EIS801072DF
x-xEPA
United States Region V
Em/irnnmental Protection 230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
November, 1980
'ision
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Environmental Impact
Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Water Pollution
Abatement Program
Appendix VIII
Interceptor Alignment
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
and
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MADISON, WISCONSIN
with the assistance of
ESEI - ECOLSCIENCES ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
November 1980
Chicago,,
tection
SUBMITTED BY:
HOWARD S. DRUCKENMILLER
DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(TIRE
IONAL ADMINISTRATOR
IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDIX VIII
INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES
Table
Number
A Interceptors Examined
1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts - Detailed
Analysis, Underwood Creek Interceptor
1-2 Cost Summaries - Detailed Analysis, Underwood
Creek Interceptor
II-l Summary of Environmental Impacts - Detailed
Analysis, Franklin-Muskego Interceptor
II-2 Cost Summaries - Detailed Analysis, Franklin-
Muskego Interceptor
III-l Summary of Environmental Impacts - Detailed
Analysis, Franklin-Northeast Interceptor
III-2 Cost Summaries - Detailed Analysis, Franklin-
Northeast Interceptor
IV-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts - Detailed
Analysis, Oak Creek North Branch Interceptor
TV-2 Cost Summaries - Detailed Analysis, Oak Creek
North Branch Interceptor
V-l Summary of Environmental Impacts - Detailed
Analysis, Menomonee Falls-Germantown Inter-
ceptor
V-2 Cost Summaries - Detailed Analysis, Menomonee
Falls-Germantown Interceptor
VI-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts - Detailed
Analysis, Root River Interceptor
VI-2 Cost Summaries - Detailed Analysis, Root River
Interceptor
-------
INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Number
INTRODUCTION
I UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR
II FRANKLIN-MUSKEGO INTERCEPTOR
III FRANKLIN-NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR
IV OAK CREEK NORTH BRANCH INTERCEPTOR
NOTE TO READER
V MENOMONEE FALLS-GERMANTOWN INTERCEPTOR
VI ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR
VII HALES CORNERS INTERCEPTOR
VIII COSTING METHODOLOGY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES (continued)
Table
Number
VII-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts - Detailed
Analysis, Hales Corner Interceptor
VII-2 Cost Summaries - Detailed Analysis, Hales
Corners Interceptor
VIII-1 Open-Cut Sewer Construction Costs, New
Construction With Gravel Backfill and Site
Restoration, Depths of 5 to 25 feet
VIII-2 Open-Cut Sewer Construction Costs, New
Construction With Gravel Backfill and Site
Restoration, Depths of 25 to 40 feet
VTII-3 Tunnel Sewer Construction Costs
VTII-4 Force Main Construction Costs
VIII-5 Pumping Station Construction Costs
VIII-6 Installed Pump and Motor Costs
VIII-7 Installed Generator Costs
VIII-8 Duration of Construction
VTII-9 Interest During Construction
VIII-10 Cost Sensitivity to Increased Electrical and
Labor Costs, Franklin-Muskego Interceptor
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURF5
Figure
Number
1-1 Conveyance Routes, Underwood Creek Interceptor
1-2 Service Area for Alternatives 5 and 6, Underwood
Creek Interceptor
1-3 Woodlands, Floodplains, and the Primary Environ-
mental Corridor, Underwood Creek Interceptor
1-4 Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater, Underwood
Creek Interceptor
1-5 Community Facilities, Historic and Archaeologic
Sites, and Woodlands
II-l Conveyance Routes for Preliminary Alternatives,
Franklin-Muskego Interceptor
II-2 Modified Conveyance Routes, Franklin-Muskego
Interceptor
II-3 Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater, Franklin-
Muskego Interceptor
II-4 Woodlands, Wetlands, Community Facilities, and
Archaeologic Sites, Franklin-Muskego Interceptor
III-l Conveyance Routes A and B, Franklin-Northeast
Interceptor
III-2 Conveyance Routes C and D, Franklin-Northeast
Interceptor
III-3 Land Cover Types in the Service Area, Franklin-
Northeast Interceptor
III-4 Recreation, Government, Civic, Health Care and
School Facilities, Franklin-Northeast Interceptor
III-5 Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater, Franklin-
Northeast Interceptor
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
Figure
Number
IV-1 Conveyance Routes A, B and E, Oak Creek North
Branch Interceptor
IV-2 Conveyance Routes C, D and F, Oak Creek North
Branch Interceptor
IV-3 Conveyance Routes for Detailed Evaluation, Oak
Creek North Branch Interceptor
IV-4 Archaeologic Sites, Recreation Facilities, Schools
and Churches, Oak Creek North Branch Interceptor
IV-5 Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater, Oak Creek
North Branch Interceptor
V-l Conveyance Routes, Menomonee Falls-Germantown
Interceptor
VI-1 Conveyance Routes, Root River Interceptor
VII-1 Conveyance Routes, Hales Corners Interceptor
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUPPLEMENTS
Supplement
Number
1-1 Archaeological Resources,
Underwood Creek Interceptor
II-l Archaeological Resources,
Franklin-Muskego Interceptor
III-l Archaeological Resources,
Franklin-Northeast Interceptor
IV-1 Archaeological Resources,
Oak Creek North Branch Interceptor
V-l Archaeological Resources,
Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor
VI-1 Archaeological Resources,
Root River Interceptor
VIl-1 Archaeological Resources,
Hales Corners Interceptor
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Wastewater System Plan (WSP), the first step in the
total planning process of the MWPAP, identifies which outlying
areas would be provided regional or local sewer service, and
which would be served with onsite systems. To convey sewage
from the areas selected for regional sewerage service,
interceptors (large diameter sewers) would be built between
the communities and the existing metropolitan interceptor
sewer (MIS) system. The EIS separately evaluated the impacts
of constructing these interceptors. The methods and results
of this analysis are described in this appendix.
Interceptors are constructed either as gravity flow sewers,
usually built by tunneling, or as pumped force mains, built
by laying the pipe in shallow trenches. Interceptors can
generally be built along a number of routes (to connect the
same two points). This appendix presents several alternative
routes and types for each proposed interceptor and describes
how they were evaluated; i.e., on the basis of cost, primary
(construction) evironmental impacts, primary community
impacts and technical feasibility.
The Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP) and
EIS analyses of interceptor impacts were carried out before
the WSP indicated which proposed interceptors were needed.
