacts
The majority of potentially adverse operational aspects of the conven-
tional treatment alternatives relate to the discharge of effluent to surface
waters. For the land treatment alternatives, the most significant potential
adverse effects are impacts on groundwater, high cost, and possible health
risks. Measures to minimize these and other operation phase impacts from
all the alternatives are discussed below.
Adverse impacts related to the operation of the proposed force mains
and treatment facilities would be minimal if the facilities are designed,
operated, and maintained properly. Aerosols, gaseous emissions, odors, and
noise from the various treatment processes could be controlled to a large
extent. Above-ground pumps would be enclosed and installed to minimize
sound impacts. Concentrations of the effluent constituents discharged from
either the St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls WWTPs or a regional WWTP would
be regulated by the conditions of the NPDES permits. The effluent quality
is specified for both Minnesota and Wisconsin and must be monitored. Proper
and regular maintenance of facilities also would maximize the efficiency of
system operation.
Special care to control chlorination and effluent concentrations of
chlorine residuals should be taken to minimize adverse impacts to the aqua-
tic biota of the St. Croix River. Tsai (1973) documented that numbers of
fish and macroinvertebrates were reduced downstream from outfalls that
discharge chlorinated effluents. No fish were present in water with
chlorine residuals greater than 0.37 mg/1, and the species diversity index
reached zero at 0.25 mg/1. A 50% reduction in the species diversity index
occurred at 0.10 mg/1. Arthur and others (1975) reported that concentra-
tions of chlorine residuals lethal to various species of warm water fish
5-50
-------
range from 0.09 mg/1 to 0.30 mg/1. Many wastewater treatment plants have
effluents with chlorine residual concentrations of 0.5 mg/1 to 2.0 mg/1.
Furthermore, chlorination of wastewater can result in the formation of
halogenated organic compounds that are potentially carcinogenic (USEPA
1976b). Rapid mixing of chlorine and design of contact chambers to provide
long contact times, however, can achieve the desired disinfection and the
minimum chlorine residual discharge (USEPA and others 1977). Chlorination
will require especially careful application and routine monitoring to insure
that chlorine residual concentrations are kept to a minimum. The design
engineers for the Cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls should consi-
der the measures listed in Section 3.5.2. to insure system reliability.
5.5.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
As discussed in Section 5.4., few secondary impacts are expected to
occur during the operation of any of the nine alternatives. Adequate zoning
regulations and property tax structure could help deter the conversion of
prime farmland to residential use within the project area. Local growth
management planning would assist in the regulation of general location,
density, and type of growth that might occur.
5.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Some impacts associated with the implementation of each of the alterna-
tives cannot be avoided. These include the following:
• Some short-term construction dust, noise, and traffic nui-
sance
• Alteration of vegetation and wildlife habitat at the WWTP
site and along the force main route
• Some erosion and siltation during construction
• Discharge of BOD , SS, phosphorus, and ammonia at levels that
would not significantly affect overall water quality of the
St. Croix River
• Minimal impacts from the operation of the WWTP, such as
possible odors and noises
• Minimal induced growth and some resultant loss of agricul-
tural land
5-51
-------
• Increased user fees for wastewater treatment services for
residents of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls.
5.7. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
The major types and amounts of resources that would be committed
through the implementation of any of the nine alternatives are presented in
Sections 5.1. and 5.2. The resource commitments would include:
• Fossil fuel, electrical energy, and human labor for facil-
ities construction and operation
• Chemicals, especially chlorine, for WWTP operation
• Tax dollars for construction and operation
• Some unsalvageable construction materials.
For each alternative, there is a significant consumption of these
resources with no feasible means of recovery. Thus, non-recoverable re-
sources would be foregone for the provision of the proposed wastewater
control system.
Accidents which could occur from system construction and operation
could cause irreversible bodily damage or death, and damage or destroy
equipment and other resources. Unmitigated treatment plant failure poten-
tially could kill aquatic life in the immediate mixing zone.
The potential accidental destruction of undiscovered archaeological
sites through excavation activities is not reversible. This would represent
permanent loss of the site.
5-52
-------
6.0. CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF PREPARERS
The Final Environmental Statement (FES) for this project was prepared
by the Chicago Regional Office of WAPORA, Inc., under contract to USEPA
Region V. USEPA reviewed and approved the FES and hereby publishes it as a
Final EIS. Consultation and coordination among WAPORA, USEPA, and the
various Federal, State, local, and private agencies and organizations listed
in the following facilitated the exchange of information and data for inclu-
sion and analysis in the DES:
• National Park. Service
• Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. (St. Croix Falls Facilities
Planners)
• Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers (Taylors Falls Facili-
ties Planners)
• City of St. Croix Falls
• City of Taylors Falls.
Meetings during the preparation of the DEIS and Final EIS include:
Date
Week of
27 November 1978
7 March 1979
ID April 1979
Attending Organizations
USEPA; WAPORA: MN-WN Boundary
Area Commission; National Park
Service; City of St. Croix Falls;
City of Taylors Falls; Polk Co.
WI; Chisago Co. MN
USEPA; WAPORA; MPCA; WDNR;
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting
Engineers; Short-Elliot-Hendrick-
son, Inc.; MN-WI
Boundary Area Commission
USEPA; WAPORA; MPCA; Howard A.
Kuusisto Consulting Engineers;
Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.
Purpose
Start-up meetings, Phase I
Plan of Study, initial
data collection
Status of facility planning,
water quality and discharge
standards proposed by MPCA
Population and flow pro-
jections, wastewater
treatment alternatives
6-1
-------
Date
22 May 1979
24 May 1979
17 August 1979
24 October 1979
10 December 1979
10 December 1979
14 April 1980
Attending Organizations
USEPA; MPCA; National Park
Service; Facilities Planners;
MN-WI Boundary Area Commission;
private citizens
Public information meeting
USEPA; WAPORA; Howard A. Kuusisto
Consulting Engineers; Short-
Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.
USEPA; WAPORA; Howard A. Kuusisto
Consulting Engineers; Short-
Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.; MPCA
USEPA; WAPORA; Howard A. Kuusisto
Consulting Engineers; Short-
Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.
Second public information
meeting
Purpose
Effluent discharge standands
USEPA; WAPORA; Howard A. Kuusisto
Consulting Engineers; Short-
Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.
EIS process, existing
environmental conditions,
population projections
Wastewater treatment
alternatives, need for
additional information
concerning effluent dis-
charge criteria
Development of system
alternatives, preliminary
engineering costs
Discussion of environmental
and cost assessment
Status of Facilities Plans
and EIS, potential waste-
water treatment solutions,
potential environmental
impacts
Cost data for alternatives,
environmental consequences,
recommended wastewater
treatment
14 April 1980
15 April 1980
30 March 1981
USEPA; WAPORA; Howard A. Kuusisto
Consulting Engineers; Taylors
Falls City Council
USEPA; WAPORA; Short-Elliot-
Hendrickson, Inc.; St. Croix
Falls City Council
USEPA; WAPORA; MPCA; WDNR
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting
Engineers; private citizens
Preliminary summary of cost
analysis, proposed wastewater
treatment system components,
potential environmental
consequences
Preliminary summary of cost
analysis, proposed wastewater
treatment system components,
potential environmental
consequences
Public hearing on Draft EIS
conducted at St. Croix Falls
and Taylors Falls
6-2
-------
The USEPA Project Officer and the WAPORA staff involved in the prepara-
tion of the FES/FEIS during the past three years include:
Name
Highest
Degree
Project Assignment
Years of
Experience
USEPA
Marilyn Sabadaszka B.A.
Jack Braun M.S.
WAPORA, Inc.
Gerard M. Kelly M.S.P.H.
Terri-lynn Ozaki Gedo M.A.
Dan Sweeney M.S.
Ron Sundell M.U.P.
Jim Mikolaitis M.S.
Kathleen Brennan M.S.
Mirza Meghji Ph.D.
J.P. Singh M.S.
Gerry Lenssen B.S.
Phillip Phillips Ph.D.
Sherman Smith M.S.
Carol Qualkinbush M.L.A.
Greg Lindsey B.A.
Valerie Krejcie M.A.
Jan Saper M.A.
Ellen Renzas B.S.
Kimberly Smith M.E.M.
Tara Kidd B.S.
Ron Wilson
Peter Woods B.L.A.
Richard McKean B.S.
George Bartnik M.A.
Kent Peterson M.S.
Stuart Townsend M.A.
William C. McClain B.S.
Phil Pekron M.P.H.
Lauren Rader M.A.
Project Officer 2
Project Officer (former) 5
Project Administrator FES/FEIS 6
Project Manager FES/FEIS 2
Project Administrator DES/DEIS 6
Project Manager DES/DEIS 3
Environmental Engineer 5
Ecologist 8
Senior Water Quality Scientist 10
Project Engineer 8
Agricultural Engineer 9
Socioeconomist 8
Air Specialist 6
Land Use 4
Public Finance Specialist 3
Cartographer 3
Land Use 2
Socioeconomist 2
Environmental Scientist 1
Biologist 1
Production Specialist 6
Graphics Specialist 1
Biologist 4
Cultural Historian 7
Geologist, Hydrologist 4
Economist 8
Botanist 10
Environmental Scientist 2
Cultural Historian 2
6-3
-------
Name
Robert i-1. Cutler
William Bale
Jerome Gold
Anita Locke
Winston Lung
Highest
Degree
M.S.
—
—
B.S.
Ph.D.
Project Assignment
Air Analyst
Graphics Specialist
Graphics Specialist
Botanist
Environmental Engineer
Years of
Experience
10
19
14
3
9
Persons and organizations that were sent a copy of the Draft EIS include:
Federal
Senator Robert Kasten
Senator William Proxmire
Senator Rudolph E. Boschwitz
Senator David Durenberger
Representative Arlan Stangeland
Representative Steve Gunderson
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service
National Park Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Army Corps of Engineers
Soil Conservation Service
6-4
-------
State of Minnesota
Governor Albert Quie
Senator Randolph Peterson
Representative John Clawson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Water Resources Board
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Health
State Historical Society
State Planning Agency
Environmental Quality Board
Department of Transportation
Energy Agency
Department of Agriculture
Interstate State Park.
State of Wisconsin
Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus
Senator James Harstorf
Representative Robert Harer
Department of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Transportation
Bureau of Envionmental Health
Bureau of Planning and Budget
Bureau of State Planning
Public Service Commission
State Historical Society
Interstate State Park.
Regional
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
East Central Regional Development Commission, Minnesota
6-5
-------
Local
Mayor, City of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
Mayor, City of Taylors Falls, Minnesota
City Council, City of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
City Council, City of Taylors Falls, Minnesota
Chairman, Polk County Board of Commissioners, Wisconsin
Chairman, Chisago County Board of Commissioners, Minnesota
Library, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
Citizens and Groups
This list is available upon request from USEPA
6-6
-------
7.0. LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 1978. DNR asks renewal for hatchery discharge permit. The
[St. Croix Falls] Standard Press (7 December 1978; Section 2), page 1.
Arthur, J. W. and others 1975. Comparative toxicity of sewage-effluent
disinfection to freshwater aquatic life. Water Pollution Control
Research Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc. 1973. Report
on wastewater treatment plant—St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. St. Paul
MN, 69 p. plus attachments.
Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc. 1976. Faci-
lities plan for St. Croix Falls-Dresser Metropolitan Sewerage Dis-
trict. St. Paul MN, variously paged, 155 p. plus appendixes.
City of Taylors Falls. 1980. City Financial Report. Taylors Falls MN, 15
P-
Cowherd, Chatten, Jr., Russel Bohn, and Thomas Cuscino, Jr. 1979. Iron
and steel plant open source fugitive emission evaluation. Prepared
for USEPA, Washington DC, by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City
MO. 130 p.
Demirjian, Y. A. 1975. Design seminar for land treatment of municipal
wastewater effluents. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Program. Muskegon MI, 91 p.
East Central Regional Development Commission. 1978. ECRDC population pro-
jections. Unpublished, 5 p.
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal guidelines for de-
sign, operation, and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities.
US Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 29 pp.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers.
1978. Recommended standards for sewage works. Health Education
Service, Inc., Albany NY, 112 p.
Haugstad, M.C. 1968. Lawrence Creek, Chisago County. MDNR, St. Paul MN,
12 p.
riickey, J.S., and P.C. Reist. 1975. Health significance of airborne
microorganisms from wastewater treatment processes. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation 47: 2,741-2,773.
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers. 1979. Report—Taylors Falls,
Minnesota, infiltration/inflow analysis. St. Paul MN, 87 p.
7-1
-------
Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers. 1980. Taylors Falls, Minnesota,
Draft Facility Plan. St. Paul MN, variously paged, plus appendixes.
Kuehn, J. H. , W. Niemuth, and A. R. Peterson. 1961. A biological recon-
naissance of the Upper St. Croix River. Minnesota Conservation De-
partment and Wisconsin Conservation Department, 25 p. plus appen-
dixes and tables.
Liesch, B. A. 1970. Groundwater investigation for St. Croix Falls, Wis-
consin—an independent hydrologic report prepared for the Village of
St. Croix Falls. 15 p.
Max Anderson and Associates. 1971. Master plan for St. Croix Falls, Wis-
consin. Madison WI, 45 p.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York NY, 782 p.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. 1977. Traffic volumes. St. Paul
MN, 1 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1975a. 1975 Minnesota water quality
inventory. Report to Congress, Section 305(b). 194 pp. plus appen-
dix.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1975b. Recommended design criteria
for sewage stabilization ponds. Roseville MN, 17 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1976. Report on compliance monitoring
survey at City of Taylors Falls wastewater treatment facility—Taylors
Falls, Minnesota—August 5, 1976. Brainerd MN, 12 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1977. Report on compliance monitoring
survey at City of Taylors Falls, Minnesota—November 26, 1977. Brain-
erd MN, 17 p.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1978a. Minnesota code of agency
rules. Office of the State Register-Department of Administration, St.
Paul MN, variously paged.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1978b. Unpublished documents in MPCA
files. 4 December 1978.
Minnesota State Demographer. 1978. Population estimates for Minnesota
counties, 1977. Office of the State Demographer, St. Paul MN, 14 p.
Moak, L. L. and A. M. Hillhouse. 1975. Concepts and practices in local
government finance. Municipal Finance Officers Association of the US
and Canada, Chicago IL, 454 p.
7-2
-------
Moyle, J. B. 1980. The uncommon ones - animals and plants in need of
special consideration in Minnesota. Minnesota—DNR, 32 p.
National Park. Service, Midwest regional office. 1975. Final environmental
statement, master plan, Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, Min-
nesota—Wisconsin. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 119
p. plus appendixes.
Pond, A. W. 1937. Interstate Park and the Dalles of the St. Croix. St.
Croix Standard Press, St. Croix Falls WI.
Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites. 1973. Wastewater treatment and reuse by land
application, Volume 1, Summary. USEPA, Office of Research and De-
velopment, Washington DC, 80 p.
Powers, J.A. 1978. Feasibility study and preliminary site identification
for land treatment in middle Tennessee. In State of knowledge in land
treatment of wastewater, Proceedings of an international symposium, US
Army Corps of Engineers CRREL, August 1978, Volume II, Hanover NH, 423
P-
Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The costs of sprawl-detailed cost
analysis. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 278 p.
Sanks, R.L., and T. Asano. 1976. Land treatment and disposal of municipal
and industrial wastewater. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann
Arbor MI, 310 p.
SERCO. 1978. Report of wastewater survey—City of Taylors Falls, Taylors
Falls, MN, November-December, 1978. Roseville MN, 25 p.
Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 1980. Facilities Plan Wastewater Treat-
ment St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, Our File No. 79002. St. Paul MN, 10
P-
Soil Conservation Service. 1962. Soil survey manual. Agricultural Hand-
book. No. 18. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, 503 p.
Strahler, A.N., and A.H. Strahler. 1978. Modern physical geography. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York NY, 502 p.
Todd, O.K. 1967. Groundwater hydrology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York NY, 336 p.
Tsai, C. 1973. Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls. Trans-
actions of the American Fisheries Society 102 (281).
US Bureau of the Census, 1932a. Fifteenth census of the US: 1930.
Population, Volume III, Part I, Alabama—Missouri. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC, 1,389 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1932b. Fifteenth census of the US: 1930.