This was done to reduce the duration of time required for
planning. The analysis would be available when a recom-
mendation was made in the WSP, and the analyses that were
not needed would be left unused. All of the interceptor
analyses had, as their objective, the determination of the
interceptor route and type that would be the least costly
and have a minimum of environmental impacts, should it be
required as a result of the WSP recommendation. In practice,
there was necessarily some overlap in the analyses of the
need for the interceptors in the WSP and EIS interceptor
studies.
The interceptors that are examined in this appendix are
listed in Table A. Facility plans and environmental assess-
ments have been prepared for some of the interceptors by
the MWPAP, while some were assessed by the MMSD in 1976.
The determination of which interceptor project would be
covered by the EIS was made by the EPA when it published
four Notices of Intent to prepare an EIS on the MWPAP. See
Chapter II, Section 4 of the main body of the EIS for a
further discussion of the history of these Notices of Intent.
-------
Initially, alternatives were proposed by the MWPAP. Then
the MWPAP and the EIS analyses of environmental impacts,
costs, and technical feasibility were done (primarily with
MWPAP data, but also with some independent investigation
for the EIS). After the MWPAP identified a preferred
alternative, the MWPAP and EIS interceptor evaluations were
compared. Modifications of routes or of connection points
were made in some cases.
This appendix contains descriptions of all the alternatives
considered, their expected primary, construction-related
impacts and costs, any major modifications to improve al-
ternatives, and general mitigating measures.
A description of the method used for cost estimates is pre-
sented in Chapter VIII. Included in this chapter is an
analysis of cost sensitivity to inflated electrical and
labor costs.
Acronyms Used In This Appendix
DNR: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EA: Environmental Assessment, prepared as a part of
the Wastewater System Plan by the Milwaukee Water
Pollution Abatement Program.
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
FNSI: Finding of No Significant Impact; previously referred
to as a "Negative Declaration."
MIS: Metropolitan Intercepting Sewer
MFP: Master Facilities Plan; written by the Milwaukee
Water Pollution Abatement Program
MMSD: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
MWPAP: Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program
WSP: Wastewater System Plan
-------
TABLE A
Interceptor
Oak Creek
(North of Ryan Road)
Franklin-Northeast
Franklin-Muskego
Underwood Creek
Hales Corners
Status of Evaluation
EIS on construction impacts
EIS on service area impacts
EA presented in MFP.
EIS on construction impacts
EIS on service area impacts
EA presented in MFP.
EIS on construction impacts
EIS on service area impacts
EA presented in MFP.
FNSI on construction impacts.
EIS on service area impacts.*
EA presented in MFP.
EIS on construction impacts
of portion from treatment
plant to County Line.
EIS on service area impacts.
EA previously prepared by
MMSD.
EIS on construction impacts.*
EIS on service area impacts.*
EA previously prepared by
MMSD, but being updated.
EIS on construction impacts
of northern 2/3 of interceptor,
EA on service area impacts.
EA previously prepared by
MMSD.
FNSI on construction impacts.
EIS on service area impacts.
EA previously prepared by
MMSD.
FNSI: Finding of No Significant Impact. A FNSI presents
the reasons why an action (e.g., construction) will
not have a significant effect on the human environmental
and indicates that an EIS will not be prepared.
* MMSD request for FNSI is currently pending before EPA and
DNR.
Root River
Menomonee Falls-Germantown
Northeast Side
-------
CHAPTER I
UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR
-------
CHAPTER I
UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR
INTRODUCTION
The Underwood Creek Interceptor received a finding of no
significant impact (FNSI) by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) with regard to its potential for producing
adverse primary environmental impacts. As a result no
independent analysis of the potential construction impacts
was performed. However, an audit of the impact analysis and
cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken, and the fol-
lowing summary is the result of that audit.
PURPOSE OF THE INTERCEPTOR
The proposed Underwood Creek Interceptor would provide sewer
service to portions of the Cities of Brookfield, Elm Grove,
West Allis, and Wauwatosa. Specifically, this would involve
the provision of additional capacity to eliminate present
wet weather bypassing of untreated wastewater to Underwood
Creek and its tributaries. The interceptor would also help
eliminate basement flooding caused'by sewer surcharging.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUTES
Three different routes were identified for the proposed
interceptor alternatives. These routes, designated as A, B,
and C, are shown in Figure 1-1 and are described below.
Each route would begin at an existing 39-inch interceptor
which is located just west of the intersection of West
Potter Road and Underwood Creek Parkway.
Route A
Route A begins at West Potter Road and travels parallel to
Underwood Creek, to Watertown Plank Road. It then follows
Watertown Plank Road east to North 85th Street at which
point the route ends with hook-up to a 96-inch MIS. Route A
is approximately 13,500 feet long.
Route B
Route B begins at West Potter Road and travels along that
road to Mayfair Road. It then travels north along Mayfair
Road to Watertown Plank Road and follows that road easterly
to North 85th Street, where it connects to the MIS system.
Route B is approximately 14,500 feet long.
1-1
-------
SCALE IN FEET
2000 4000
6000
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
ROUTE A (ALTERNATIVES 2,5,7)
ROUTE B (ALTERNATIVES 3,5,8)
ROUTE C (ALTERNATIVES 4,9)
TERMINUS OF PROPOSED ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR
EXISTING SOUTH SHORE MIS
PROPOSED 16,5 MGD PUMP STATION (ALTERNATIVES 7,8,9)
UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVES
M.M.S.D.
-------
Route C
Route C begins at West Potter Road and follows the South
Branch of Underwood Creek to South 124th Street and Robinwood
Road. It then follows South 124th to the proposed Root
River Interceptor at a point just south of Greenfield Avenue.
Route C is approximately 8,500 feet long.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
Eight alternatives were developed, differing in route used,
type of conveyance, and method of construction. A No Action
Alternative was also analyzed.
Screening of the preliminary alternatives was conducted by the
MWPAP for the purpose of identifying the most feasible
alternatives. This group of viable alternatives was selected
by weighing cost, environmental considerations and technical
feasibility. The alternatives which were judged unacceptable
were eliminated from further consideration. The remaining
feasible alternatives were then subjected to a more detailed
analysis in the second phase of the screening process.
The following is a brief description of all of the preliminary
alternatives and an explanation of whether or not they were
retained for further consideration. The MMSD Planning Report
was used as a supplemental source of information in this section.
Alternative 1
This is the No Action Alternative and calls for continuing
operation of the existing MIS system and local sewerage system
with no capital improvements except those already under or
approved for construction. Surcharging of sewers would con-
tinue to cause basement flooding and bypassing v/ould continue
during wet weather. No cost estimate was made for the No
Action Alternative because of the difficulty in assessing its
impacts.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of the construction of 13,500 feet of
a 48-inch gravity sewer along Route A. The construction
would be accomplished by the tunnel method at depths of 45
to 120 feet. No pump stations would be necessary. This
alternative was acceptable with respect to environmental
considerations and was one of the least expensive gravity
alternatives. Therefore, it was retained for detailed analysis.
1-3
-------
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 consists of the construction of 14,500 feet of
a 48-inch gravity sewer along Route B. The construction
would be accomplished by the tunnel method at depths of 45
to 120 feet. No pump stations would be necessary.
Alternatives using Route B (Alternative 3, 6 and 8) involve
construction along Potter Road, a narrow residential street.
The MWPAP determined that there would be significant construction
impacts to residential areas and a nearby elementary school.
For these reasons, alternatives using Route B were not
retained for detailed evaluation.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 consists of the construction of 8,500 feet of
a 60-inch gravity sewer along Route C. The construction
would be accomplished by the tunnel method of depths of 22
to 60 feet. The conveyance system would intercept flows
from a 39-inch MIS and convey the flow to the proposed Root
River Interceptor. This alternative was acceptable with
respect to environmental considerations with only slight
construction impacts. It was also one of the least expensive
alternatives and, therefore, was retained by the MWPAP for
further detailed analysis.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 consists of the construction of 13,500 feet of
a gravity sewer along Route A. The interceptor would be a
48-inch sewer from its beginning to the intersection of
Mayfair Road and Watertown Plank Road, a distance of 5,700
feet. The remaining portion, 7,800 feet, would be a 60-inch
sewer. The interceptor would be constructed by the tunnel
method at depths of 45 to 120 feet. This alternative would
allow for the collection of additional flows from parts of
Wauwatosa and Elm Grove (see Figure 1-2). No pump stations
would be necessary. Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative
2, except that a larger diameter sewer pipe would be used to
serve a larger area. The probable environmental impacts,
identical to Alternative 2, were deemed to be acceptable by
the MMSD. The cost of this alternative was relatively high,
but it was nonetheless retained for further detailed analysis
because it served a larger area.
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 consists of the construction of 14,500 feet of
gravity sewer along Route B. The interceptor would be a 48-
inch sewer from its beginning to the intersection of Mayfair
1-4
-------
Road and Watertown Plank Road, a distance of 6,700 feet.
The remaining portion, 7,800 feet, would be a 60-inch
sewer. The entire interceptor would be constructed by the
tunnel method at depths of 45 to 120 feet. No pump station
would be necessary. This alternative would intercept flows
from an additional area in Wauwatosa and Elm Grove. The
additional area, which is identical to the additional area
of Alternative 5, is shown in Figure 1-2. This alternative
would use Route B and was dropped from further consideration
for the same reasons as were given under Alternative 3.
Alternative 7
Alternative 7 consists of the construction of 13,500 feet of
a 30-inch force main along Route A. The entire interceptor
would be constructed by the open-cut method at an average
depth of 9 feet. This alternative requires a new 16.5
million gallons per day (MGD) pump station at the intersection
of Underwood Creek Parkway and Potter Road. This pump
station would be operated only during wet weather periods
since the interceptor system has been judged to have adequate
dry weather capacity. This alternative was retained for
further detailed analysis because it had a relatively low
cost estimate. However, it could cause disruption to re-
sidential areas and the parkway during the period of construction,
Alternative 8
Alternative 8 consists of the construction of 14,500 feet of
a 30-inch force main along Route B. The entire interceptor
would be constructed by the open-cut method at an average
depth of 9 feet. This alternative would require a new 16.5
MGD pump station at the intersection of Underwood Creek
Parkway and Potter Road which would be operated only during
periods of wet weather. This alternative would follow Route
B and was dropped from further consideration for the same
reasons as were given under Alternative 3.
Alternative 9
Alternative 9 consists of the construction of 8,500 feet of
a 30-inch force main along Route C. The entire interceptor
would be constructed by the open-cut method at a depth of
approximately 9 feet. This alternative requires a new 16.5
MGD pump station at the intersection of Underwood Creek
Parkway and Potter Road which would be operated during both
dry and wet weather flows. It was retained for further
detailed analysis because it had a relatively low cost
estimate. However, it would involve construction through a
parkway and could have significant impacts on nearby wooded
areas.
1-5
-------
LEGEND
COUNTY LINE
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
ALTERNATIVE 5
ALTERNATIVE 6
ADDITIONAL SERVICE
AREA
0 2500 5000 7500
SCALE IN FEET
1-2
UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR
SERVICE AREA FOR ALTERNATIVES 5 and 6
M.M.S.D.
-------
SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY SCREENING
Eight conveyance alternatives were proposed for preliminary
evaluation. The presence of unacceptable environmental
impacts and the relative difficulty of accomplishing the
actual construction led to the elimination of the alternatives
which used Route B (Alternatives 3, 6, and 8). There were
five remaining conveyance alternatives (Alternatives 2,4,5,7,
and 9) which were judged to be acceptable when based upon
cost, environmental and technical considerations. These
five were therefore retained for further detailed analysis.
Prior to the detailed screening phase, modification was made
of the route in Alternative 9 (Route C). Part of the original
route could affect wooded areas in the parkway, along the
South Branch of Underwood Creek. Some of the route also
would travel through a residential area along 124th Street.
To minimize the expected disruption of wooded areas and
private property, a realignment was made which included the
construction of a force main along West Ripley Avenue to
South 123rd Street, then along South 123rd Street to North
Fairview Avenue, and then along West Fairview Avenue back to
the original route at the Underwood Creek Parkway. This
modification requires an additional 400 feet of a 30-inch
force main sewer which brings the total length to 8,900
feet.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The construction of the Underwood Creek Interceptor would
occur entirely within Milwaukee County; specifically, in the
Cities of Wauwatosa and West Allis. Most of each proposed
route would be along public street rights-of-way. The
proposed routes would border the following streets: Watertown
Plank Road, Potter Road, 124th Street, and a traffic arterial
which crosses the Milwaukee County Institution grounds.
Construction would take place along Underwood Creek and the
South Branch of Underwood Creek. Floodplains and wooded
areas along these two streams are the only areas remaining
in natural conditions on the construction area and have been
included as part of the primary environmental corridor (See
Figure 1-3).