Population, Volume III, Part II, Montana—Wyoming. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC, 1,389 p.
7-3
-------
US Bureau of the Census. 1952a. US census of population: 1950. Volume
II, characteristics of the population, Part 23, Minnesota. Department
of Commerce, Washington DC, 20 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1952b. US census of population: 1950. Volume
II, characteristics of the population, Part 49, Minnesota. Department
of Commerce, Washington DC, 230 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1972a. General social and economic characteris-
tics, Minnesota. US Government Printing Office, Department of Com-
merce, Washington DC, 495 p. plus appendixes.
US Bureau of the Census. 1972b. General social and economic characteris-
tics, Wisconsin. US Government Printing Office, Department of Com-
merce, Washington DC, 492 p. plus appendixes.
US Bureau of the Census. 1979a. 1976 population estimates and 1975 and
revised 1974 per capita income estimates for counties, incorporated
places, and selected minor civil divisions—Minnesota. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC, 44 p.
US Bureau of the Census. 1979b. 1976 population estimates and 1975 and
revised 1974 per capita income estimates for counties, incorporated
places, and selected minor civil divisions—Wisconsin. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC, 34 p.
US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1978. Employment by type and broad indus-
trial sectors, 1971-76. Regional Economic Information System. Wash-
ington DC, computer printout.
US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1980a. Local area personal income 1973-
1978. Volume 4, great lakes region. US Department of Commerce,
Washington DC, 142 p.
US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1980b. Local area personal income 1973-
1978. Volume 5, plains region. US Department of Commerce, Washington
DC, 184 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976a. Compilation of air pollutant
emission factors, 2nd edition. Office of Air and Waste Management,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
NC. Variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Quality criteria for water.
EPA-440/9-76-003. Washington DC, 501 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Erosion and sediment control in
the Construction Grants Program. Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM//78-1. From John T. Rheff, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Program Operations, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, 29
December 1977. Washington DC, 3 p and attachments.
7-4
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978a. Printout of STORE! data-23
October 1978. variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978b. Proceedings from national
conferences on shopping for sewage treatment: How to get the best
bargain for your community or home (draft), April 23-30, and June 4-6.
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington DC, 119 p. (p. 53).
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Grant funding of projects
requiring treatment more stringent than secondary. Construction
grants program requirements memorandum PRM//79-7. From Thomas C.
Jorling, Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management, to
Water Division Directors, Regions I-X, 9 May 1979. Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979b. Long-term effects of land
application of domestic wastewater: Dickinson, North Dakota, slow
rate irrigation site. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab, Ada
OK. EPA 600/2-79-144, 162 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Summary of long-term rapid
infiltration system studies. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Lab, Ada OK. EPA 600/2-80-165, 51 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US
Department of Agriculture. 1977. Process design manual for land
treatment of municipal wastewater. EPA 625/1-77-008, 575 p.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants. Department of the Interior, Office of Endangered Species,
Washington DC, 9 p.
US Geological Survey. 1977. Water resources data for Wisconsin, water
year 1976. Department of the Interior, Madison WI, 596 p.
US Geological Survey. 1978. Water resources data for Wisconsin, water
year 1977. Department of the Interior, Madison WI, 626 p.
US Geological Survey. 1980. Water resources data for Wisconsin, water
year 1979. Department of the Interior, Madison WI, 514 p.
WAPORA, Inc. 1979. Existing environmental conditions in the St. Croix
Falls, Wisconsin - Taylors Falls, Minnesota, Wastewater Facilities
Project Area. Prepared for USEPA Region V. Chicago IL, 175 p.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1976. Manual of practice No. 11-
operation of wastewater treatment plants. Lancaster Press, Lancaster
PA, 536 p.
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1976. An economic
analysis of the west central Wisconsin region. Eau Claire WI, 114 p.
Wisconsin Department of Administration. 1977. Official population esti-
mates for 1977, final estimates for all Wisconsin towns, incorporated
villages and cities as of January 1, 1977. Demographic Services
Center, Madison WI, 47 p.
7-5
-------
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1972. St* Croix pollution
investigation survey. Division of Environmental Protection, Madison
WI, 37 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1978. Water quality operations
handbook. 3205.1. Bureau of Water Quality, Madison WI, 34 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1979. List of endangered and
threatened species. Office of Endangered and Nongame Species, Madison
WI, 1 p.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1981. St. Croix Falls fish
hatchery effluent data (unpublished). Madison WI, 3 p.
Young, H. L., and S. M. Hindall. 1973. Water resources of Wisconsin: St.
Croix River Basin. US Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations
Atlas HA-451. Washington DC, 4 sheets.
7-6
-------
8.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Activated sludge process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which a suspended microbiological culture is maintained inside an
aerated treatment basin. The microbial organisms oxidize the complex
organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.
Advanced secondary treatment. Wastewater treatment more stringent than
secondary treatment but not to advanced waste treatment levels.
Advanced waste treatment. Wastewater treatment to treatment levels that
provide for maximum monthly average BOD and SS concentrations less
than 10 mg/1 and/or total nitrogen removal of greater than 50% (total
nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate).
Aeration. To circulate oxygen through a substance, as in wastewater treat-
ment, where it aids in purification.
Aerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
oxygen.
Aerosol. A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.
Algae. Simple rootless plants that grow in bodies of water in relative
proportion to the amounts of nutrients available. Algal blooms, or
sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.
Algal bloom. A proliferation of algae on the surface of lakes, streams or
ponds. Algal blooms are stimulated by phosphate enrichment.
Alluvial. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.
Ambient air. Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air.
Ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH_) that is produced
in nature when nitrogen-containing organic material is biologically
decomposed.
Anaerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of oxygen.
Aquifer. A geologic stratum that is capable of yielding useful amounts of
water to wells and springs. The geologic stratum may be sand and
gravel or fissured or permeable bedrock.
Artesian (adj.). Refers to ground water that is under sufficient pressure
to flow to the surface without being pumped.
8-1
-------
Artesian well. A well that normally gives a continuous flow because of
hydrostatic pressure, created when the outlet of the well is below the
level of the water source.
Bar screen. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large float-
ing and suspended solids.
Base flow. The rate of movement of water in a stream channel that
occurs typically during rainless periods, when stream flow is main-
tained largely or entirely by discharges of groundwater.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A bioassay-type procedure in which the
weight of oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
the organic matter present per liter of water is determined. It is
common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
a subscript to the abbreviated name. For example, BOD,, indicates that
the results are based on a five-day long (120-hour) test. The BOD
value is a relative measure of the amount (load) of living and dead
oxidizable organic matter in water. A high demand may deplete the
supply ot oxygen in the water, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to
the degree that many or all kinds of aquatic organisms are killed.
Determinations of BOD are useful in the evaluation of the impact of
wastewater on receiving waters.
Bio-disc. See rotating biological contactor.
Bio-surf. See rotating biological contactor.
Chlorination. The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable com-
pounds.
Clarifier. A settling tank, where solids are mechanically removed from
waste water.
Coliform bacteria. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish in
the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including man.
Fecal colifonn bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli (E. coli),
enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runnoff.
Coliforms apparently do not cause serious human diseases, but these
organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
detect. The abundance of coliforms in water, therefore, is used as an
index to the probability of the occurrence of such disease-producing
organisms (pathogens) as Salmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses.
The pathogens are relatively difficult to detect.
Comminutor. A machine that breaks up wastewater solids.
Community. The plants and animals in a particular area that are closely
related through food chains and other interactions.
Compact activated sludge. Compact activated sludge plants are small acti-
vated sludge plants commonly known as "package plants". These plants
are sold as prefabricated plants or in easily assembled standard
8-2
-------
components. The most common preassembled units employ some type of
activated sludge process. These plants, since they were first used in
the latter part of the 1940's, have been called "aerobic digestion"
plants, "total oxidation" plants, and "extended aeration" plants.
Extended aeration has been accepted as properly descriptive of most of
these plants. Based on the average flow, the detention time in the
aeration compartment is usually between 18 and 30 hr, if domestic
wastewater is treated. Contact-stabilization type activated sludge
package plants are also commonly used. Also see activated sludge
process.
Cultural resources. Fragile and nonrenewable sites, districts, buildings,
structures, or objects representative of our heritage. Cultural
re-sources are divided into three categories: historical, archi-
tectural, or archaeological. Cultural resources of especial signifi-
cance may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Decibel (dB). A unit of measurement used to express the relative intensity
of sound. For environmental assessment, it is common to use a fre-
quency-rated scale (A scale) on which the units (dBA) are correlated
with responses of the human ear. On the A scale, 0 dBA represents the
average least perceptible sound (rustling leaves, gentle breathing),
and 140 dBA represents the intensity at which the eardrum may rupture
(jet engine at open throttle). Intermediate values generally are: 20
dBA, faint (whisper at 5 feet, classroom, private office); 60 dBA,
loud (average restaurant or living room, playground); 80 DBA, very
loud (impossible to use a telephone, noise made by food blender or
portable standing machine; hearing impairment may result from pro-
longed exposure); 100 dBA, deafening noise (thunder, car horn at 3
feet, loud motorcycle, loud power lawn mower).
Detention time. Average time required to flow through a basin. Also
called retention time.
Digestion. In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.
Disinfection. Effective killing by chemical or physical processes of all
organisms capable of causing infectious disease. Chlorination is the
disinfection method commonly employed in sewage treatment processes.
Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen gas (0 ) in water. It is utilized in res-
piration by fish and other aquatic organisms, and those organisms may
be injured or killed when the concentration is low. Because much
oxygen diffuses into water from the air, the concentration of DO is
greater, other conditions being equal, at sea level than at high
elevations, during periods of high atmospheric pressure than during
periods of low pressure, and when the water is turbulent (during
rainfall, in rapids, and waterfalls) rather than when it is placid.
Because cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water, the con-
centration tends to be greater at low temperatures than at high tem-
peratures. Dissolved oxygen is depleted by the oxidation of organic
matter and of various inorganic chemicals. Should depletion be ex-
treme, the water may become anaerobic and could stagnate and stink.
8-3
-------
Drift. Rock material picked up and transported by a glacier and deposited
elsewhere.
Effluent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or
in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treatment
plant, or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.
Endangered species. Any species of animal or plant that is in known danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.
riutrophication. The process of enrichment of a water body with nutrients.
Fauna. The total animal life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Fecal coliforin bacteria. See coliform bacteria.
Floodway. The portion of the floodplain which carries moving water during
a flood event.
Flood fringe. The part of the floodplain which serves as a storage area
during a flood event.
Flora. The total plant life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Flowmeter. A guage that indicates the amount of flow of wastewater moving
tnrough a treatment plant.
Force main. A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.
Gravity system. A system of conduits (open or closed) in which no liquid
pumping is required.
Gravity sewer. A sewer in which wastewater flows naturally down-gradient
by the force of gravity.
Groundwater. All subsurface fresh water, especially that part in the zone
of saturation.
Infiltration. The water entering a sewer system and service connections
from the ground through such means as, but not limited to, defective
pipes, pipe joints, improper connections, or manhole walls. Infiltra-
tion does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.
Inflow. The water discharged into a wastewater collection system and
service connections from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
leaders, cellars, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling
water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole
covers, cross-connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch
basins, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters or drainage.
Inflow does not include, and is distinguished from, infiltration.
Influent. Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment facility, or any unit thereof.
8-4
-------
Interceptor sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
series of trunk sewers and to convey it to a sewage treatment plant.
Lift station. A facility in a collector sewer system, consisting of a
receiving chamber, pumping equipment, and associated drive and control
devices, that collects wastewater from a low-lying district at some
convenient point, from which it is lifted to another portion of the
collector system.
Loam. Soil mixture of sand, silt, and clay.
Macroinvertebrates. Invertebrates that are visible to the unaided eye
(those retained by a standard No. 30 sieve, which has 28 meshes per
inch or 0.595 mm openings); generally connotes bottom-dwelling aquatic
animals (benthos).
Macrophytes. A macroscopic plant, especially one in an aquatic habitat.
Milligram per liter (mg/1). A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
in 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs 1,000
grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part per mil-
lion, by weight). Used to measure and report the concentrations of
most substances that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.
Moraine. A mound, ridge, or other distinctive accumulation of sediment
deposited by a glacier.
National Register of Historic Places. Official listing of the cultural
resources of the Nation that are worthy of preservation. Listing on
the National Register makes property owners eligible to be considered
for Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation through state
programs. Listing also provides protection through comment by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the effect of Federally
financed, assisted, or licensed undertakings on historic properties.
Nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO,.). It is the most
oxidized phase in the nitrogen cycle in nature and occurs in high
concentrations in tne final stages of biological oxidation. It can
serve as a nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.
Nitrite-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrite (NO ). It is an in-
termediate stage in the nitrogen cycle in nature. Nitrite normally is
found in low concentrations and represents a transient stage in the
biological oxidation of organic materials.
Nonpoint source. Any area, in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
which pollutants flow into a body of water. Common pollutants from
nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
and sediments from agricultural soils.
Nutrients. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
and development of an organism; e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and
phosphorus.
8-5
-------
Outwash. Sand and gravel transported away from a glacier by streams of
meltwater and either deposited as a floodplain along a preexisting
valley bottom or broadcast over a preexisting plain in a form similar
to an alluvial fan.
Oxidation lagoon (pond). A holding area where organic wastes are broken
down by aerobic bacteria.
Percolation. The downward movement of water through pore spaces or larger
voids in soil or rock.
pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid or solid.
pH is represented on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 being a neutral state;
0, most acid; and 14, most alkaline.
Phosphorus. An essential food element that can contribute to the eutrophi-
cation of water bodies.
Photochemical oxidants. Secondary pollutants formed by the action of
sunlight on nitric oxides and hydrocarbons in the air; they are the
primary components of photochemical smog.
Piezometric level. An imaginary point that represents the static head of
groundwater and is defined by the level to which water will rise.
Plankton. Minute plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that
float or swim weakly in rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, or seas.
Point source. In regard to water, any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,
tunnel, well, discrete operation, vessel or other floating craft, or
other confined and discrete conveyance from which a substance con-
sidered to be a pollutant is, or may be, discharged into a body of
water.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A group of organic compounds used es-
pecially in the manufacture of plastics. In the environment, PCBs
exhibit many of the same characteristics as DDT and may, therefore, be
confused with that pesticide. PCBs are highly toxic to aquatic or-
ganisms, they persist in the environment for long periods of time, and
they are biologically magnified.
Primary treatment. The first stage in wastewater treatment, in which
substantially all floating or settleable solids are mechanically
removed by screening and sedimentation.
Prime farmland. Agricultural lands, designated Class I or Class II, having
little or no limitations to profitable crop production.
Pumping station. A facility within a sewer system that pumps sewage/
effluent against the force of gravity.
Rotating biological contactor. This secondary treatment process (also
sometimes referred to as biodiscs or rotating biological surfaces)
consists of a series of closely spaced discs (10 to 12 feet in dia-
8-6
-------
meter) mounted on a horizontal shaft within a tank of wastewater.
During operation, the discs are covered with a layer of biological
slime and are rotated with about one-half of their surface area im-
mersed in wastewater. As the discs rotate, they carry a film of
wastewater into the air, where it trickles over the slime surface and
the microbes oxidize the organic material in the wastewater. As the
discs complete their rotation, this film mixes with the wastewater in
the tank, adding to the oxygen in the tank, and excess biological
growth is sheared from the discs. The attached growths are similar in
concept to a trickling filter, except that the media with the microbes
attached is passed through the wastewater rather than the wastewater
passed over the microbes.
Runoff. Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that flows over the
ground surface and returns to streams. It can collect pollutants from
air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.
Sanitary sewer. Underground pipes that carry only domestic or commercial
wastewater, not stormwater.
Screening. Use of racks of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended
solids from sewage.
Secondary treatment. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
This step is accomplished by introducing the sewage into a trickling
filter or an activated sludge process. Effective secondary treatment
processes remove virtually all floating solids and settleable solids,
as well as 90% of the BOD and suspended solids. USEPA regulations
define secondary treatment as 30 mg/1 BOD, 30 mg/1 SS, or 85% removal
of these substances.
Seepage. Water that flows through the soil.
Settling tanic. A holding area for wastewater, where heavier particles sink
to the bottom and can be siphoned off.