Underwood Creek was originally a small stream with moderate
to steep gradients draining a flat area. However, the
system has been changed considerably by extensive concrete
channelization.
1-7
-------
200O 4000 6000
SCALE
IN
1-3
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR
WOODLANDS
FLOODPLAINS
PRIMARY ENVIRONMENTAL
CORRIDOR
UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR
WOODLANDS, FLOODPLAINS AND THE
PRIMARY ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR
FEET
M.M.S.D.
-------
The South Branch of Underwood Creek is also within the
construction corridor. It is not as steep as Underwood
Creek and drains a smaller area than Underwood Creek.
The dissolved oxygen concentrations for both streams is
reported by the MMSD as rarely being below the recommended
levels. Fecal coliform counts are usually higher than the
recommended levels. The concentration of total phosphorus
often exceeds 0.1 mg/1. Temperature and pH measurements are,
however, consistently within the acceptable standards.
Ammonia levels are low and it is suspected that chlorine
levels are likewise low because there are no point sources
of chorinated effluent.
The topography of the construction corridor varies from
relatively level to gently sloping land with a maximum
relief of 70 feet.
The groundwater surface lies within 30 feet of the ground
surface for most of the construction corridor (See Figure I-
4). Potable water is supplied to the residences and businesses
located within the entire construction corridor except for a
small section as outlined in Figure 1-4.
The land use in the construction corridor is primarily
residential, institutional, parkway and open space, with
few commercial or industrial sites. Major institutions
present in the construction corridor include the County
Institution complex and an elementary school on Potter Road.
The facilities are indicated in Figure 1-5. One historic
structure and two prehistoric aboriginal sites have been
identified near the construction area and are also shown in
Figure 1-5. However, the State Historical Society of Wisconsin
has concluded that there are "no archaeological resources
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places within this project area " (See Supplement 1-1).
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The potential impacts upon the environment which would be
caused by the construction of the Underwood Creek Interceptor
are discussed in the following section and are shown in
summary form in Table 1-1. The MMSD Environmental Assessment
was used as a supplemental source of information in this section,
Access to homes, businesses, and institutions located along
public street rights-of-way would be affected by construction
of the interceptor. Alternatives 2, 5, and 7 follow Route A
and, therefore, have the potential for disrupting access along
Potter Road, Watertown Plank Road, and the arterial crossing
the Milwaukee County Institution grounds. However, Alternatives
1-9
-------
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
I I 0 TO 10 FEET
t '_'} 10 TO 30 FEET
GREATER THAN 30 FEET
WATER SUPPLIED BY GROUNDWATER SOURCES
SCALE IN FEET
2000 4000 6000
1-4
M.M.S.D.
UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
-------
LEGEND
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
UNDERWOOD CREEK PARKWAY
COUNTY GROUNDS
t
A
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
SCHOOL
PARK-RIDE LOT
(MILW. CO. TRANSIT SYSTEM)
ARCHAEOLOG1C SITES
HISTORIC STRUCTURE
WOODLANDS
SCALE IN FEET
2000 4000
6000
1-5
UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR
COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES,
AND WOODLANDS
M.M.S.D.
-------
2 and 5 use the tunnel method of construction and would dis-
rupt access less than Alternative 7, which uses open-cut
construction. Alternative 7 could affect access to approxi-
mately 40 residences, four businesses, and the Milwaukee
County Institutions.
Alternatives 4 and 9 follow Route C and, therefore, have
the potential for disrupting access along Potter Road and
124th Street. Alternative 4 uses the tunnel method of con-
struction and would disrupt access less than Alternative 9
which uses open-cut construction. Alternative 9 could affect
access to approximately 100 residences. No businesses or
institutions would be affected along Route C.
The construction activity of all five alternatives could cause
odors and sights which would aesthetically affect the in-
habitants, workers, and visitors within the general area sur-
rounding the construction sites. Furthermore, any accessories
to the interceptor may be visible and cause an impact. The
tunnel alternatives (2, 4, and 5) would affect less people
than the open-cut alternatives (7 and 9) because of their
construction technique. Also, Alternatives 7 and 9 would
require permanent pump stations as accessories to the inter-
ceptor. All of the construction alternatives, would produce
dust and exhaust fumes and, therefore, impact the air quality
of the area. Tunnel alternatives (2, 4, and 5) would affect
a smaller area, but dust and exhaust would be more concentrated
at tunnel access sites.
The aquatic biota of Underwood Creek and the South Branch of
Underwood Creek may be affected by the presence of sediment
eroded into the water during the construction of the inter-
ceptor sewer. All construction alternatives can be expected
to supply sediment to the stream although Alternatives 2,4,
and 5 could be expected to contribute relatively less sediment
than Alternatives 7 and 9 because they use the tunnel method
of construction. Thus, the impacts upon the aquatic biota may
be considerably different between these two sets of alternatives
No threatened or endangered species are known to use the
habitat within the proposed construction corridor.
Each of the alternatives would have short-term energy demands
during construction. The energy impacts for construction
were not considered to be significant for any of the alter-
natives. Long term energy demands are associated with
pumping. Alternatives 7 and 9 would each require about
400,000 kWh of electricity per year.
1-12
-------
Alteration of the configuration of the floodplain may occur
in conjunction with construction activities. Impacts would
be slight for Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 which involve tunnel
construction. Impacts could be more severe for Alternatives
7 and 9 which involve open-cut construction along Underwood
Creek. Floodplain configuration, roughness, and vegetation
changes may encourage flooding.
There may be an impact on the groundwater supply during con-
struction of the interceptor. Construction below the water
table (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) would allow drainage of
groundwater into tunnels and subsequent dewatering activities
could affect water supply by lowering the height of the water
table. Alternatives 2 and 5 could affect two industrial wells,
while Alternative 4 could affect 10 to 15 residential wells.
Alternatives 7 and 9 involve shallow trenches and would have,
at worst, slight impacts.
All of the alternatives are located in a sensitive area.
Several archaeological and one historical site have been
identified, and there is the possibility of additional sites
being present. However, at the present time there are no
archaeological resources eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places within the project area (See
Supplement 1-1). The tunnel alternatives (2, 4, and 5) would
have a minimal possibility of disturbing any previously un-
known sites.
Construction of any of the alternatives would alter land
use by affecting the primary environmental corridor which
borders the watercourses. Construction could affect some
woodland and wildlife habitat areas. Because these areas
return to previous conditions very slowly, any impacts may
be considered severe. Alternatives 7 and 9 would each disrupt
up to one acre of the primary environmental corridor. Tunnel
construction (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) would have less of
an impact on the primary environmental corridor.
Construction of any of the alternatives would have no impacts
related to legality.
Noise produced during construction may affect the inhabitants,
workers, visitors, and wildlife in the area neighboring the
construction corridor. Blasting may be necessary (Alternatives
2, 4, and 5) and could produce vibrations. Noise would be con-
centrated for prolonged periods of time near tunnel access
shafts (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5).
1-13
-------
There is no prime agricultural land within the interceptor
construction corridor. None of the alternatives will have
an impact upon public health. Recreation may be affected.
due to the proximity of construction to the Underwood Creek
Parkway. Construction in the parkway would disrupt its
recreational use for nearby neighbors until the area is
restored. Alternatives 7 and 9 involve open-cut construction
and would have the greatest impacts. Tunnel access shafts
(Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) located in the parkway would have
less significant impacts.
Construction of the interceptor may present potential safety
hazards to workers and nearby residents. Open-cut trenches,
tunnel access shafts, and equipment could be very dangerous
in the absence of safety precautions. With proper safety pre-
cautions all of the alternatives are expected to have minimal
impacts.
Traffic would be disrupted during periods of interceptor
construction. Disruptions would occur along Watertown Plank
Road and South 124th Street for Routes A and C, respectively.
Watertown Plank Road is an arterial street used daily by
about 14,000 vehicles. Alternative 7 involves open-cut con-
struction along Watertown Plank Road and could cause signi-
ficant impacts, since there would be surface disruption along
the entire route. Alternatives 2 and 5 also use Route A, but
are expected to cause less disruption because the tunnel method
of construction is used. Major traffic impacts would be from
heavy equipment entering and leaving tunnel access shafts.
Alternative 9 involves open-cut construction along 124th
Street and could cause significant impacts. Alternative 4
also uses Route C but is expected to have fewer impacts be-
cause it involves tunnel construction.
The water quality of Underwood Creek and the South Branch of
Underwood Creek may become more turbid from sediment eroding
into the water during the construction of the interceptor.
All construction alternatives can be expected to supply
sediment to the stream, although Alternatives 2, 4, and 5
could be expected to contribute relatively less sediment
than Alternatives 7 and 9 because they use the tunnel method
of construction. There are no wetlands that would be affected
by construction of the interceptor.
Wildlife habitat may be affected by construction of the
interceptor in some lowland forest areas. Because these areas
return to previous conditions very slowly, any impacts should
be considered significant. Alternative 9 involves open-cut
construction in wooded areas near 124th Street and Robinwood
Street. The tunnel access shafts and work sites for Alternative
4 could affect some wildlife habitat areas along the South
1-14
-------
Branch of Underwood Creek. Alternatives 4 and 9 would each
disrupt about 1 acre of wildlife habitat. In general, open
cut construction would disrupt more wildlife habitat than
construction by tunneling.
Secondary Growth Impacts: For an analysis of secondary im-
pacts of the interceptor, see the Secondary Growth Impacts
Appendix, or Chapter V of the EIS.
COST SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The least costly of the alternatives, Alternative 9, has a
total present worth of $5,021,000 and an equivalent annual
cost of $469,000. However, when the added costs of the
enlargements to the Root River Interceptor ($4,500,000) are
included in the Alternative 9 cost, it becomes the most
expensive alternative. Table 1-2 shows Alternative 7 to be -
the least expensive. It has a total present worth of $5,447,000
and an equivalent annual cost of $509,000. Details of the
costs for the five final alternatives are given in Table I-
2. The methods and assumption used to obtain these costs
are contained in Chapter VIII of this appendix.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Alternative 7 was selected as the preferred alternative by the
MWPAP. It has no severe environmental impacts and was the
least costly.
1-15
-------
0.
0
2 fri
U
0 01 0
031)
O -2 04
rt 0)
4-) iJ
.U
cfl O
0 C
*
3
Q
M
< OS
as
a CL
Z£
i y
en S
SI
< M
a*
CJ
S CJ
2 3
11
C a
> z
a
tt
o
^
<
=
01
U
S-4
E»
2
3
a
e-
^
01
6
|_,
I
C
rH
3
3
01
0>
JJ
-H
o
13
0
3
£
_
£
OS
U
01
01
c
5
O
01
1)
O
o
o
^"
JJ
o
Q
-13
TJ
3
0
o
r-
T:
c
n
in
_
01
CJ
JJ
ft
O1
Jj
rH
Jj
U
JJ
01
"o
c
o
H
3
JJ
H
JJ
C
^
Jj
0
U
3J
JJ
1=
"3
01
01
01
01
01
B
^
Oi
0
£
Jl
01
i)
U
01
J"i
c
-1
0
JJ
3
jj
01
T5
3
o
O
c*>
c
13
D
JJ
£
u
jj
<
ui
jj
*s
Oi
c
H
Jl
TJ
U
rH
W*
T3
rH
fC
U
Jj
-^
JJ
0)
JJ
0)
Ll
o
i-4
3
c
o
4J
5
£
p
JJ
U
u
IJH
H
JJ
rH
3
CT1
jj
"5
^
O
0
JJ
U
c
H
T
3
0
3
01
0)
Jj
01
X
o
c
13
'Jl
3
!H
a
rH
13
en
jj
(i3
C
(U
jj
^
C
S
JJ
^J
ft3
JJ
C
OJ
U
c
0
U
0
c
J!
,_(
3
jj
01
3
'2
"x
OJ
T3
C
fl
JJ
01
3
jj
^
0)
D
01
01
.4J
H
01
0)
o
l!
c
3
>
H
JJ
tu
o>
jj
rH
rH
3J
C
13
jj
0
H
o
Jj
2
13
U
01
l±J
2>,
E
03
a
3
1
.j
:r
>,
rH
0)
-4
JJ
03 '-
rH (T*
0)
c
01 fC
3 r-
L. tn
JJ 0)
c >
0 -H
o c
JJ Ll
0
73 JJ
JJ (3
tJ
11 JJ
3
X O
OJ 1
C
5 i
cT
13
3 <0
85
^-> jJ
C
-. 01
01
" 01
^J 01
-------
c
z
g*i
c
-,-t
13
rH
a
^
u-i
r-i
fl
c
O1
H
r-l
0
0)
X
4-1
4-1
o
3
M
4-1
en
c
0
u
0)
05
4J
OS
4->
0)
O71
0)
>
TJ
C
id
en
m
D
c
"5>
3
o
M
en
O
4J
fl
!H
3
CP
-4
U-4
C
0
u
'
3
0
i-i
0
Jj
c
H
.*
u
tjj
J3
|M
0>
4J
ra
3
a
S-
i1
H
<*l
3
T3
CU
k4
fl
3
iti
i
13
C
IS
>i
a
>
w
3
u:
nj
^)
u
3
t?
c
0
o
*4
0
>.