7-day, 10-day low flow. The lowest average flow that occurs for a consecu-
tive 7-day period at a recurrence interval of 10 years.
Sludge. The accumulated solids that have been separated from liquids such
as wastewater.
Storm sewer. A system that collects and carries rain and snow runoff to a
point where it can soak back into the groundwater or flow into surface
waters.
Surface water. All bodies of water on the surface of the Earth.
Suspended solids (SS). Small solid particles that contribute to turbidity.
The examination of suspended solids and the BOD test constitute the
two main determinations for water quality that are performed at waste-
water treatment facilities.
8-7
-------
Tertiary treatment. Advanced treatment of wastewater that goes beyond the
secondary or biological stage. It removes nutrients such as phos-
phorus and nitrogen and most suspended solids.
Threatened species. Any species of animal or plant that is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant part of its range.
Till. Unsorted and unstratified drift, consisting of a heterogeneous
mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders, that is deposited by and
underneath a glacier.
Trickling filter process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which the biological growth is attached to a fixed medium, over which
wastewater is sprayed. The filter organisms biochemically oxidize the
complex organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and
energy.
Unique farmland. Land, which is unsuitable for crop production in its
natural state, that has been made productive by drainage, irriga-
tion, or fertilization practices.
Wastewater. Water carrying dissolved or suspended solids from homes,
farms, businesses, and industries.
Water quality. The relative condition of a body of water, as judged by
a comparison between contemporary values and certain more or less
objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
parameters. The standard values usually are based on a specific
series of intended uses, and may vary as the intended uses vary.
Water table. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure. The upper
surface of the substrate that is wholly saturated with groundwater.
Wetlands. Swamps or marshes.
8-8
-------
9.0. INDEX
Air quality, 4-1, 5-9
impacts on, 5-2, 5-3, 5-b, 5-14, 5-15,
5-20, 5-46
See also Odor
Alternatives:
considered, i, ii
independent system, iii-vi, ix,
3-35, 3-37, 3-40, 3-43, 3-45,
3-47, 3-49
costs, iii, vii, ix, 3-40, 3-43, 3-45
3-47
no-action, iii, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 5-1
costs, iii, 3-37
feasibility of iii, 3-36, 3-37, 5-1
regional system, ii-iii, vi-viii, 3-35
3-36, 3-49, 3-52, 3-53
costs, vi, vii, ix, 3-52, 3-53
desireability of, ix
environmental impacts, ii, vii, 1-7
1-8, 3-61, 5-1-5-21
most cost-effective, 1-4, 1-6, 2-4, 2-6,
3-59
recommended action, i, ix, 3-63
Aquatic biota:
endangered, 4-26
impacts on 5-4, 5-5, 5-16, 5-17
5-50
of Lawrence Creek, 4-26
of St. Croix River, 4-26
threatened, 4-2b
Archaeological resources, 4-49
impacts on 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-12
5-13, 5-49
BOD:
effluent limitations, iv, 3-13, 3-14,
3-16, 3-31, 3-40, 5-29
loading, 3-2, 3-3, 3-9-3-12
5-22, 5-23
of St. Croix River, 4-12, 4-17-4-20
of treatment plant effluent, 3-2-3-5
4-20, 4-21
removal, 3-23, 3-27, 3-28, 3-30
Clean Water Act, ii, 1-1, 1-3
Climate, 4-1
Construction:
environmental impacts of, i, vii, 2-3
3-61, 3-62, 5-1-5-8
mitigation, 2-7, 5-46-5-50
Construction Grants Program. See Funding,
federal
Costs:
annual user charges, ix, 1-7,
2-9-2-11, 4-37, 5-34, 5-36-5-42
capital, iv-vii, 2-8, 3-40, 3-43,
3-45, 3-47, 3-49, 3-52, 3-53, 3-60
comparison, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61,
5-37, 5-43
operation and maintenance, iv-vii,
2-8, 3-40, 3-43, 3-45, 3-47,
3-49, 3-52, 3-53, 3-60
present worth, iv-vii, 3-40, 3-43
3-45, 3-47, 3-49, 3-52, 3-53, 3-60,
3-61
See also Economic impacts
Economic cost criteria, 3-15
Economic impacts:
on local government finances, 1-7
5-16, 5-17, 5-42-5-44
on property values, 1-8, 5-45
on system users, 2-6, 5-16, 5-17,
5-39-5-42
See also Costs
Effluent. See Wastewater
EIS:
draft, response to comments, 2-1-2-12
issues, 1-7
requirement for, 1-4
Erosion, 5-48, 5-51
Facilities Plans, 1-5
alternatives considered, ii, 1-1
recommendations, 1-5, 1-6
Fecal coliforms:
effluent limitations, 3-12, 3-14,
3-16, 3-31
in St. Croix River, 4-18, 4-19, 4-23
in treatment plant effluent, 3-4,
3-5, 4-20, 4-21
removal of, 3-28
9-1
-------
Funding:
federal, iii, 1-3, 2-5, 2-8,
5-lU, 5-34, 5-36, 5-37
Construction Grants Program,
1-3, 1-4, 5-10, 5-36
priority, 5-36
local, 5-34, 5-36
state, 1-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-8 5-34, 5-36,
5-37
difference in priorities, ix
Geology, 4-2, 4-4
Groundwater
contamination, viii, 1-7, 1-8, 3-26
3-28, 3-61, 4-23, 5-14, 5-15, 5-26,
5-34
levels, iv, v, vii, viii, 3-18, 3-28
3-62, 5-31
quality, 3-28, 3-29, 4-23
use, 4-22, 4-23
Historical/cultural resources, 2-4, 4-49
4-50
impacts on, 2-1, 5-6, 5-7, 5-13, 5-49
Interstate sanitary district:
formation of, 3-62
Land:
existing use, 4-37-4-43
prime agricultural, viii, 1-7, 3-61
4-4, 5-10, 5-11
projected use, 4-43-4-46
requirements of alternatives, iv-viii,
2-11, 3-28-3-31, 3-40, 3-45-3-47,
3-49, 3-52, 3-53, 3-61, 5-4, 5-5
Land application/disposal, ii, iv, v-vii,
1-1, 2-4, 3-24-3-25, 3-26-3-29, 3-40,
3-47, 3-53,
discharge limitations, 3-31, 3-32
odors from, 1-7, 1-8
processes, 3-27
land/spray irrigation, 3-27, 3-30-3-32,
5-31
overland flow, 3-27
rapid infiltration, 2-tt, 2-9 3-28,
3-29, 3-61, 5-29
soil/land suitable for, 3-28, 3-29,
4-6, 4-7
wetlands discharge, 3-32
See also sludge, disposal
Nitrogens:
in St. Croix River, 4-12-4-19, 4-21., 4-23
removal, 5-31
Noise, 5-2, 5-3, 5-14, 5-15, 5-21
5-27
NPDES permit, ii, 1-1, 3-4, 3-13
compliance with 3-4
effluent limitations, 1-1, 3-13-3-15
monitoring requirements, 2-4
Odors, 5-20
from construction, 5-2, 5-3
from land application, 1-7, 1-8
from sludge disposal, 5-24
from treatment plant, 4-2, 5-14,
5-15, 5-24
from treatment/storage ponds,
5-25, 5-26, 5-27
pH:
effluent limitations, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16
of St. Croix River, 4-12-4-15
Phosphorus:
effluent limitations, 3-13, 3-16, 3-24
in St. Croix River, 4-12, 4-13, 4-19,
4-20
removal, 3-25, 3-28, 5-31
Population:
induced growth, 1-7, 4-16, 4-17, 4-52
past trends, 4-33, 4-34
projections, 2-6, 3-9, 3-11, 4-33,
4-35
Project area:
map of, 1-2
Project history, 1-4, 1-5
Public finance:
City of St. Croix Falls, 4-35-4-36
impacts on 5-4, 5-5
City of Taylors Falls, 4-35
Impacts on, 5-4, 5-5
Public health, 1-8, 5-18-5-19
Recreation, 4-47-4-48, 5-6, 5-7
impacts on 5-16, 5-17, 5-23
9-2
-------
Sewer system, See Wastewater
collection system
Sludge, 3-33-3-35
digestion, 3-34, 5-23, 5-24
disposal of, 1-8, 3-33, 3-34-3-35
Socioeconomic data:
employment, 4-31, 4-32
housing, 4-46, 4-47
income, 4-30, 4-31
Soils, 4-4-4-6, 3-28
alteration by land treatment, 5-32
5-33
suitability for land treatment,
3-28-3-31, 4-6, 5-33
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway,
4-50, 4-51
See also Water quality
Surface water, 4-6
flow data, 4-8, 4-9, 4-16
recreational uses, 4-8, 4-10, 4-47-4-48
See also Water quality
Suspended solids:
effluent limitations, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16
in St. Croix River, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19
in treatment plant effluent, 3-4, 3-5
4-2-, 4-21
loading, 3-2, 3-9-3-U, 4-20, 4-21,
5-22, 5-23
removal, 3-23, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30,
3-31
Topography, 4-2-4-4
suitability for land treatment, 3-30,
3-31
Vegetation, 4-24, 5-51
revegetation, 5-47
Wastewater:
dispersion, 4-20
existing discharges of, 4-20-4-22
flow rates, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5-3-12,
4-20-4-21
contribution of Interstate State
park, 2-1, 3-6-3-8
reduction by conservation, 3-19-3-21
quality, 1-7, 3-3-3-5
reuse, 3-32-3-33
Wastewater collection system:
flexibility, 3-56
reliability, 3-57-3-58
St. Croix Falls, 3-1, 3-5, 3-6, 3-21,
3-22
force main route, 2-2
infiltration/inflow, 3-5-3-9, 3-18,
3-19
service area customers, 3-1, 3-2, 3-8
Taylors Falls, 3-1-3-3, 3-6-3-8, 3-21,
3-22
force main route, 2-2, 5-12
infiltration/inflow, 3-6, 3-7, 3-19
See also Wastewater treatment plants
Wastewater treatment:
disinfection, 2-25, 2-26
primary, 2-22, 2-23
process description/diagrams, 2-40-2-55
secondary, 2-23, 2-24
septic tanks, 2-1, 2-2
tertiary, 2-24, 2-25
See also Land application/disposal:
Alternatives, considered
Wastewater treatment plants:
existing, iii, 3-2, 3-3
condition of, ii, iii, 1-1
demolition/abandonment of iii-vii,
3-43, 3-45, 3-49, 3-52, 3-53
design flows, 2-6, 2-12, 3-2,
3-3, 3-37, 3-40, 3-43, 3-45
effluent data, 2-6, 3-4, 3-5, 4-20-4-2
upgrading/expanding of, i-iv, vi,
viii, ix, 1-1, 1-6, 2-7, 3-35,
3-37, 3-40, 3-50, 3-56, 5-22,
interim, iv, v, 2-6, 2-12
new, i, iv-vii, ix, 1-1
cost of, iv-vii
design factors, 3-8-3-12
design flows, iii-vii, 3-9-3-12
operation impacts, 5-13-5-34
reliability of, 3-57, 3-58, 3-61,
3-62
Water quality:
impacts, viii, 2-4, 3-61, 4-16, 5-2,
5-3, 5-14, 5-15, 5-22, 5-23, 5-51
of St. Croix River, 4-11-4-16
standards, 2-1, 4-10-4-11
stations, 4-11
survey, 4-16-4-20
Wetlands, 4-24
impacts on, 2-1-2-2, 5-9, 5-16,
5-17
9-3
-------
Wildlife, 4-24-4-28
endangered, 2-6, 4-26, 4-29, 5-11
impacts on, 5-2-5-5, 5-16, 5-17,
5-51
threatened, 2-6, 4-26-4-29, 5-11
Wisconsin Fund. See Funding, state
WPDES permit, 3-3, 3-12
compliance with, 3-3
effluent limitations, 3-12, 3-13
monitoring requirements, 3-3
9-4
-------
APPENDIX A
Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
St. Croix Falls Wastewater Treatment System
The wastewater treatment facility for St. Croix Falls was designed in
1948 and constructed in 1951. The treatment plant is located on the bank
of the St. Croix River on approximately 0.5 acres of land leased from WDNR.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary treat-
ment, biological filtration, final clarification, flow measurement, chlori-
nation, sludge digestion, and sludge dewatering. The facility was designed
to treat 120,000 gpd, with a BOD loading of 250 Ib/day and a total sus-
pended solids loading of 240 Ib/day (Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson,
and Associates, Inc. 1976). The 1975 yearly average wastewater flow was
211,400 gpd (Banister, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc.
197o). The monthly peak flow was 299,400 gpd. Based on the 1978 average
raw sewage BOD concentration of 159 mg/1 and the 1975 average flow, the
current BOD., loading is 280 Ib/day. This estimate assumes that there has
been no significant increase in wastewater flow since 1975.
Raw sewage from the St. Croix Falls service area enters the treatment
plant from sewers located along River Street. The old outfall sewer that
was used before the construction of the treatment facility could be used as
an emergency bypass from the River Street sewer. There are no reported
instances of its use.
Preliminary Treatment
Raw sewage flows by gravity to the treatment plant and passes through
a 4-foot bar screen. One manually-cleaned bar screen with 1.5-inch bar
spacing is provided. Flow from the bar screen is combined with a recircu-
lation flow from the final clarifier effluent. Screened materials are
collected and hauled to the City landfill.
A-l
-------
Primary Treatment
A rotating fine-mesh screen is utilized for removal of settleable
solids. Une screen, approximately 38 inches in diameter by 4 feet in
length, is provided. The screen is comprised of a 14x14 bronze wire mesh.
Final clarifier effluent is used as spray washwater. Solids removed by the
screen are discharged to the anaerobic sludge digester. The unit appears
to be in good working condition.
Biological Filtration
A high-rate, single-stage trickling filter with prefabricated tile
media is provided as part of the secondary treatment. The filter is oc-
tagonal in shape, with a surface area of approximately 500 square feet and
a depth of 6 feet. The design hydraulic loading is 3.5 million gallons per
acre per day (mgad) and the current hydraulic loading is 6.1 mgad. This
filter has design and current organic loadings of 3,600 pounds and 4,100
pounds of JiOD per acre per foot per day, respectively, or (83 pounds and
93 pounds of BOU per thousand cubic feet) of media, respectively. The
organic loadings are higher than the design criteria indicated in the WDNR
regulations.
Two 100-gpm pumps are provided for a one-to-one recirculation. Recir-
culation presently is utilized for about 14 to 16 hours per day, during the
nighttime low-flow periods, in order to provide continuous application of
wastewater.
The turntable of the rotary distributor formerly had a mercury-type
seal. The seal was broken, and no new seal has been provided. This condi-
tion results in substantial leakage. There is an unmetered trickling
filter bypass from the fine screen to the final clarifier.
The coarse nozzles used, the leakage from the distributor, and the
apparent inefficiency of the fine screen have allowed sewage debris to
accumulate on the surface of the media. According to the Director of
Public Works of the City of St. Croix Falls, the filter has not been sus-
ceptible to flooding problems. Apart from the turntable, the trickling
filter appears to be in satisfactory condition. Although the degree of
A-2
-------
nydraulic and organic overloading is unknown, some loss of efficiency in
this unit is suspected. In addition, bypassing of the filter during severe
hydraulic loading periods substantially reduces the overall pollutant re-
movals.
Final Clarification
The trickling filter underdrainage flow and bypass flow are discharged
by gravity to the final clarifier. The clarifier is 36 feet by 12 feet,
with a ID-foot operating depth. At the design loading and current loading,
this clarifier provides surface settling rates of 280 and 490 gallons per
square foot per day (gpsfd), respectively; detention times of 6.5 and 3.7
hours, respectively; and weir overflow rates of 5,000 and 8,800 gallons per
foot per day (gpfd), respectively.
These loading rates are within the Wisconsin design criteria. Sludge
and scum are removed with an axially-rotated chain and scraper flight
system. The scum and sludge are pumped to the anaerobic sludge digester.
The hydraulic overloading has caused a noticeable deterioration in the
performance of the final clarifier. The inlet baffles have been submerged
due to high inlet wastewater velocities. Heavy scuin layers have arisen due
to the inadequate operation of the flight system. The effluent troughs
occasionally are submerged, and high concentrations of effluent suspended
solids are discharged due to the hydraulic overloading. Replacement of the
sludge and scum removal equipment and structural modifications to ensure a
uniform flow distribution, a dissipation of inlet velocities, and a minimum
of large-scale turbulence appear to be required to ensure a prolonged
period of proper operation.
Flow Measurement
The discharge from the final clarifier flows by gravity to the recir-
culation wet well containing the flow measurement device. Two 100-gpm
pumps lift the final clarifier effluent to a 450-gallon tank for use as the
fine screen spray and also to recirculate flow to the trickling filter. A
12-inch rectangular weir with a Stevens Type F, Model 63 recorder is pro-
vided. The most recent known calibration was performed during February
1979. Erroneous flow readings may have been obtained prior to February
A-3
-------
1979 due to a lack, of calibration. The flow meter is not easily access-
ible, but appears to be properly maintained.
Chlorination
The chlorine contact tank is located immediately downstream from the
flow measurement weir. The contact tank has a volume of 3,440 gallons and
provides detention times of 40 minutes and 23 minutes at the design flow
and current average flow, respectively. At the current peak flow of
299,400 gpd, the detention time is 11 minutes. These detention times are
significantly less than the Wisconsin design average rate and peak rate of
60 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively. A Wallace and Tiernan gas chlori-
nator is provided. Approximately 10 pounds of chlorine is applied to the
effluent daily. The condition of the chlorination facilities is unknown
because of their inaccessibility.
Sludge Digestion
Sludge from the fine screen and final clarifier is digested in a
single-stage, 5,000-cubic-foot anaerobic digester. The digester has a
fixed cover and is heated. The only mixing occurs when sludge recirculates
through the heat exchanger, which is operated on fuel oil. Gas produced in
the digester is vented off without being flared. At present, only pH
analyses are run on the digester. The information is not sufficient to
determine the adequacy of performance of the unit.
Sludge Oewatering and Disposal
Six sludge-drying beds occasionally are used for dewatering. The beds
have a total area of 1,100 square feet. Dewatered sludge is removed from
the beds manually. More frequently, digested liquid sludge is pumped
directly from the digester into a tank truck and hauled to disposal sites
on the Bishop Farm and the Chinander Farm, both located north of St. Croix
Falls. These sludge disposal sites were not inspected.
A-4
-------
Other Facilities
The treatment facility is enclosed in a three-story, concrete struc-
ture located on the bantc of the St. Croix River. Wastewater flows through
the treatment plant entirely by gravity, except for recirculation, fine-
screen spray water, and sludge flows. Although the structure is almost 30
years old, it appears to be in sound condition. Ancillary facilities,
including ventilation equipment, doors, windows, handrails, and electrical
facilities, generally are in need of replacement or repair. Other mechani-
cal equipment, such as the heat exchanger and pumps, may need replacement
if an extended service life is required.
At present, only chlorine residual and pH tests are run at the plant
site. Other analyses are conducted by Commercial Testing Laboratory, Inc.
Additional laboratory and administrative facilities appear to be required
for proper operation and control of the treatment plant.
A 15-nilowatt (kw) portable generator is owned by the City of St.
Croix Falls for power outage emergencies. Because the major treatment-
related units that would be affected by a power loss are the sludge removal
equipment, the recirculation pumps, and the fine-screen motor, the emer-
gency power facilities appear to be sufficient.
There are no domestic water protection facilites, such as a water
breaic tank., at the treatment plant. This omission should be corrected.
The existing plant is located on approximately 0.5 acres of land
leased from WDNR. The adjacent land also is owned by WDNR. Any expansion
of the existing facilities would require an arrangement for the use of
additional land.
A-5
-------
EXHIBIT A-2
Taylors Falls Wastewater Treatment System
The existing sewage treatment facility for the City of Taylors Falls
was constructed in 1941. The plant is located on the bank of the St. Croix
River immediately north of the US Highway 8 and State Route 95 Bridge.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary treat-
ment, biological filtration, final clarification, chlorination, sludge
digestion and sludge dewatering. The existing facilities were designed for
a flow rate of 75,600 gpd and a maximum raw sewage BOD concentration of
250 mg/1 (MPCA 1976). A flow measurement and sampling survey conducted by
SERCO (1978) during November 1978 showed .that the treatment plant loading
was 90,900 gpd and 105 pounds of BOD per day. The peak flow rate observed
during this period was 144,000 gpd.
Preliminary Treatment
Sewage entering the treatment facility is screened by a bar rack,
whicu is cleaned manually. The bar rack structure contains a bypass line
tributary to the plant outfall (Howard A. Kuusisto Consulting Engineers
1979). The oypass is used infrequently (MPCA 1976, 1977). No permanent
flow measurement device is provided.
Primary Treatment
both the sewage flow from the bar rack and a recirculation flow from
the final clarifier enter the primary clarifier. The enclosed clarifier is
21 feet by 8.3 feet, with an operating depth of 7 feet. The detention
time and surface settling rate at the design flow of 75,600 gpd are 2.8
nours and 450 gpsfd, respectively. At the current loading of 90,900 gpd,
the detention time is 2.4 hours and the surface settling rate is 520 gpsfd.
These rates generally are within the recommended design criteria (Great
LaKes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers 1978;
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 197Z). The clarifier structure and the sludge
removal equipment appear to be in satisfactory condition. However, some
scum removal deficiencies were observed.
A-6
-------
Biological Filtration
A standard-rate, single-stage trickling filter with a coarse rock
media is provided for biological oxidation after primary clarification.
The trickling filter was converted to a high-rate filter with the addition
of a pump to recirculate the flow from the final clarifier. The recircula-
tion pump is rated at 150 gpm. The circular filter is enclosed separately
from the other treatment units and is 42.5 feet in diameter by 6.0 feet in
depth. The current organic loading is 540 pounds of BOD per acre-foot per
day. The design and current hydraulic loadings are 1.5 mgad and 1.6 mgad,
respectively. These loadings are well below the recommended criteria for
high-rate filters and are within the standard-rate classification (Water
Pollution Control Federation 1976). The rotary distribution system was
leaking at the turntable, and several diffusers were clogged. This caused
an irregular spray of sewage on the surface of the media. Some deteriora-
tion of the filter housing also was observed, indicating that major reha-
bilitation would be required for continued service.
Final Clarification
The trickling filter underdrainage flows by gravity to the final
clarifier. The uncovered, rectangular clarifier is 28.2 feet long and 8
feet wide. The operating water depth is unknown. The design and current
surface settling rates are 335 gpsfd 403 gpsfd, respectively. The current
peak surface settling rate is 638 gpsfd, based on a maximum hourly flow of
100 gpm. The design and current weir overflow rates are 4,725 gpfd and
5,680 gpfd, respectively. These rates are below the recommended criteria
(Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers
1978). The final clarifier has a chain and scraper sludge conveyor system
similar to the other clarifier system previously discussed. Sludge is
pumped continuously to the primary settling tank. Electrical problems
occasionally have shut down t'he sludge pump and the conveyor system. There
is no provision for scum removal in the final clarifier. The final clari-
fier is subject to flooding during periods when the water level in the
River is high.
A-7
-------
Chlorination
One section of the final clarifier is walled off and utilized as a
chlorine contact basin. The basin is 5.5 feet by 8 feet, with an approx-
imate depth of 5.5 feet. The detention time is 18 minutes at the current
peak, hydraulic loading, slightly better than the 15-minute criterion recom-
mended by the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary
Engineers (1978).
A new gas chlorinator currently is utilized. Normal chlorine usage is
approximately 2 Ib/day. Although the contact tank is baffled, MPCA has
recommended a different point of chlorination in order to promote addi-
tional dispersion and lengthen the contact time. Final effluent from the
chlorine contact tank flows into the outfall pipe tributary to the St.
Croix River.
Sludge Digestion
Sludge from the primary clarifier is pumped to the single-stage,
anaerobic sludge digester. The digester is 15 feet in diameter, with a
depth of 16 feet. Heating and mixing facilities are not provided. The
existing operating data are not sufficient to evaluate the performance of
this unit or the loading on the unit. The lack of heating and mixing
equipment, however, generally precludes its ability to digest sludge pro-
perly, especially during the winter months. An odor from sludge being
dewatered during April 1979 also indicated insufficient digestion.
Sludge Dewatering and Disposal
One sand drying bed, divided into four compartments, is provided for
dewatering of digested sludge. The drying bed is 30 feet by 28 feet
According to the Public Works Director of the City of Taylors Falls, ap-
proximately four beds of sludge are drawn per year. This usage does not
appear to be excessive. No provisions are made for pumping liquid digested
sludge for disposal. Dewatered sludge is hauled to the Blood Farm, located
north of Taylors Falls, for ultimate disposal. This disposal site was not
inspected.
' A-8
-------
Other Facilities
The structures enclosing the control room and the primary clarifier,
the trickling filters, and the anaerobic digester are approximately 40
years old and generally in need of repair. The sludge pump, part of the
original equipment, should be replaced.
The treatment plant has very little laboratory or control room space.
Additional facilities should be provided if continued operation at this
site is required. At present» most laboratory analyses are conducted by
Feed-Rite Controls, Inc.
Alternative power facilities are not provided for the treatment plant.
The sludge conveyor systems, the sludge pump, and the recirculation pump
would be affected by a power loss.
The existing plant site has limited space for additional facilities
The plant is bordered by a ravine on the north; by a ridge and a commercial
district on the west; by the US State Highway 8 and State Route 95 Bridge
on the south; and by the St. Croix River on the east. A large-scale plant
expansion at this site may not be feasible.
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
-------
EXHIBIT B-l
Permit to Discharge under the
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
for the City of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
B-l
-------
Permit No. WI-,002079C-2
PERMIT TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
WISCONSIN POLLUTANT DISCHAR& ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 147., Wisconsin Statutes,
CITY OF ST. CROIX FALLS
1s permitted to discharge from a wastewater treatment facility located at
to
RIVER STREET
ST. CROIX FALLS, WISCONSIN
THE ST. CROIX RIVER, IN POLK COUNTY
In accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and
other conditions set forth In this permit.
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and
conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant Identified 1n
this permit more frequently than or at a level tn excess of that authorized
shall constitute a violation of the permit.
This permit shall become effective on the date of signature.
This permit to discharge shall expire at m1dn1pht, June, 30, 1982.
The permittee shall not discharge after the date of expiration. If the
permittee wishes to continue to discharge after this expiration date a*
application shall be filed for reIssuance of this permit In accordance with
the requirements of Chapter NR 200, Wisconsin Administrative Cod*, at
least 180 days prior to this expiration date.
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
For the Secretary
THOMAS A. KROEHN
ADMINISTRATOR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
Dated this 3C day of '
<7
B-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Part I - Monitoring Requirements and Effluent Limitations
A) Influent Requirements
6} Interim Effluent Requirements
C) Final Effluent Requirements
Part II - Special Report Requirements Date Due
A) Solids Report October 31, 1078
Part III - Schedule of Compliance
A) Submft Facilities Plan July 1,1979
B) Submit Plans and Specifications July 1, 1980
C) Award Construction Contracts February 1, 1981
D) Construction Progress Report August 31, 1981
E) Complete Construction of an Upgraded
Mastewater Treatment Facility June 30, 1982
Part IV - Special Conditions
Part Y - General Conditions
B-3
-------
Part I, Pago 1 of..£-.-
WPDES Permit No. Wl^0020796^
Part I. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. Reporting
a. Monitoring results obtained during the previous month shall be
summarized and reported on a WPDES Self-Monitoring Report Form,
#3200-28, postmarked no later than the 15th day of the month following
the completed reporting period. The first Deport for the month of
June, 1978 is due on or before July 15, 1978. The white and green
copies of 3200-28 shall be submitted to:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Section-PermUs
Northwest District
Hwy. 70, Box 309
Spooher, Wisconsin 5480V
The pink report copy is to be retained by the permittee.
b. Monitoring reports shall be signed by a principal executive officer,
a ranking elected official, or other duly authorized representative.
c. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than,
required by this permit, the results of such monitoring shall be
Included on form #3200-28.
d. Sampling and laboratory testing procedures shall be performed In
accordance with Chapters MR 218 and NR 219 of the Wisconsin Administra-
tive Code.
B-4
-------
A. INFLUENT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Part I. Page 2 of H
WPDES Permit No. WI-0020796-2
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until June 30, 1982
the permittee 1s required to perform the following monitoring.
Samples taken 1n compliance with the monitoring requirements specified below shall be taken at representative
locations.
to
PARAMETER UMITS
BOD5-day mg/1
Suspended Solids mg/1
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SampleSample
F r equency • Type
3xweekly 3-hr, composite
3xweekly 3-hr, composite
L. A 3-hour composite sample consists of 3 grab samples of equal volume collected 1 hour apart and
composited. Recommended sampling times are 11:00 A.M., 12:00 Moon and 1:00 P.M.
Upon completion of the upgraded facility, 24-hr, composite flow proportional sampling will be required,
-------
B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Part I. Page 3 of 4
WPOES Permit No. W1-0020796-2
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until June 30, 1982
the permittee Is authorized to discharge from outfall serial number 001
Samples taken In compliance with the monitoring requirements specified below shall be taken at Representative Locations
There shall be no discharge of visible or floating solids In other than trace amounts.
EFaUENT LIMITATIONS
w
I
EFFLUENT PARAMETERS
Flow
BOD5 (Monthly)
BODs (Weekly)
Suspended Solids
(Monthly)
Suspended Solids
(Weekly)
pH
Total Residual CL?
(Dally)2
Fecal Collform
(Monthly)Z
Quantlty-kg/oay Mbs/day) Other Limitations (Specify Units)
Averaged Maximum Minimum Average Maximum
74.8 (165)
112 (248)
51 (112.6)
74.8 (165)
6.0
110 mg/1
165 mg/1
75 mg/1
110 mg/1
1/100 ml
9.0
- mg/1
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SampleSample
Frequency Type
Continuous
3x Weekly 3 hr. composite
3x/Weekly 3 hr. composite
3x Weekly 3 hr. composite
3x Weekly 3 hr. composite
Dally
Dally
1x Weekly
Grab
Grab
Grab
1Based on a design flow of .18 MGD.
2At such time as effluent limitations for fecal conforms and chlorine residual are finally promulgated In the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, this penalt may be modified to Incorporate either the final limitations or Interim
limitations and a compliance schedule to achieve the final limitations.
-------
C. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Part I, Page 4 of *4
WPDES Permit !lo. WI-0020796-2
During the period beginning on completion of the upgraded sewage treatment facility
the permittee 1s authorized to discharge from outfall serial number 001.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified below shall be taken at representative
locations.
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
w
i
EFFLUENT PARAMETERS
Flow
BODr (monthly)
BODr (weekly)
Suspended Solids
(monthly)
Suspended Solids
(weekly)
pH
Total Residual C12
( pfl^y)
Fecal Col 1 form
1 Based on a design
Quantity-kq/day (Ibs/day)
Average ± Maximum
20.4(45)
30.6(67.6)
20.4(45)
30.6(67.6)
-
-
-
flow of .18 MGD.
Other Limitations (Specify units;
.Minimum Average Maximum
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
6.0 - 9.0
mg/1
#/100 ml
Sample Sample
Frequency Type
Continuous
3xweekly 24-hr, composite
3xweekly 24 -hr. composite
3xweekly 24 -hr. composite
3xweekly 24 -hr. composite
Daily Grab
Dally Grab
Ixweekly Grab
2 Indicates flow proportional sampling.
-------
Part II.
WPDES Permit No.
PART II. SPECIAL REPORTS
All reports required 1n this section shall be signed by a principal
executive officer, a ranklno elected official, or other duly authorized
representative. These signed reports shall be submitted to:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WPDES Permits - Municipal Wastewater Section
P. 0. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
B-8
-------
Part II - Section
Paoe 1 of 4
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. A sludge management plan shall be developed for the disposal of
solids, sludges or other materials resulting from treatment of
wastewater. The permittee shall submit the Initial sludge management
plan by OCT 31 1978 . If the Department determines that
the plan is acceptable it will issue a letter of approval to the
permittee.
If the plan as submitted is determined by the Department to be
unacceptable, it shall be returned to the permittee for revision
and resubmittal.
The permittee shall be responsible for the implementation of the
approved sludge management activities. The permittee may at any
time amend the sludge management plan, subject to the approval
of the Department. The amended plan may not be put into effect
until it has received approval from the Department.