4J
rH
.a
en
01
a
01
,c
4J
4H
o
c
o
r-f
-1J
CJ
£
*)
en
c
0
0
tn
05
>l
J
<
z
<
Q
s
<
r>
T3 W
OJ C
c t
H
*J W
§ S3
0 <
' uU
s
r-
1* 1-4
M <
C-
H p
ca s:
< z:
E- O
C£
M
>
Z
U
U-
O
>
i
<
E
cn
05
CU
w
y
w
c_
2
M
^
5
05
u
a
6
2
Oi
^3
Z
Cd
>
M
s-
<
i
u
5
<
Cd
?*
Cu
jl
fH
O
<
2
M
4J
5
O
4J
0)
^
3
0
44
C
3
o
C
^
D
^4
(0
tn
01
H
o
OJ
C-
en
T3
0)
C
0)
U
(TJ
1)
M
4J
^
o
T3
OJ
U
0)
o^
ftj
'U
3
0
z
r^
Q
T3
.,4
i4
<_)
Q
O
G
o
H
4->
u
3
%j
4J
en
c
0
Q
T3
OJ
en
n
kH
Q
S_j
a
jG
4J
c
H
.C
jJ
H
3
O*
c
H
i4
3
T3
'Jl
t:
c
03
'U
>
er
JH
0)
G
0)
£
M
0)
4J
1
4J
i4
o
^
01
01
>
fTj
"3
3
Q
OJ
>
4-1
2
S
a
4J
03
-G
U
&
c
o
4J
u
3
M
4J
en
C
0
0
S*i
0)
Qj
>i
4->
CJ
H
^
4J
£
M
01
U-i
o
.C
3
j<;
o
o
o
o"
c
^r
01
5-1
H
3
CT
O
S-<
cn
T3
Oj E71
c
r~ -H
en £
a 3
> Cj
H
-P i-J
d O
C u-J
M
0> M
4-1 flj
f-f 0)
< >
>1
( *
^a
en
en
o
g
fO
c
0
r4
4J
ts
U
3
C"
-H
r 1
ft3
>
m
£
G
0
H
4J
a
3
<^i
4->
en
C
0
U
r-4
OJ
C
c
3 01
4J >
r-l
4J G
H
i_(
O &
U-4
TJ
4J C
nj
cn
H r»
en 'A
0)
OJ >
J3 H
4J
"* C
3 M
O D
3 4J
01 <
iJ
u
ro
i in
t3 -^
fO
CT» -
c -^r
T3 *
O "1
O
r-f W
U-4 1;
>
CJ -H
cn 4J
13 ;ti
^-l G
3 M
o a/
U 4J
c .-«
a <
^
D
OJ
\4
O
T3
0
0)
r^
CP
0
rH
n)
G
0
4J
O
3
^
jJ
en
0
o
4J
3
O
1
O
O4
0
4J
C1
H
0)
£
0)
JG
4J
T1
G
-H
Wl
0)
3
-2
>
^2
>
rH
a
3
cn
^
-i
o
u
4J
n
0
O
4-1
U
01
IM
<4-l
(0
TJ
rH
3
0
U
Lrt
t!
C
nj
ry
en
0)
>
-H
JJ
13
C
lM
01
4J
t I
<:
OJ
5
(T3
4J
lM
01
4J
d
3
o
o
U
en
CJ
4J
U_t
O
in
r-t
0
4J
o
r-4
4J
O
01
144
U-l
(0
T3
rH
0
o
T
O
>
H
4->
H
01
3
(13
U
jj
en
c
Q
>
-U
en
rH
i 1
01
3
Tj
H
4-1
a
"C
H
cn
CD
U
T3
G
(13
rfl
U
V4
n3
OJ
>
4J
-^
en
G
0
CO
f8
H
0)
.13
en
Q
4J
3
0
r-t
i-l
0
Jj
a
a
u
V4
a
4J
G
OJ
>.
rH 4J
D -H
C rH
C -H
3 .a
E- H
en
en
Q
en 1
0)
4-1 rH
H 03
tf S
H
C C
3 -H
0 £
C
X as
c
3 0)
>
> 03
en
3 T3
0 rH
-H 3
> 0
0> 3
U4
a ~
in
4-) en
a, -o 01
3 G 4J
-4 T3 -^
en :n
-H
T3 T ^
CJ
> - 3
03 CM >J1
C '
31
G en G
0 0 -H
-H > XI
4J -H W
O 4-J 3
3 0] 4J
U C IT,
4-1 L4 H
ji a> T3
C 4J
0 rH 4-t
U n3 0
u
>
kt
E-
<
T3 "3
0) CJ
^ C
U J
u
T? U
fl TI
3
O r-l
-------
01
01
a
s
o
J f-
a o
Z 5-
U M
CJ 2
H
01
>H
J
rt
Q
a
< as
. H EH
73 O CU
a u
3 1 U W
c ac >
*4 01 i] f-4
JJ 6- E- fr*
C U Z <
C < *-> 2
o a js
? J
t < O
w 6- Cd
i c =
oj a o E-
J S C
< o o
E- x i:
M a w
> S E^
ci <
a.
O ^
>«
^
s
s
CO
M
2
g
jj
H
_2
CU
0
05
OJ
^
OJ
JJ
3
0
OJ
C
fl
.c
'O
1)
JJ
o
3J
U-t
flj
0
(B
E
0
H
0
o
r-l
4J
C
0)
0
IM
rO
'H
2n
ra
U-l
o
tn
c
o
-H
JJ
s
[-»
?
u
1
g
c
ro
t^
0
01
C/l
U
1-4
CD
rd
T3
3
g
in
1
I/]
0)
?>
JJ
iT3
£
0)
Jj
o
c
c
£*
r*-
Ul
a
.^
fl
c
u
iU
r-f
<
0)
3
3*
|
'u
5)
C
0
JJ
O
3
-4
'Jl
Q
O
^
CJ
Zj
0
OJ
01
3
(13
0
3
O
O
y-J
U-i
fl
3
0
O
c
.u
c
-H
o
3
^j JJ
JJ n3
jl JJ
C H
O C
2 *g
^i O
0 O
CJ
o
C Zi
* 0
31
C 0
ra -U
.