The Department shall evaluate the management plans on the basis
of recommendations in Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) Technical Bulletin #88 and any other pertinent information
deemed appropriate to the review of sludge management plans.
The sludge management plan shall be submitted on reporting forms
to be provided by this Department. Following review of the management
plan, the Department shall issue a letter of approval with any
necessary conditions. The letter of approval will establish a
means by which the oermittee will periodically report to the Department
on the sludge disposal practices in the time period between reports.
It will also indicate the frequency of sludge analysis required
and the parameters to be analyzed 1n the next reporting period.
In general municipalities over 1 MGD will be required to report
on a quarterly basis, while municipalities under 1 MGD will be
required to report annually. This may be modified depending on
the type of waste treated at the municipal facility.
2. The management plan shall be a comprehensive report which incorporates
the following items in sufficient detail to allow evaluation:
a. Storage facilities, when normal disposal sites are unavailable
or inaccessible, including:
1) Type of facility
2) Location of facility
3) Capacity of facility
4) Property interest or contractual agreement allowing use
of facility, and
5) Any other planned use of the storage facility
B-9
-------
Part II - Section
Page 2 of 4
b. A description of sludge characteristics, Including:
1) Type of wastewater treatment provided that results in sludge
generation
2) Type of sludge treatment prior to disposal
3) The quantity of sludge generated for disposal on a daily,
monthly and annual basis
4) Physical and chemical characteristics of the sludge including:
Parameter Abbreviation
*Percent Total Solids
Total Nitrogen N
Ammonium Nitrogen
*pH
Total Phosphorous P
Total Potassium K
Arsenic As
Cadmium Cd
Copper Cu
Chromium Cr
Lead Pb
Mercury Hg
Nickel Ni
Zinc Zn
*A11 parameters other than Percent Solids and pH shall
be calculated on a dry weight basis.
c. The mode of sludge transportation, including:
1) The hauler's name and mailing address (license number if
a certified hauler).
2) The method of transportation, such as pipe line, barge,
truck, train and others.
3) If hauled by a vehicle the following information is needed:
a) Type of vehicle
b) Capacity of vehicle
B-10
-------
Part II - Section A
Paae 3 of 4
c) The gross weight of vehicle
Information about the ultimate disposal site.
1) If sludge will be disposed of at one or more licensed landfill
sites, the following information shall be provided:
a) The amount of sludge to be disposed of at each site
b) The site names and license numbers
c) Contractual agreements
d) An indication of approval from the Solid Waste Management
Section of this Department
2) If sludge will be disposed of on land areas (other than
at licensed landfill sites), the following information shall
be provided for each disposal site.
a) A soil test shall be completed for each disposal site
for each year that sludge is to be applied.
b) The location of the site shall be indicated on a soils
map. Either a plat map or U.S.G.S. topographic map
shall also be provided.
c) A description of the crops to be grown or the dominant
vegetation on the disposal site.
d) A discussion of adjacent land use, drainage and land
features associated with the disposal site.
e) The ownership of the site
f) A description of the land use agreement
3) A description of methods to be used to. spread and incorporate
the sludge into the soil.
h) The applicator of the sludge, such as the farmer, land
owner, municipality, contractor or others.
1) An estimate of the total acreage to which sludge will
be applied.
j) The maximum rate of application (tons/acre/year based
on nitrogen or cadmium, whichever is lower) and the
loading limit (tons/acre based on metal equivalents
or cadmium whichever is lower). If recommended application
rates or loading limits are exceeded, comprehensive
monitoring may be required.
B-ll
-------
Part II - Section
Page 4 of 4
k) The anticipated use of the site for the 12 months Immediately
following sludqe application.
3) The frequency of sludqe disposal and the months in which
it will occur.
3. Beginning with submission of the plan, records shall be maintained
for each site, (other than at a licensed landfill site), including:
a. The amount of sludge applied (tons/acre).
b. The amount of nitrogen applied per year (Ibs./acre).
c. The amount of cadmium applied per year (Ibs./acre).
d. The total amount of metal equivalents applied (Ibs./acre).
e. The total amount of cadmium applied (Ibs./acre).
f. The location of the site on a plat map and the number of acres
to which the sludge was applied.
g. The site monitoring results.
h. A description of any adverse environmental, health or social
effects that occurred due to sludge disposal.
1. A report of any action not in conformance with the approved plan.
B-12
-------
Part III. Page 1
HPDES Permit No. WI-0020796-2
PART III. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Due
a. Submit Facilities Plan - July 1. 1979
b. Submit Plans and Specifications • July 1, 1980
c. Award Construction Contracts - February 1, 1981
d. Construction Progress Report - August 31, 1981
e. Complete Construction of an Upgraded Wastewater
Treatment Facility - June 30, 1982
The above reports shall be submitted to:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WPDES Permits - Municipal
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
B-13
-------
Part IV. Page 1 of 2
WPDES Permit No. WI-
PART IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Noncompllance Notification
If for any reason the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to
comply with any condition specified 1n this permit or should any unusual or
extraordinary discharge of wastes occur from the facilities permitted
herein, the permittee shall within five days of noncompllance occurrence
notify the Department of Natural Resources, Compliance Section, Box 7921,
Madison, Wisconsin 53707, providing the following Information:
a. Cause for noncompllance.
b. Expected duration of noncompllance period.
c. Steps taken by permittee to regain compliance with permit
conditions.
d. Steps taken to prevent recurrence of the condition of
noncompllance.
2. Change 1n Discharge
The permittee shall notify this Department 1n advance of:
a. Any facility modification, addition and/or expansion that
Increases the plant capacity.
b. Any anticipated change 1n the facility discharge, Including
any new or changed significant Industrial discharges or any significant
changes 1n the quantity or quality of existing Industrial discharges as
required under Section 147.14, Wisconsin Statutes.
c. Any maintenance of the treatment facility which could result 1n
degradation of effluent quality.
Where necessary, the permit will be modified or reissued to reflect changes
1n discharge, Including any necessary effluent limitations for any pollutants
not Identified or limited herein. In no case are any new connections,
operational changes, Increased flows, or significant changes 1n Influent
quality permitted that will cause violation of the effluent limits specified
herein.
3. Change of Owner
In the event of transfer of control of operation of a wastewater treatment
facility, the prospective owner must file a Statement of Acceptance with this
Department. This "Statement" shall Indicate that the new owner accepts the
terms, conditions and liabilities of the present permit and desires that the
existing permit be transferred. At this time the new owner shall also state
whether there will be any changes 1n operation due to transfer of ownership
which will cause a change 1n the discharge.
B-14
-------
Page 2 of 2
4. Penalt Modification
Afttr notice and opportunity for a hearing as provided 1n Section 147.03,
Wisconsin Statutes, this pemlt My be modified, suspended, or revoked In
whole or 1n part during Its term for cause Including, but not limited to,
the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit.
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts.
c. A change 1n any condition that requires either a temporary or
permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge.
B-15
-------
Part V. Page 1 of 4
WPDES Permit No. MI-
PART V. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Facility Operation and Quality Control
All waste collection, control, treatment and disposal facilities shall be
operated In a manner consistent with the following:
a. The municipal wastewater treatment facility must be under the
supervision of a state certified operator as required by Chapter 114
of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
b. At all times, all facilities shall be operated as efficiently as
possible and 1n a manner which will minimize upsets and discharges
of excessive pollutants.
2. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse Impact
on waters of the state resulting from noncompllance with any effluent
limitations specified 1n this permit, Including such special or additional
monitoring as may be required by the Department or may be necessary to deter-
mine the nature and Impact of the noncomplylng discharge.
3. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow authorized representatives of the Department of
Natural Resources, and the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized representatives, upon the presentation
of credentials:
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source
1s located or 1n which any records are required to be kept under the
terms and conditions of this permit; and
b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; to Inspect
any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required 1n this permit;
and to sample any wastewaters.
4. Records Retention
All records and Information resulting from the monitoring activities required
by this permit, Including all records of analyses performed and calibration
and maintenance of Instrumentation and recordings from continuous monitoring
Instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer
1f requested by the Department of Natural Resources.
B-16
-------
Part V. Page 2 of
5. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this
permit, the permittee shall record the following Information:
a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
b. The dates the analyses were performed;
c. The person(s) who performed the analyses;
d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
e. The results of all required analyses.
6. C1v1l and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (General Condition
17 & 18) and "Power Failures" (General Conditions 16), nothing 1n this permit
shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties
or liabilities under Section 147.21, Wisconsin Statutes, Section 311 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1321) or any other
applicable state law or regulation.
7. Property Rights
The Issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights 1n either
real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does 1t authorize
any injury to private property or any Invasion of personal rights, nor any
Infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations.
8. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and 1f any provision of this
permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance,
1s held Invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and
the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
9. Construction of Onshore or Offshore Structures
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or
offshore physical structure of facilities or the undertaking of any work 1n
any navigable waters.
10. Confidential Information
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 147.08(2)(c),
Wisconsin Statutes, all monitoring reports required by this permit shall be
available for public inspection at the headquarters of U.S. EPA Region V and
the Department of Natural Resources.
11. False Statements and Data
Knowingly making any false statement on any report or other document required
by this permit or knowingly rendering any monitoring device or method Inaccurate,
may result in the imposition of criminal penalties in accordance with the
provisions of Section 147.21, Wisconsin Statutes.
B-17
-------
Part V. Page 3 of 4
12. Prohibited Wastes
Under no circumstances shall the Introduction of wastes prohibited by
NR 211.10, Wisconsin Administrative Code, be allowed Into the waste
treatment system. Prohibited wastes Include those:
a. Which create a fire or explosion hazard 1n the treatment works,
b. Which will cause corrosive structural damage to the treatment
works,
c. Solid or viscous substances 1n amounts which cause obstructions
to the flow 1n sewers or Interference with the proper operation of
the treatment works,
d. Wastewaters at a flow rate or pollutant loading which are excessive
over relatively short time periods so as to cause a loss of treatment
efficiency, or
e. Changes In discharge volume or composition from contributing
Industries which overload the treatment works or cause a loss of
treatment efficiency.
13. Pretreatment
The permittee shall require any Industrial user of the permitted facility to
meet pretreatment standards established pursuant to Section 147.07(2),
Wisconsin Statutes, and to provide records, reports, and/or Information
related to compliance with such pretreatment standards.
14. Effluent Limit Modification
Pollutants attributable to Significant Industrial Dischargers may be present
1n the permittee's discharge. At such time as sufficient Information becomes
available to establish limitations for such pollutants, and after notice and
opportunity for public hearings as provided 1n Chapter NR 3, Wisconsin
Administrative Code, this permit may be revised to specify effluent limitations
for any or all of such other pollutants.
15. Toxic Pollutants
Nothing 1n this permit shall be construed to authorize the discharge of
any toxic pollutant or combination of pollutants 1n amounts or concentra-
tions which exceed any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition
promulgated under Section 147.07(1). If the promulgated toxic effluent
standard or prohibition under Section 147.07(1) for a pollutant present 1n
the discharge 1s more stringent than any pollutant limitation 1n this permit,
this permit shall be modified or revised 1n accordance with the toxic
effluent standard or prohibition.
16. Power Failures
The permittee 1s responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to prevent
the discharge of untreated or Inadequately treated wastes during electrical
power failure either by means of alternate power sources, standby generators
or retention of Inadequately treated effluent.
B-18
-------
Part V. Paqe 4 of 4
17. Unscheduled Bypassing
The unscheduled diversion or unscheduled bypass of any wastewater at the
treatment works or collection system 1s prohibited except (1) an Inadvertent
bypass resulting from equipment damage or temporary power Interruption, or
(11) an unavoidable bypass necessary to prevent loss of life or severe
property damage, or (111) a bypass of excessive storm drainage or runoff
which would damage any facilities necessary for compliance with the effluent
limitations and prohibitions of this permit. In the event of an unscheduled
bypass, the permittee shall Immediately notify the Department District Office
by telephone of such occurrence. In addition, the permittee shall notify the
Department of Natural Resources, WPDES Permit Section 1n writing of each such
unscheduled diversion or unscheduled bypass by letter within 72 hours.
18. Scheduled Bypassing
Bypassing of wastewater 1n order to accomplish maintenance or construction
activities 1s prohibited unless specifically authorized 1n writing by the
Department. Under certain conditions, 1t may be necessary to bypass waste-
water In order to accomplish such maintenance or construction activities.
When such conditions exist, the permittee shall request permission not less
than 60 days prior to the proposed date of scheduled bypassing. The request
shall Include justification for the bypassing and an evaluation of alterna-
tives for minimizing the volume of the bypass. Based upon the Information
presented, the Department may deny the request, approve 1t, or approve 1t
with conditions. If the Department determines that the proposal 1s of
significant public Interest, the Department may circulate the request for
public comment.
B-19
-------
EXHIBIT B-2
Permit to Discharge under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
for the City of
Taylors Falls, Minnesota
B-20
-------
Permi t NorW C f\ 768
•»
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE AND CONSTRUCT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
AND STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq;. hereinafter the "Act"), Minnesota Statutes
Chapters 115 and 116 as amended and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Regulation
WPC 36 (hereinafter Agency Regulation WPC 36)
CITY OF TAYLORS FALLS
is authorized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to construct wastewater
treatment facilities and/or to discharge from the municipal wastewater treatment
facility located in the NW % of the SW % of Section 30, T 34 N, St. Croix Falls
Township, R 18 W, Chisago County, and from the bypass point listed herein
to receiving water named the St. Croix River
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit is a reissuance of an existing permit which has an expiration
date of midnight, June 30, 1977. This reissued permit shall become effective
on the date of issuance by the Director and will supersede the existing permit
upon issuance.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
June 30, 1984. The Permittee is not authorized to discharge after the
above date of expiration. In order to receive authorization to discharge be-
yond the above date of expiration, the Permittee shall submit such information and
forms as are required by the Agency no later than 180 days prior to the above date
of expiration pursuant to Agency Regulation WPC 36.
Date: K!OV \ 3 jqyq ^ Barry/C. Schade
y Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
For Terry Hoffman
Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
B-21
P-R(Rev. 10/78) 325 768
-------
Page 2 of20
Permit No: MN 0021>Dw/'
PART I
A. TREATMENT FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The application and plans indicate that the project or existing treatment
system consists of:
A grit chamber, primary sedimentation tank, pumping station, dosing siphon
trickling filter, resettling tank, chlorination chamber, sludge digester,
and sludge drying bed.
The facility has a continuous discharge (Discharge 001) to the St. Croix
River and is designed to treat an average flow of up to 75,000 gallons
per day with a strength as measured by the 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
of 250 milligrams per liter.
The facilities are further described in plans and specifications on file
with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (X-3545 dated December 8, 1939)
and in an engineering report by the firm of Bannister Engineering Company.
Treatment facility bypass Discharge Serial No. 001-A has infrequent un-
treated discharges to the outfall sewer.
(Rev.6/75) B~22
-------
PART i
Page 3 of 20
Permit No: MN 0021768
B.I. INTERIM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this Permit and lasting until attainment of final
effluent limitations, according to the Schedule of Compliance shown in PART I, F., the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number (s) 001.
Such discharge shall be limited by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Continuous Discharge
Thirty Consecutive
Pay Average Notes
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 50 mg/1 (l)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30 mg/1 (1)
ro
u>
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 200 MPN/100 ml (2)
The pH shall not be less than 6.5 nor greater than 8.5. These upper and lower limitations are not /
subject to averaging and shall la met at all times.
/ '/O ?
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. /">*
.' //fo
The discharge shall not contain oil or other substances in amounts sufficient to create a visible coloi*
film on the surface of the receiving waters. '
Notes: (1) - Arithmetic Mean (2) - Geometric Mean
140482
-------
OJ
S3
Page 4 of 20
Permit No: MN 0021768
B.2. FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
The effluent limitations as described 1n PART I, B.I. shall be construed as Interim requirements for a
limited duration. Upon termination or expiration of these interim effluent limitations and upon completion
of necessary modifications, alterations and/or construction, and lasting until June 30, 1984
the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 001.
Such discharge shall be limited by the Permittee as specified below:
This permit is subject to amendment to require compliance with the effluent limitations stated below
where changed circumstances or other good cause warrants such action.