O4
0
3 0
0 ^
y I
o
ra
^
.H
s
0
u
3
u
4J
c
0
u
rr
c
o
o
^4
0
u
c
0
o
3
^
^
c
0
0
CD
4J
^
CD
C
a
tn
CO
in
c
IT)
"
^
CN
J)
Q
>
H
JJ
(T)
c
!u
CJ
JJ
eC
14
i4
JJ
c
a
G
0
y
J
T3
3
11
i
0
M
0
JJ
in
cn
^)
OJ
0
u
(d
OJ
c
c
3
^
ITJ
^
0) ^
£ ^
JJ TJ
c
i*-i (T3
0
^j 'n
°
31
4J
U
i
s
-rj
CJ
>
2
""
rH
5
Jl
1)
>
H
*J
(TJ
rJ
CJ
4J
m
c a j a ;
-------
D
01
S
C O
flj 'O
,£
M M
O S
-J O -
0 C
b 5J
4J it4 -
01
M
01
>4
jj
Z
c
J
M
<
-a a
0 C
3
H
-U Ol
§8
u <
~- tL
£
M
.-t
1 kj
^4
a z
j a
as a
< z
^ 2
>
z
a
t.
>*
E
S
ul
&
2
04
2i >
a M
E- E"
s <
M Z
X u
a s*
o
a
O E*
o
S El4
35 C
CJ
c cn
D U
2
c
0
JJ
a
3
D
jJ
cn
c
0
u
0
Jj
c
-H
X
0
Li
a
4J
0
JJ
D
TJ
OJ
JJ
O
a
lJ-4
y~i
Ji
! ^
-H
JJ
OJ
Ll
U
O
an
0)
, i
0
c
H
<7\
T3
C
(0
cn
3)
JJ
TJ
C
Ll
,__4
^«,
3
Li
0)
0)
Li
U
T3
0
LI
u
-y
JJ
0
JJ
cn
u
a
s
cn
03
OJ
Li
0)
cu
i i
6
3
T;
c
03
0
-rH
JJ
U
3
Li
cn
C
0
a
4J
3
U
OJ
0
c
0
H
JJ
Li
3
C
0
, t
0)
Li
US
>i
03
3
Li
'TJ
/-,
0)
c
H
T3
OJ
jj
CJ
0
cn
jj
U~l
5
J1
en
cn
o
0
(0
QJ
C
C
S->
c
03
'd'
cn
a)
>
fl
c
Ll
jj
cn
-i
Q
5
H
cn
03
0)
Li
fO
cn
cn
OJ
o
u
03
rH
0)
c
Jj
T3
C
flj
cn
OJ
u
c
CJ
L.
JJ
JJ
c
a
P,
3
C
0
1-1
JJ
c
jj
rji
0
u
Jl
Ll
(U
Jtf
Ll
0
3
Tj
C
01
Lf
0
JJ
cn
H
>
0
Jj
T3
Li
r3
_^2
>,
UH
fl
71
03
Ji
rH
3
construe
i^
0
(\
(U
o
0)
c
H
H
TJ
o
"^
cn
rH
i
o
H
<4-l
'TJ
fc
C
O
03
0
H
tj-j
03
a
"C
rH
,H
^
C
ft!
in
CM
cn
Q
-S
03
C
U
jJ
, I
<
e more
01
3
a
,_4
3
r*
jj
0)
4-J
*
^
fl
0
C
rH
c
0
Jj
u
OJ
J-l
03
2
cn
+j
c
D
O
JJ
r-4
L/l
TJ
C
.13
(N
a1
jj
03
£
O
H
c
o
2
c
0
3
'Si
2
0
s
CJ
tf
(IS
u
n increa:
,H
JJ
rH
3
OJ
T3
3
Li
0
jj
iU
y
Ll
CD
JJ
C
0
0
JJ
o
3
u
4J
C
0
natives
Ll
OJ
JJ
03
C
C
3
;-"
£
fl
O
*J
2
jtj
Q
-H
T3
0
-J
C
0
S
relative
OJ
jj
H
JJ
C
0
o
0
JJ
T3
jj
U
-------
EH O
~ a ="
Z Q
i; o
< i:
2 u
O 2
Ci
X
o
3) JJ
> a
173 [Q 4J 4J
C -H fl fl
3 a o £
o JJ JJ a
r-4 O rH X
S. <
0- >
3 ra
!j -C
n -i
c ^
o m
4J 1
fl i
S 3
-------
CO
M
CO
,_q rr"
< o
< a,
D CJ
CJ cc;
i-l CJ
H EH
oj < 2
I EH M
M CJ
Q X
CJ CJ
J I CJ
CO C^
< CO CJ
EH CJ
M Q
K O
< O
CO Q
2
EH O
CO
O
CJ
f11
<
* .
t:
<
^
ri!
CO
OT-
E-
EH 2
2 CJ
CJ ^
!£ t-
fc U
(H <
,__J v_
o e-
CJ t:
e:
' *
s
o
c
EH ^
y tj ""
rJ < EH
^ HD o~
> 2 O
H 2 CJ
3 <
*J*
jj
EH ^
2
-1 kj "
H CJ ry"
b « o
H Cu 2
EH
2 ~
Cij F~i
CO (X
CJ O
fV' *^f
a, ^
in
o
o
CN
E-i
2 ~
CJ E-
CJ C
K 2
di
LT
CT>
'
EH
2 ~
CJ -
co c:
CJ O
Q^ r<*
O, ""
^,
|
^
K
>-
^ *
N v:-
-j ' '
^
CH E-
M CO
PJ C
<
«
"s^J
o
t^"
rH
0
O
O
^T"
rH
CO
-
rH
0
o
o
VD
in
CO
«T
o
o
o
o
o
CN
o
0
( j
*.
H
O
o
r-~
in
^
CN
CN
^
LO
O
0
o
G*\
o
in
o
o
0
k
f--*.
5
in
o
o
o
7
rH
0
o
o
rH
CN
n
CN
o
o
o
»
r-
!S
o
o
o
^
o
in
CN
o
0
o
m
in
CO
o
o
CN
*.
n
o
o
n-
UD"
^o
n
XT
r--
o
o
o
CTi
^
o
o
o
*.
rH
CN
0
m
0
o
o
*
in
in
o
0
o
^T
o
rH
CN
O
O
0
t^~
15
1
o
o
0
o
in
CN
o
0
o
in
in
ro
o
o
CN
«.
rn
o
0
-H O M
O O 01
p ""
O O 73
CO E C
0~> ra
C 'Z
C. -H re;
H -P H
01 £L,
73 O
OJ CJ >,
0) p
01 H H
QJ O H
i-l M-l -H
a o
X H d
CD M V-,
H
CD > a
M CO
CD g
01 P
P C,
01 C?
o x: o
o o o
~ H a o
O < X 01
to the cost of the
the wastewater flows
:s.