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Turbidity
Continuous Discharge
Seven
Consecutive
Day Average
45 mg/1
45 mg/1
400 MPN/100 ml
NA
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Controlled Discharge
Thirty
Consecutive
Day Average
25 mg/1
30 mg/1
200 MPN/100 ml
25 NTU
*Average During
Discharge Period
25
30
200
25
mg/1
mg/1
MPN/100 ml
NTU
Notes
(D(3)(4)
(D(3)(4)
(2)
(1)
The pH shall not be less than 6.5 nor greater than 8.5. These upper and lower limitations are not
averaging and shall be met at all times.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam 1n other than trace amounts.
The discharge shall not contain oil or other substances in amounts sufficient to create a visible
on the surface of the receiving waters.
*In addition, the seven consecutive day average shall not exceed 45 mg/1 BODs, 45 mg/1 TSS, and 400 MPN/100 ml
Fecal Coliform Bacteria.
Notes: (1) - Arithmetic Mean; (2) - Geometric Mean; (3) - For the thirty consecutive day average, the
effluent 0005 and TSS concentrations for a continuous discharge, and the effluent BODs concentration for
a controlled discharge, shall not exceed the stated values or 15% of the arithmetic mean of the values
for influent samples collected at approximately the same time during the same period (most restrictive
values). (4) - Weight limitations shall be determined following approval of the Facilities Plan.
P-(rev 1/79) 124890
-------
Page:5.^o>/20
Permit No: MN 0021768
B.3. BYPASS/OVERFLOW AUTHORIZATION
In accordance with PART II, A.l.b. and A.2., of this permit, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from bypass/overflow points,
outfall(s) serial number(s) 001-A.
The Permittee shall, in accordance with PART II, A.I., of this
permit, report in the remarks section of the Discharge Monitoring
Report Form, each bypass or overflow event, its duration and
estimated volume.
In accordance with the schedule as contained in the Schedule of
Compliance shown in PART I, F. of this permit, the Permittee may be
required to eliminate or further control the bypass/overflow(s).
(2/79) 542521 B-25
-------
PA
Page
^w~
Permit No: MN 0021768
C. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 301 (i)(l) Time Extension
In accordance with Section 301 (i)(l) of the Act, it has been
demonstrated that an extension to achieve compliance with
limitations under section 301 (b)(l)(B) or 301 (b)(l)(C)
should be granted. Therefore, the Agency hereby extends the
Schedule for achieving compliance with final effluent limitations,
2. State Certification
The Agency certifies that Federal funding allotted to the
State will be made available for obligation under Section 201
of the Act in a timely manner to ensure compliance by the
Permittee by July 1, 1983. This certification is dependent on
the allocation of sufficient Federal funds to the State.
If it is subsequently determined that Federal funding will
not be available in time to ensure compliance by the Permittee
by July 1, 1983, the time extension shall be terminated in
accordance with Minnesota Regulation WPC 36(s).
3. Construction Grant Applications
With regard to all future construction grant applications, the
Permittee shall comply with the requirements of Section 201
(b) through (g) of the Act.
4. Funding Progress Report
By December 31 of each year, the Permittee shall submit to the
Director (Attn: Compliance and Enforcement Section) a report
as to its progress in obtaining Federal funding.
B-26
P-(Rev. 11/78) 522151
-------
PART- I
Permit No: ,MN^)021768
D. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. Monitoring
a. Representative Sampling
Samples shall be taken at a point representative of the
discharge. Any monitoring measurements taken as required
herein shall be representative of the volume and nature
of the monitored discharge.
b. Quality Assurance
In order to insure the validity of analytical data, the
Permittee shall submit an outline of the quality assurance
program employed by the laboratory performing the analyses.
Such outline shall be contained in the monitoring plan
required by PART I, D.2.
c. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform
to regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 304 (g) of
the Act, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 115.03, Subd. 1 (e)
(7) as amended.
The Permittee shall periodically calibrate and perform
maintenance on all monitoring and analytical instrumentation
used to monitor pollutants discharged under this permit, at
intervals to insure accuracy of measurements. The Permittee
shall maintain written records of all such calibrations and
maintenance.
d. Recording of Results
For each measurement taken or sample collected pursuant to
the requirements of this permit, the Permittee shall record
the following information, except for data in items 1) and 4)
below which is identified in the monitoring plan required by
PART I, D.2.
1) the exact pla.ce, date, and time of sampling;
2) the dates the analyses were performed;
3) the person who performed the analyses;
4) the analytical techniques, procedures or
methods used; and
5) the results of such analyses.
e. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant designated herein more
frequently than required by this permit, or as otherwise
directed by the Agency or Director, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting
of values submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report Form.
Any increased monitoring frequency shall also be indicated on
such designated form.
B-27
P(Rev. 11/78) 4520
-------
PART
Page 8.or
Permit No:MN 0021768
f. Recording and Records Retention
All sampling and analytical records required by this
permit shall be retained by the Permittee for a minimum
of three (3) years. The Permittee shall also retain all
original recordings from any continuous monitoring
instrumentation, and any calibration and maintenance
records, for a minimum of three (3) years. These re-
tention periods shall be automatically extended during
the course of any legal or administrative [ oceedings or
when so requested by the Regional Administrator, the
Agency, or the Director.
2. Monitoring Plan
The Permittee shall submit a monitoring plan or monitoring plan
amendments to the Director for approval within forty-five
(45) days after the date of issuance of this permit, unless
a previously submitted monitoring plan has not been rejected
by the MPCA and is being followed. New monitoring plans or
amendments to previous monitoring plans shall be submitted if
changes are to be made or if additional .or different monitoring
is required by this permit. The monitoring plan shall include
the items described in Agency Regulation WPC 36 (n)(2).
3. Reporting
a. The Permittee shall effectively monitor the operation and
efficiency of all treatment facilities and the quantity
and quality of the treated discharge. The Permittee
shall enter on the Agency Monthly Operation Report of
Wastewater Treatment Facility (MPCA Form 703 ) the
determinations as listed in PART I, D.4.
b. The reporting form shall be submitted to the Director on
a monthly basis, or as specified in PART I, C., at the
following address and shall be postmarked no later than
the 21st day following the month during which the monitoring
was completed:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Attn: Compliance and Enforcement Section
c. The Permittee shall report the results of the monitoring
in the units specified in this permit. The reports or
written statements shall be submitted even if no discharge
occurred during the reporting period. The report shall
include (a) a description of any modifications in the
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
B-28
P-R (Rev. 12/78) 138643
-------
PART I V.- A'
Page 9 of 20
Permit No: MN 0021768
(b) any substantial changes in operational procedures;
(c) any other significant activities which alter the
nature or frequency of the discharge; (dj any other
material factors affecting compliance with the conditions
of this permit and such information as the Agency or
Director may reasonably require of the Permittee pursuant
to Agency Regulation, WPC 36 (n) and Minnesota Statutes,
Chapters 115 and 116 as amended.
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308
of the Act, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.075, Subd. 2,
all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of.-this permit
shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the
Agency. Procedures for submitting such confidential material
shall be pursuant to Minnesota Regulation WPG 36 (j) (2). As
required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered
confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on any such
report, confidential or otherwise, is subject to the imposition
of criminal penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act
and Minnesota Statutes, Section 115.071 Subd. 2 (b).
B-29
-------
Qfe
PART I
Page 10 of
Permit No: MN 0021768
4. Monitoring Requirements for Class C Mechanical Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Serving Population Areas
Determination
Precipitation
Influent flow
Effluent fecal col i form
Effluent dissolved oxygen
Chlorine residual
Chlorine used
Influent settleable solids
Effluent settleable solids
Effluent pH
Influent BODc
Effluent BOD5
% BODs removal
Influent total suspended solids
Effluent total suspended solids
% Total suspended solids removal
of up through
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
700
Sample Type
Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
4 hour composi
4 hour composi
4 hour composi
4 hour composi
te
te
te
te
Notes
0)
(D(2)
0)(2)
0)(2)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Notes:
(1) Analysis shall be performed at the time of sampling.
(2) Excluding weekends and holidays.
(3) It is recommended that the analysis be performed at the time of
sampling; however, if this is not possible, a holding time of
up to six (6) hours is permissible between the time of sampling
and the time of analysis.
(4) The four (4) hour composite shall be collected during the time
period which will provide the most representative sample. Unless a
more representative time interval can be established, this composite
shall be collected between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M.
B-30
P-(Rev. 3/78) 3689
-------
PARTI
Page 11 of
Permit No: MN 0021768
E. DEFINITIONS
1. The "Agency" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as
constituted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.02, Subd. 1.
2. The "Director" means the Executive Director of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.03 as
amended.
3. The "Regional Administrator" means the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Regional Administrator for the region in which Minnesota 1s
located (now Region V).
4. The "Act*^ means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.
5. A "Composite" sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as (1)
a series of grab samples collected at least once per hour at equally
spaced time intervals and proportioned according to flow, or (2) grab
samples of equal volume collected at equally spaced intervals of
wastewater volume and collected not less than once per hour.
6. The thirty (30) consecutive day average, other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is defined as the arithmetic mean of the samples collected
in a period of thirty (30) consecutive days. The thirty (30) consecutive
day average for fecal coliform bacteria is defined as the geometric mean
of samples collected in a period of thirty (30) consecutive days.
7. The seven (7) consecutive day average, other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is defined as the arithmetic mean of the samples collected
in a period of seven (7) consecutive days. The seven (7) consecutive
day average for fecal coliform bacteria is defined as the geometric
mean of samples collected in a period of seven (7) consecutive days.
8. The "Grant Agreement" means the formal EPA grant offer, as executed by
the Permittee, accepting an EPA construction grant, or the grant agree-
ment between the Permittee and the Agency 1n the case of the Independent
State Grant Program.
B-31
P-(Rev 3/77) 4438
-------
PART 'I
Permit No: MN 0021768
F. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The Permittee shall achieve compliance with the future final
effluent limitations and eliminate or control any bypass/over-
flow points that may exist by proceeding in accordance with the
following schedule:
a) Submit facilities plan (Step 1 Grant) not later than
April 30, 1980.
b) The Permittee shall submit a completed grant application for
a step 2 grant as soon as possible and not later than 150 days
of being notified by the Agency of the availability of funds,
or within any other reasonable time period specified by the
Agency.
c) Upon completion and approval of the Facilities Plan, this permit
will be modified in accordance with Minnesota Regulation WPC
36(s) to incorporate fixed date schedules for the Step 2 and
Step 3 grants.
d) The Permittee shall submit a report to the Director of the MPCA
(Attn: Compliance and Enforcement Section) within fourteen days
following each date in the schedule. The report shall indicate
compliance or noncompliance with the schedule, and in the case
of noncompliance, include the cause of noncompliance, any reme-
dial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the remain-
ing scheduled requirements.
2. The Permittee shall submit a report of progress on June 30 and
December 31, of each year, in addition to other reports required
by the above schedule.
3. The Permittee shall submit the necessary reports, plans and
specifications for the construction required by the compliance
schedule in this permit or contained in subsequent modifications
to this permit to the Director (Attn: Compliance and Enforcement
Section) for review and written approval in accordance with PART
II, A.9.
4. No construction shall begin until the Permittee has submitted
reports, plans, and specifications for the construction to the
Director (Attn: Compliance and Enforcement Section) and has
received written approval of the reports, plans, and specifi-
cations in accordance with PART II, A.9. of this permit.
(Rev. 5/79) 138610 B~32
-------
Page 13 of
v *••
Permit No:,
PART II
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Non-Compliance and Bypass Notification
If, for any reason, the Permittee exceeds any effluent limitation
specified in the permit, bypasses, or causes a diversion of wastewater
or unauthorized discharge in violation of this permit, the Permittee
shall notify the Director as follows:
a. Telephone Communication
Report Immediately to the Compliance and Enforcement Section
(612)296-7373 any bypass which may cause a nuisance or health
hazard and all unauthorized discharges, accidental or otherwise
of oil, toxic pollutants, or other hazardous waste. The Permittee
shall immediately recover as rapidly and thorouf'ly as possible
such discharged substance(s) and take such other action as may be
reasonable to minimize or abate pollution of the waters of the
State. This must be followed by a written explanation on the
discharge monitoring report.
b. Prior Approval
Bypassing which would result in the discharge of raw or inadequately
treated effluent is prohibited during routine maintenance procedures.
If, for any reason, a major treatment unit must be bypassed for
routine maintenance, and this bypass will result in a degradation
of the effluent, the Director (Attn: Operations Unit, (612)296-7207)
must be notified and grant approval prior to removing this unit from
service. In the case of emergency maintenance, the Director shall
be informed of the circumstances surrounding the need for emergency
maintenance and the action taken.
c. Written Report
Report on the Discharge Monitoring Report, any violation of daily
minimum, maximum, seven (7) day average, or thirty (30) day average
effluent limitation and any bypass that did not present a nuisance
or health hazard.
d. Written notification required above shall contain the following
information:
(1) A description of the discharge, approximate volume, and
cause of non-compliance or bypass.
(2) The period of non-compliance or bypass including exact dates
and times; or if not corrected, the anticipated time the non-
compliance is expected to continue; and steps taken to correct,
reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the non-complying
discharge.
B-33
P(Rev 11/78) 470994
-------
Permit No.'-.MN 0021768
2. Bypassing
The diversion or bypass of any discharge from the collection system or
treatment facility by the Permittee is prohibited, except: (1) where
unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property damage; or (2)
where excessive storm drainage or runoff would damage any facilities
necessary for compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit;
or (3) where emergency maintenance must be performed; or (4) where routine
maintenance must be performed on a major treatment unit and prior
approval has been received from the Director. Provision (3) does not
authorize discharges caused by a failure to perform routine or preventive
maintenance or by a failure to maintain system reliability in accordance
with PART II, A.8.
3. Adverse Impact
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse
impact to waters of the State resulting from:
a. All unauthorized discharges accidental or otherwise, of oil, toxic
pollutants or other hazardous substances;
b. Effluent limitation violations or;
c. A bypass.
4. Change in Discharge
a. All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more-
frequently than, or at a level in excess of, that identified and
authorized by this permit shall constitute a violation of the terms
and conditions of this permit. Such a violation may result in the
imposition of civil or criminal penalties as provided for in Section
309 of the Act and Minnesota Statutes Section 115.071.
b. Facility modifications, additions, and/or expansions that increase
the plant capacity shall be reported to the Director, (Attn: Compliance
and Enforcement Section) and this permit then modified or reissued to
reflect such changes.
c. Any anticipated change in the facility discharge, including any new
significant industrial discharge or significant change in the
quality of existing industrial discharges to the treatment system
that may result in a new or increased discharge of pollutants shall
be reported to the Director, (Attn: Compliance and Enforcement
Section). Modification to the permit may then be made to reflect
any necessary change in permit conditions, including any necessary
effluent limitations for any pollutant not identified and limited
herein.
B-34
P(Rev 11/78) 868406
-------
PART I'
Permit No:^ MN 0021768
d. In no case are any new connections, increased flows, or significant
changes in influent quality permitted that will cause violation of
the effluent limitations specified herein.
5. Sewer Extensions
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 115.07 Subd. 3, application
must be made, plans and specifications submitted, and a permit obtained
for any addition to or extension of a sanitary sewer prior to the commence-
ment of construction.
6. Facilities Operation and Quality Control
All waste collection, control, treatment, and disposal facilities shall
be operated in a manner consistent with the following:
a. Maintenance of the treatment facility that results in degradation
of effluent quality shall be scheduled as much as possible during
non-critical water quality periods and shall be carried out in a
manner approved by the Director.
b. The Director may require the Permittee to submit a maintenance plan
to eliminate degradation of the effluent. The Permittee shall
operate the disposal system in accordance with this plan as approved
by the Director.
c. The Permittee shall provide an adequate operating staff which is
duly qualified under Minnesota Regulations WWOB 1, if applicable
(as determined by the Director pursuant to Agency Regulation WPC
36 (1) (6) (ee), to carry out the operation, maintenance and
testing functions required to insure compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
d. The Permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order
and operate as efficiently as possible all facilities or systems
of control installed or used to achieve compliance with the terms
and conditions of this permit.
e. Necessary in-plant control tests shall be conducted at a frequency
adequate to ensure continuous efficient operation of the treatment
facility.
P(Rev 11/78) 3831
-------
PART II
Page 16 of 20'
Permit No: MN 0021768
7. Removed Substancer
The Permittee shall dispose of solids, sludges, or other pollutants
removed from or resulting from treatment or control of wastewaters in
a manner acceptable to the Agency. When requested by the Director,
the Permittee shall submit for approval an acceptable plan for such
disposal and shall be responsible for obtaining Agency approval and/or
permit of such disposal plans.
8. System Reliability
The Permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes
at all times. The Permittee is responsible for insuring system
reliability by means of alternate power sources, back up systems,
storage of inadequately treated effluent, or other appropriate
methods of maintaining system reliability.
9. Construction
This permit only authorizes the construction of treatment works to
attain compliance with the limitations and conditions of this permit,
after plans and specifications for treatment facilities have been
submitted and approved in writing by the Director prior to the start
of any construction.
B-36
P(Rev 11/78) 5791
-------
10
Permit NoT MN 0021768
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Prohibited Wastes
Under no circumstances shall the Permittee allow the introduction of wastes
prohibited by regulations promulqated pursuant to Section 307 of the Act or
regulations adopted by the Agency (Rules and Regulations WPC 36) into the
sewer collection system including, but not limited to the following:
a. Those which create a fire or explosion hazard in the disposal
system,
b. Which will cause corrosive structural damage to the disposal system,
c. Solids or viscous substances in amounts which cause obstructions to
the flow in sewers or interference with the proper operation of the
treatment works,
d. Wastewaters at a flow rate and/or pollutant discharge rate which is
excessive over relatively short time periods so as to cause a loss
of treatment efficiency.
e. New wastes or increased volumes or quantities of wastes from
contributing industries in such volumes or quantities as to over-
load the treatment facility or cause a loss of treatment efficiency.
2. Cooling Water
a. Recirculation of non-contact coolinn water by contributors to the
collection system shall be encouraged in order to conserve surface
and ground water supplies and to reduce the hydraulic load on the
collection and treatment system of municipal wastewater treatment
facilities receiving these discharges.
b. Consistent with federal construction grant regulations and the
intent of the Act, existing discharges of non-contact cooling
waters to municipal sanitary sewer systems shall be eliminated,
where such elimination is cost effective, where such discharges
adversely impact the municipal treatment facilities, or where an
infiltration/inflow analysis and sewer system evaluation survey
indicates the need for such removal, provided such discharges are
in compliance with all applicable Agency effluent quality standards,
or which, through reasonable measures, can be brought into such
compliance.
c. New discharges of non-contact cooling waters to municipal sanitary
sewer systems are prohibited, unless there are no cost-effective
alternatives, provided such discharges do not cause the discharge
from the facility to violate the effluent limitations contained in
this permit.
B-37
P-(Rev. 2/78) 4976
-------
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control
No permit may be assigned or transferred by the holder without the
approval of the Agency. In the event of any changes 1n control or
ownership of the facilities, a Request for Permit Transfer, signed
by both parties shall be sent to the Agency, Attn: Compliance and
Enforcement Section. Any succeeding owner or controller shall also
comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be
modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part during its term
for cause including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to
disclose fully all relevant facts;
c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary
or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized
discharge; or
d. Agency Regulation WPC 36 (s) (1).
5. Toxic'Pollutants
Notwithstanding PART II,B.4. above, if a toxic effluent standard or
prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such
effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307
(a) of the Act or Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115 and 116 as amended,
for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and such
standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such
pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in
accordance with the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and in
accordance with applicable laws and regulation.
6. Right of Entry
The Permittee shall, pursuant to Section 308 of the Act and Minnesota
Statutes 115.04, allow the Director of the Agency, the Regional
Administrator, and their authorized representatives, upon presentation
of credentials:
a. to enter upon the Permittee's premises where a disposal system
or other point source or portion thereof is located for the
purpose of obtaining information, examination of records,
conducting surveys, or investigations;
b. to examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda
pertaining to the installation, maintenance, or operation of the
discharge, including but not limited to, monitoring data of the
disposal system or point source or records required to be kept
under the terms and conditions of this permit;
B-38
P-(Rev 3/77) 4454
-------
PART II
Permi NoMN 0021768
c. to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring procedures
required in this permit; and
d. to sample any discharge of pollutants.
7. Civil and Criminal Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from
.civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance with the terms and
conditions provided herein.
8. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution
of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject
to under Section 311 of the Act and Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115
and 116 as amended.
9. Minnesota Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution
of any legal or administrative proceedings or relieve the Permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for violation of
effluent and water quality limitations not included in this permit.
10. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor
does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of
personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or Local laws
or regulations.
11. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provisions
of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit
to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision
to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not
be affected thereby.
B-39
-------
Page
Permit No:,. Rtf 0021768
PART III
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ON INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS
Requirements for Effluent Limitations on Pollutants Attributable to Industrial
Users.
By regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Act, or regulations
adopted by the Agency pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 115.03, Subd. 1 (e) (6)
the Permittee shall, with respect to all major contributing industries impose
such pre-treatment requirements on such industrial users as may be necessary to
assure compliance by the Permittee with all applicable effluent limitations set
forth in this Permit, with more restrictive pretreatment requirements as
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 307
(b) of the Act, or as otherwise required by the Director. A major contributing
industry is one that: (a) has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average work
day; (b) has a flow greater than five percent of the flow carried by the
municipal system receiving the waste; (c) has in its waste a toxic pollutant,
in toxic amounts, as defined in standards issued under Section 307(a) ;of the
Act; or (d) has significant impact, either individually or in combination with
other contributing industries, on the treatment works or the quality of its
effluent.
Immediately following the issuance of this Permit, the Permittee shall establish
and implement a procedure to obtain from all major industrial contributors,
specific information on the quality and quantity of effluents introduced by
such industrial contributors and their impact on the overall municipal discharge.
This information shall be reported to the Director (Attn: Compliance and
Enforcement Section) on a quarterly basis, with reports for the previous three
months, postmarked no later than the 21st day of January, April, July, and
October.
This permit may be modified in accordance with WPC 36(s) to incorporate a com-
pliance schedule for the Permittee to develop a Pretreatment Program in accordance
with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 403 (40 CFR 403). In
addition, prior to allowing a significant industrial contributor to tie into the
municipal sewer system, the Permittee shall develop an approved Pretreatment
Program in accordance with 40 CFR 403.
B-40
P-(Rev. 11/78) 1712
-------
APPENDIX C
Geology and Soils
-------
MVOCU, INC
[" J CAMBRIAN SYSTEM'
€f FRANCONIA SANDSTONE
IRONTON AND GALESVILLE
FORMATION (SANDSTONE)
€*C EAU CLAIRE SANDSTONE
€*t UNDIFFERENTIATED SANDSTONES
€ig
__ INFERRED FAULT
u UPTHROWN SIDE
D DOWNTHROWN SIDE
INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT
| \ PRECAMBRIAN
p€b PRECAMBRIAN BASALT
Figure C-l. Character of the bedrock surface in the St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin-Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-l
-------
PEASLfE,
LAK&
WAPOMA. INC
WM[ THICKNESS LESS THAN 5 FEET
Figure C-2. Thickness of glacial deposits in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-2
-------
fc-yi'JI OUTWASH PLAINS
LV.1 END MORAINE
Eil&3 UNDIFFERENTIATED GLACIAL DRIFT
Figure C-3. Character of glacial deposits in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-3
-------
EXHIBIT C-l
Soils of the Project Area
The soils of the project area generally are coarse textured and well-
drained on the Wisconsin side and medium textured and poorly-drained on the
Minnesota side. The general soils associations within the project area are
presented in Figure 4-2. These associations may consist of soils that are
very different from each other but that occur together. They may include
only half of the soils indicated in the name of the association.
Unamia-Cromwell-Menahga Association
The predominant soil associations present in the Wisconsin section of
the project area is the Onamia-Cromwell-Menahga. It is described as nearly
level to steep, well-drained to excessively-drained, loamy and sandy soils
over glacial outwash sand and gravel. It occurs on terraces and terraced
slopes in the project area. The Onamia series is the most prominent series
in the association, and is a well-drained, nearly level to moderately
steep, loamy soil underlain by sand and gravel at depths of 20 inches to 40
inches. Permeability in the surface soil (upper 30 inches) is moderate
(0.6 inches to 2.0 inches per hour) and in the substratum is very rapid
(greater than 20 inches per hour). The Cromwell series is a somewhat
excessively-drained, nearly level to moderately steep soil underlain by
sand and gravel at a depth of 15 inches to 30 inches. Permeability is
moderately rapid (0.2 inches to 6.0 inches per hour) in the surface soil
(upper 15 inches depth) and rapid (6.0 inches to 20.0 inches per hour) in
the substratum. The Menahga series consists of excessively-drained, gently
sloping to steep, sandy soils. Permeability of the profile is rapid.
Burk.hardt-Dak.ota Association
The next most extensive association present in the Wisconsin section
of the project area is the Burkhardt-Dakota. It is characterized as nearly
level to sloping, well-drained and somewhat excessively-drained, loamy soil
over glacial outwash sand and gravel. This association occurs southwest of
Dresser, along CTH S south of the Wisconsin Interstate State Park., and at
the northeast corner of the St. Croix Falls corporate boundary. The Burk-
hardt series consists of well-drained, nearly level, sandy soils underlain
C-4
-------
by gravel at depths of 10 inches to 20 inches. The permeability of the
surface soil and the substratum is rapid. The Dakota complex is composed
of well-drained, nearly level to gently sloping loamy soils underlain by
glacial outwash sand and gravel at depths of 24 inches to 40 inches. The
surface soil permeability is moderate, while the substratum permeability is
rapid.
Gushing Association
The Gushing association occurs to the south of St. Croix Falls. It
consists of gently sloping to steep, well-drained loamy soil over loam
glacial till. The Gushing series soils are well-drained, gently sloping to
steep loamy soils underlain by loam glacial till at depths of 24 inches to
50 inches. The permeability of the surface material (upper 40 inches) is
moderate and the permeability of the underlying material is moderately slow
(0.2 inches to 0.6 inches per hour).
Amery-Santiago Association
The Amery-Santiago association occurs on the top of the hill south of
St. Croix Falls (Section 6) and along the east boundary of the project
area. The soils are gently sloping to steep, well-drained, loamy-textured
soils over sandy loam glacial till. The Amery series consists of deep
(upper 30 inches to 50 inches), well-drained, gently sloping to steep loamy
soils. These soils overlie glacial till that consists of fine sandy loam,
sandy loam, or loamy sand. The permeability of the surface material is
moderate to moderately rapid, and the permeability of the underlying
material is moderately rapid.
The Santiago series consists of well-drained, gently sloping to mod-
erately steep, loamy soils underlain by sandy loam glacial till. The
permeability throughout the profile is moderate.
Hayden-tilaff ton Association
The principal soil association in the eastern part of the Minnesota
section of the project area is the Hayden-Bluffton. This association is
G-5
-------
characterized by nearly level to very steep, very poorly to well-drained,
loamy soils formed in loam glacial till. The Hayden series consists of
well-drained, gently sloping to steeply sloping, loamy soils underlain by
loam glacial till. Permeability is moderate throughout the profile. The
Bluffton series consists of poorly and very poorly-drained, nearly level
loamy soils. They are underlain by loam to sandy clay loam glacial till.
The permeability of the surface material (upper 22 inches) is moderately
slow to moderately rapid, and the underlying glacial till is moderately
slow.
Nessel-Bluffton Association
The Nessel-Bluffton association extant in the western, Minnesota
section of the project area are nearly level to gently sloping, very poorly
to moderately well-drained, loamy soils formed in loam glacial till. The
Nessel series consists of moderately well-drained, nearly level to gently
sloping, loamy soils underlain by loam glacial till on ground moraines.
Permeability of these soils is moderate throughout the entire profile. The
Bluffton series was described in the discussion of the Hayden-Bluffton
association.
Special Limitations
Two areas within the project area are mapped as "shallow to bedrock"
(Figure 4-2). These areas include the bluff along the St. Croix River
south of Taylors Falls, (Sections 25, 35 and 36) and the hill on the nor-
thern boundary of the project area (Section 24). These areas are charac-
terized by numerous bedrock exposures and shallow bedrock depths. Slopes
are nearly level to very steep. The texture of the soil material is highly
variable.
C-6
-------
»»POH«, INC
EH GOOD
[ J MARGINAL
| | UNSUITED
NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Figure C-4. Agricultural land classes in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-7
-------
r.-JJJvLl i
\ _] PERMANENTLY 0-3 FEET
Effjj SEASONALLY 1-3 FEET
H SEASONALLY 3-5 FEET
I I QREATER THAN 5 FEET
NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Figure C-5. Depth to water table in the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors
Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-8
-------
"USSR
Figure C-6. Generalized water table map for the St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-
Taylors Falls, Minnesota, project area.
C-9
-------
**«•», INC
I I 0-6%
^>f;;;VJ 12-20%
E':-;-;j GREATER THAN 20%
NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Figure C-7. Slop* gradients in th« St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin-Taylors
Falls, Minn«sota, project area.
C-10
-------
APPENDIX D
Water Quality
-------
Table D-l. Wisconsin water quality standards for the St. Croix River down-
stream from the northern boundary of Polk County.
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Limit
5 mg/1
1) There shall not be any changes
which adversely affect
aquatic life
2) Natural daily and seasonal
fluctuations shall be main-
tained
3) Maximum rise at the edge of
the mixing zone above the
existing natural temperature
shall not exceed-12. 7°C (5°F) .
4) Shall not exceed 71° (89°F) for
warmwater fish
PH
Shall be within the range 6.0 to
9.0 with no change greater than
0.5 units outside the estimated
natural seasonal maximum and
minimum
Fecal coliform
The membrane filter count shall
not exceed 200 per 100 ml as a
geometric mean based on not less
than 5 samples per month, nor
exceed 400 per 100 ml in more than
10% of all samples during any
month
Dissolved solids
Not to exceed 500 mg/1 as a
monthly average value, nor exceed
750 mg/1 at any time at sites
where water is withdrawn for
treatment and distribution as a
potable water
D-l
-------
Table D-2. Minnesota water quality standards for the St. Croix River down-
stream from the dam located in Taylors Falls (MPCA 1978a).
Parameter
Fecal coliform
Turbidity
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia as nitrogen
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Oil
PH
Phenols
Color value
Threshold odor number
Methylene blue active substance
Arsenic
Chlorides
Carbon chloroform extract
Limij:
200 MPN/100 ml
25 NTU
Not less than 6 rag/1 from 1 April
through 31 May, and not less than
5 mg/1 at other times
Shall not exceed a rise of -12.7°C (5°F)
above natural levels, based on
monthly average of the maximum
daily temperature or in any case
the daily average temperature shall
not exceed 68 C (86°F)
1 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 rag/1 or not greater than
0.10 the 96-hour mean tolerance
limit (TLM) value
0.01 mg/1
0.5 rag/1
Within the range of 6.5 to 8.5
units
0.001 mg/1 and none that could
impart odor or taste to freshwater
edible products such as crayfish,
clams, prawns and like creatures
15 units
3 units
0.5 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
100 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
D-2
-------
Table D-2. Minnesota water quality standards (continued).
Parameter
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Nitrates
Sulfates
Total dissolved solids
Zinc
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Radioactive material
Hardness
Bicarbonates
Boron
Specific conductance
Total dissolved salts
Limit
1.5 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
45 mg/1
250 mg/1 or 10 mg/1 applicable to
waters used for production of wild
rice during periods when the rice
may be susceptible to damage by
high sulfate levels
500 rag/1
5 mg/1
1 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
Not to exceed the lowest concen-
tration permitted to be discharged
to an uncontrolled environment as
prescribed by the appropriate
authority having control over their
use
250 mg/1
5 meq/1
0.5 mg/1
1,000 umhos/cm
700 mg/1
D-3
-------
Table D-2. Minnesota water quality standards (concluded).
Parameters
Sodium
Total salinity
Hydrogen sulfide
Unspecified toxic substances
Limit
60% of total cations as meq/1
1,000 mg/1
0.02 mg/1
None at levels harmful either
directly or indirectly
D-4
-------
Table D-3. Water quality standards for Dry Creek (MPCA 1978a).
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia as nitrogen
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Oil
pH
Phenols
Turbidity
Radioactive materials
Biocarbonates
Boron
Specific conductance
Total dissolved salts
Limit
Not less than 6 mg/1 from 1 April
through 31 May, and not less than
5 mg/1 at other times
-12.7°C (5°F) above natural based on monthly
average of the maximum daily tempera-
ture except in no case shall it exceed
the daily average temperature of 68°C (86°F)
1 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 or not greater than
0.1 of the 96-hour mean tolerance limit
(TLM) value
0.02 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
Within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 units
0.01 mg/1 and none that could im-
part odor or taste to fish flesh or
other freshwater edible products such
as crayfish, clams, prawns and like
creatures. Where it seems probable
that a discharge may result in tainting
of edible aquatic products, bioassays
and taste panels will be required to
determine whether tainting is likely
or present
25 NTU
Not to exceed the lowest concentra-
tion permitted to be discharged to an
uncontrolled environment as prescribed
by the appropriate authority having
control over their use
5 meq/1
0.5 mg/1
1,000 umhos/cm
700 mg/1
D-5
-------
Table D-3. Water quality standards for Dry Creek (concluded).
Parameter
Sodium
Fecal colifonn organisms
Sulfates
Total salinity
Unspecified toxic substances
Chlorides
Hardness
Hydrogen sulfide
Limit
60% of total cations as meq/1
200 MPN per 100 ml
10 mg/1 applicable to waters used for
production of wild rice during periods
when the rice may be susceptible to
damage by high sulfate levels
1,000 mg/1
None at levels harmful either directly
or indirectly
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
0.02 mg/1
D-6
-------
Table D-4. Water quality standards for Colby Lake and other Minnesota
intrastate waters not specifically classified (MPCA 1978a).
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Ammonia as nitrogen
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Oil
Phenols
Turbidity
Radioactive materials
Chlorides
Hardness
Biocarbonates
Boron
Limit
Not less than 6 mg/1 from 1 April
through 31 May and not less than
5 mg/1 at other times
-12.7°C (5°F) above natural in streams and
-14.7°C (3°F) above natural in lakes, based
on monthly average of the maximum
daily temperature, except in no case
shall it exceed the daily average
temperature of
68°C (86°F)
1 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 or not greater than 0.1
the 96-hour TLM value
0.02 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 and none that could impart
odor or taste to fish flesh or other
freshwater edible products such as
crayfish, clams, prawns and like
creatures. Where it seems probable
that a discharge may result in taint-
ing of edible aquatic products, bio-
assays and taste panels will be re-
quired to determine whether tainting
is likely or present
25 NTU
Not to exceed the lowest concen-
tration permitted to be discharged
to an uncontrolled environment as pre-
scribed by the appropriate authority
having control over their use
100 mg/1
250 mg/1
5 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
D-7
-------
Table D-4. Water quality standards for Colby Lake (concluded).
Parameter
PH
Specific conductance
Total dissolved salts
Sodium
Fecal coliform organisms
Sulfates
Total salinity
Unspecified toxic substances
Hydrogen sulfide
Limit
Within the range of 6.0 to 8.5 units
1,000 umhos/cm
700 mg/1
60% of total cations as meq/1
200 MPN/100 ml
10 mg/1 applicable to waters used
for production of wild rice during
periods when the rice may be susceptible
to damage by high sulfate levels
1,000 mg/1
None at levels harmful either directly
or indirectly
0.02 mg/1
D-8
-------
Table D-5. Concentrations of heavy metals in the St. Croix River at St. Croix Falls,
Wisconsin, for water years 1976 and 1977 (USGS 1977, 1978). Values-
represent total metal concentrations and are expressed in micrograms
per liter (ug/1).
Date
14 October 1975
14 January 1976
14 April 1976
6 July 1976
7 October 1976
11 January 1977
19 March 1977
8 July 1977
Mean
Arsenic
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
3
1
Cadmium
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
Chromium
10
Cobalt
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Copper
24
10
0
0
0
0
10
2
6
Date
14 October 1975
14 January 1976
14 April 1976
6 July 1976
7 October 1976
11 January 1977
19 March 1977
8 July 1977
Mean
Iron
Zinc
Lead Manganese Mercury Selenium
320
590
630
300
200"
240
510
500
410
50
10
10
10
0
10
0
0
10
7
2
3
3
5
7
8
6
5
50
20
50
92
50
40
60
100
60
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
D-9
-------
Table. D-6. Concentrations of heavy metals in the St, Croix River at Stillwater,
Wisconsin, for water year 1977 (TJSGS 1977). Values represent
total -metal concentrations and are expressed in micrograms per
liter Qig/11,
Chro-
Date Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium mium Cobalt Copper
1 February 1977 0 0 40 <10 0 <50
6 April 1977 0 0 40 <10 0 <50
6 June 1977 1 100 50 <10 0 <50
4 August 1977 1 300 70 <10 <60 <50
Mean' 1 100 50 <10 0 <50
Date Iron Zinc Lead Manganese Mercury
1 February 1977 500 10 <100 50 <0.5 0
6 April 1977 580 10 <100 60 <0.5 0
6 June 1977 900 10 <100 10 <0.5 0
4 August 1977 470 30 <100 130 <0.5 0
Mean 610 20 <100 60 <0.5 0
D-10
-------
/Z
/I
/o
8
7
6
4
J
Z
/2
/O
'O
V)
40
50
20
/O
a
SOSf>£KlC>G £> 5<3<-/OS (."> /*)
-
•
tt y ••- — Q
8
7
6
5
2
/
/o
fi
4
^
o
JO
2o
/o
•9-
Figure D-l. DO, BOD , temperature, and suspended solids
concentrations observed in May 1979.
M
IJ
-Q
D-ll
-------
0'1
0,3
*:'
(rng/JL)
o.i
I
\
A vg,
ana
of
\s
V)
o-3
0,2.
O. I
O
o.oj
0.08
a. 07
e.ot,
0.6 5
A04
o. & 3
6.0Z
a, oi
-O
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
v\
'
o. 11
O.'O
C.OJ
0,68
O.Of
O.et,
0,05
0.04
a, 03
6,01
P^ospnoe.os
<•*/*>
-
Figure D-2. Nutrient concentrations observed in May 1979.
D-12
-------
1000
100
10
1000
100
Figure D-3. Fecal coliform
observed in May
and fecal strep concentrations
1979.
D-13
-------
12
'0
9
8
7
6
f)
f-
•j—— {
O
zo
/6
/o
s
rwcc>
o X.
2
•
• ^ *9
___
J
&3
/O
5
<3
STP
Figure D-4. DO, BOD , temperature, and suspended solids
concentrations observed in August 1979.
D-14
-------
Figure D-5. Nutrient concentrations observed in August 1979.
D-15
-------
10000
1000 -
100
10000
1000
100
Figure D-6. Fecal coliform and fecal strep concentrations
observed in August 1979.
D-16
-------
APPENDIX E
Public Finance and User Fees
-------
EXHIBIT E-l
Water and Sewer Rate Schedule for St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
MINIMUM QUARTERLY CHARGE
5/8 and 3/4 Inch Meter ... $ 6.00 3 Inch Meter ... $ 76.00
1 Inch Meter 13.50 4 Inch Meter . . . 126.00
lij Inch Meter 26.00 6 Inch Meter . . . 250.00
2 Inch Meter 40.00
For each ADDITIONAL unit of Service* on one meter, add $1.50 to the appro-
priate minimum charge for the meter size.
First 600 cu. ft. used ea. qtr. - apply minimum charge
Next 8,400 cu. ft. used ea. qtr. - 55c per 100 cu. ft.
Next 26,000 cu. ft. used ea. qtr. - 3?C per 100 cu. ft.
Next 65,000 cu. ft. used ea. qtr. - 18c per 100 cu. ft.
Over 100,000 cu. ft. used ea. qtr. - 13c per 100 cu. ft.
SEWER SERVICE RATE
Under Ordinance A-4, dated 1 October 1978, sewer service shall be based
upon the water rates and for metered owners or occupants, shall, in each
fourth quarter be based upon the water rates in said fourth quarter in the
succeeding three quarters. The sewer service rates shall be 150% of the
water rate schedule presently in effect.
E-l
-------
EXHIBIT E-2
Current wastewater treatment user costs for a typical family
of three in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin.
These calculations are based on Table E-l. It is assumed that the per
capita generation of sewage is 74 gallons per day, that there are 90 days
per quarter, and three persons per family.
1) The amount of sewage generated per family per quarter first must be
calculated :
12.6 cu. ft. (94 gal)/capita/day x 90 days/quarter x 3 persons/family
= 3,402 cu. ft./quarter.
2) Based on Table E-l, a typical quarterly residential rate can be com-
puted:
2,802
1.5 x ($6.00 + ($0.55 x 100 )) = 1.5 x ($6.00 + $15.44) =
$32.16/quarter.
3) The annual charge is four times the quarterly charge: 4 x $32.16 =
$129/year.
E-2
-------
EXHIBIT E-3
Water and Sewer Rate Schedule for Taylors Falls, Minnesota (By
letter, City of Taylors Falls, to WAPORA, Inc., 17 October 1980).
All water sold shall be measured by meters, but where necessary a flat rate
of not less than the minimum charge may be established by the Council. The
rates for sewage service and the same.
Effective January 1, 1976, the following charges for water and sewer used
per quarter are hereby established.
a. For the use of 3,000 gallons or less the charge shall be $6.00.
b. For the next 7,000 gallons the charge shall be $1.10 per each addi-
tional 1,000 gallons of water used.
c. For the next 10,000 gallons the charge shall be 80 cents per each
additional 1,000 gallons of water used.
d. For the next 80,000 gallons the charge shall be 70 cents per each
additional 1,000 gallons of water used.
e. For the amount of water in excess of 100,000 gallons, the charge shall
be 60 cents per each additional 1,000 gallons of water used.
f. Where there is more than one unit served through a meter, in that case
the minimum charge, at least, shall apply to each dwelling or business
unit served through that meter.
g. There shall be a surcharge of 100% of the bill calculated pursuant to
the rates set forth herein that shall be added to the bill of any
person purchasing water from the City whose property serviced by the
City water is not within the corporate limits of the City.
A service charge of $5.00 shall be made for each request of turning
water off or on.
E-3
-------
EXHIBIT E-4
Current Wastewater Treatment User Costs for a Typical Family
of Three in Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
These calculations are based on Table E-3. It is assumed that the per
capita generation of sewage is 65 gallons per day, that there are 90 days
per quarter, and three persons per family.
1) The amount of sewage generated per family per quarter first must be
calculated:
65 gal/capita/day x 90 days/quarter x 3 persons per family = 17,550
galIons/quarter.
2) Based on Table E-3, a typical quarterly residential rate can be com-
puted:
7,000 7,550
$6.00 + (1,000 x $1.10) + (1,000 x $0.80) = $6.00 + $7.70 + $6.04 =
$19.74/quarter.
3) The annual user charge is four times the quarterly charge: 4 x $19.74
= $79.00/year.
E-4
-------
Table E-l. Estimated user charges for Alternatives 1 through 9.
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
I.
11.
111.
IV.
V.
Upgrade/Expand
Existing WWTP
at St. Croix Falls
Without With
Federal Federal
Funding Funding
Cost
Capital Cost0' 1,124,000 1,124,000
Annual O&M 31,000 31,000
Community's Share
of Cost of
Regional System
Capital Cost
Annual O&M
Capital Cost
Distribution
Federal — 843,000(75%)
State 674,400(60%)
Local 449,600(40%) 281,000(25%)
Annual Cost
0&M--Residential 27 , 900 27 , 900
O&M — Interstate
State Park 3,100 3,100
Debt service —
Residential 38, 600 24 , 100
Debt service--
Park
Typical Monthly Residen-
tial User Charge d
O&M— Residential 4.20 4.20
Debt service —
Residential 5.80 3.60
Total Monthly
Res ident io 1 10.00 7.80
Annual Residential User
Char8e 120.00 94.00
For Taylors Falls MN, Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8,
75%
n?
For Taylors Falls MN, Alternatives 6 and 9, the land
distribution is:
85%
9%
6%
For all projects in St. Croix Falls WI, Alternatives
60%
40%
Land Disposal System CAS System RBC System for
at St. Croix Falls for Taylors Falls Taylors Falls
Without With
Federal Federal
Funding Funding
1,181,000 1,181.000 988,000 985,000
40,000 40,000 36.000 27,000
--
—
885,800(75%) 741,000(75%) 738.800(75%)
708,600(60%) — 148,200(15%) 147,800(15%)
472,400(40%) 295,300(25%) 98,800(10%) 98,500(10%)
36,000 36.000 26,100 21.300
4,000 4.000 6,900 5,700
40,500 25,300 7,400 7,400
4,500 1,100 2,000 2.000
5.40 5.40 9.90 8.10
6.10 3.80 2.80 2.80
11.50 9.20 12.70 10.90
138.00 110.00 152.00 131.00
the capital cost distribution is:
application alternatives, the capital cost
x total cost = State cost
x total cost - Local cost
1, 2, and 7, the capital cost distribution is:
x total cost = State cost
Pond Land Disposal
System for System for
Taylors Falls Taylors Falls
1,164.000 1,584,000
18.000 21,000
..
„
873,000(75%) 1,346,400(85%)
174,600(15%) 142,600( 91)
116,400(10%) 95,000( 6%)
14,200 16,600
3,800 4,400
8,800 7,200
2,300 1,900
5.40 6.30
3.30 2.70
8.70 9.00
104.00 108.00
For the Regional Alternatives 7, 8, and 9, the cost allocated to each community was based on
the community's waste flow. The cost allocation was determined as follows:
74% x total cost - St. Croix Falls share
26% x total cost a Taylors Falls share.
CThe Interstate State Park contributes significantly to each community's waste flow and therefore
is considered separately. For each community, coramerc ial and industrial flows are included in
the residential share. In Taylors Falls the residential share is 79%; the Interstate State
Park share is 21%. In St. Croix Falls the residential share is 90%; the Interstate State Park
share is 10%.
1980 pop __ _. _
therefore is estimated to be 557.
E-5
-------
Alternative 7
Regional Conventional WUTP
at St. Croix Falls
Alternative 8
Regional Stabilization
Pond System Near Taylors Falls
Without
Federal
Funding
2,113,000
62,000
With
Federal
Funding
2,113,000
62,000
1,563,600
45,900
1,563,600
45,900
Without
Federal
Funding
2,660,000
31,000
With
Federal
Funding
2,660,000
31,000
Alternative 9
Regional Land Disposal System
Near Taylors Falls
St. Croix Falls(74%) Taylors Falls (26%)
549,400
16,100
1,968,400
22,900
1,968,400
22,900
Without With
Federal Federal
Funding Funding
3,651,000 3,651,000
23,000 23,000
St. Croix Falls(74%) Taylors Falls (26%)
St. Croix Falls(74%) Taylors Falls(26%)
691,600
8,100
2,701,700
17,000
2,701,700
17,000
949,300
6,000
1,172,300(75%) 412,100(75%)
1,489,800(75%) 518,700(75%)
2,296,400(85%) 806,900(85%)
938,200(60%)
625,400(40%) 390,900(25%)
41,300
4,600
53,600
6,000
41,300
4,600
33,500
1,500
82,400(15%) 1,181,000(60%)
54,900(10%) 787,400(40%) 492,100(25%)
12,700 20,600 20,600
3,400 2,300 2,300
4,100 67,500 42,200
1,100 7,500 1,900
103,700(15%) 1,621,000(60%)
69,200(10%) 1,080,700(40%) 405,300(15%)
6,400 15,300 15,300
1,700 1,700 1,700
5,200 92,700 34,800
700 10,300 1,500
85,400( 9%)
57,000( 6%)
4,700
1,300
4,300
1,100
6.20
14.20
6.20
4.80
6.40
3.10
3.10
9.40
2.40
2.00
4.40
53.00
2.30
13.90
16.20
194.00
2.30
5.20
7.50
90.00
1.80
1.60
3.40
41.00
E-6
-------
Table E-2. Annual user fees for a family of four for the nine alternatives
for St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls, Minnesota.
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
St. Croix Falls
$208
$232
Taylors Falls
$275
$259
$308
$236
$207
$173
$177
$103
$ 87
E-7
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 752-098
------- |