73
CD
73
73
a
73
(U
P
ra
e
.,-
p
'j]
CO
£
rC
CJ
T^
p
, i
U
£
H
P
0
c
01
0)
o
73
-P
01
O
u
01
H
CT>
c
-H
,1
73
C
r3
x:
IP
o
O)
CD
01
0
n
v-1
D
a
CD
x:
P
i-i
o
U-l
m
j_i
O
4J
D
0
u
^1
CJ
p
c
M
i_l
OJ
l>
r-4
PH
p
o
0
[X
0)
r?
4J
U-|
o
c
O
H
4-J
O
P
SM
-p
C"
^
.
V4
o
-^
^
u
u
x_(
CJ
_LJ
£
1 f
r-y
o
0)
'^_{
CJ
TJ
0
o
3
!~i
-------
- c: *
SUPPLEMENT 1-1
' w
IE-K5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
v
'-OF w;sc
HISTCRIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
September 17, 1979
Mr. Fred J. Meir.holz SHSW: 793-79
Manager/Facilities Planning RE: Interceptor routes;
MllvsuVee Metropolitan Sewerage District archeological survey
735 N'orth Vater Street '
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Dear Mr. Meinholz:
Our staff archeologists V^ave reviewed the "Field Reconnaissance of
the Underwood Creek Interceptor Route Report," by the Great Lakes
Archaeological Research Center.
The survey and testing procedures utilized were sufficiently thorough
to justify the conclusion that there are no archeological resources
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
within this project area..
As indicated in the report, it is always possible that deeply buried
archeological sites may be found during construction. If such finds are
sade, please contact the State Archeologist, Dr. Joan E. Freeman
(608/262-9566), i-^ediately.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Erney
State Historic Preservation Officer
By William Green
Archeologist
RAE:rdd
cc: Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETYOF WISCONSIN
H16 STATE STREET-MADISON.WISCONSIN S57Od K1CH '.RD A ERNEY, OlKfcCTOR
-------
CHAPTER II
FRANKLIN-MUSKEGO INTERCEPTOR
-------
CHAPTER II
FRANKLIN-MUSKEGO INTERCEPTOR
PURPOSE OF THE INTERCEPTOR
The proposed Franklin-Muskego Interceptor would provide
sewer service to portions of the Cities of Franklin and
Muskego. Specifically, this would be the provision of
additional capacity to allow for future development, to
expedite the connection of septic systems which are located
in marginal or unsuitable soils, and to allow the abandon-
ment of two local wastewater treatment plants which currently
do not always meet effluent standards.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUTES
Sixteen wastewater conveyance alternatives were developed
for the proposed interceptor. These included eight gravity
alternatives, six pumping alternatives, one storage and
pumping alternative, and a No Action Alternative. The
conveyance alternatives follow five different routes,
designated as A,B,C,D and E, which are shown in Figure II-I.
Route A
Route A starts at the Muskego Northeast Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) and proceeds east past the Milwaukee-Waukesha
County line, following along Tess Corners Creek, past Forest
Home Avenue to the abandoned Mission Hills Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Route A then proceeds northward along
Highway 100 and connects to the 84-inch Metropolitan Inter-
ceptor Sewer (MIS) at College Avenue.
Route B
Route B begins at the Muskego Northeast WWTP, proceeds east
past the Milwaukee-Waukesha County line and follows along
Tess Corners Creek to Forest Home Avenue. Route B then
continues northward along Forest Home Avenue to College
Avenue-extended, then east to the 84-inch MIS at Highway
100.
Route C
Route C commences at the Muskego Northeast WWTP, then heads
east past the Milwaukee-Waukesha County line along Tess
Corners Creek to North Cape Road. Route C continues north
to Sunnybrook Road and then east along Sunnybrook Road to
Forest Home Avenue. At this point, it heads north along
Forest Home Avenue, then east on College Avenue-extended
to connect with the 84-inch MIS at Highway 100.
II-l
-------
T? EXISTING 84" MIS
fl
!**
SCALE
IN
l-l
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
ROUTE A
ROUTE 8
ROUTE C
ROUTE D
ROUTE E
MUSKEGO NORTHEAST WWTP
ST. MARTINS PUMP STATION (EXISTING)
FRANKLIN-MUSKEGO INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ROUTES FOR THE
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
M.M.S.D.
-------
Route D
Route D begins at the Muskego Northeast WWTP and proceeds
east past the Milwaukee-Waukesha County line to North Cape
Road. Route D turns north along North Cape Road, continues
to Forest Home Avenue, and then goes north along Forest Home
Avenue to College Avenue - extended. At this point it heads
east along College Avenue - extended to the 84-inch MIS at
Highway 100.
Route E
Route E begins at the Muskego Northeast WWTP and heads north
on Sunny Slope Road to Woods Road. Route E turns northeast
along Woods Road to Forest Home Avenue and then north along
Forest Home Avenue to College Avenue - extended. At this
point, it heads east along College Avenue-extended to the
84-inch MIS at Highway 100.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
A screening of the preliminary alternatives for the Franklin-
Muskego Interceptor was conducted by the MWPAP to identify
the most feasible ones. Each of the alternatives was examined
for probable environmental impacts, technical feasibility,
and the relative cost of construction. The alternatives
which were judged to be environmentally or economically
unacceptable were eliminated from further consideration.
The remaining, more feasible alternatives were then subjected
to a more detailed analysis in the secondary phase of screen-
ing.
The following is a brief description of all the preliminary
alternatives and an explanation of whether or not they were
retained for further consideration. The MMSD Planning
Report was used as a supplemental source of information in
this section.
Alternative 1
This is the No Action Alternative and calls for continued
operation of the local existing sewer system with no capital
improvements except those already under, or approved for,
construction. The area would continue to develop with con-
straints on location, rate, and density. No cost estimate
was made for the No Action Alternative because of the
difficulty in assessing its impacts.
II-3
-------
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of the construction of 13,400 feet of
36-inch interceptor, 4,500 feet of 30-inch interceptor, and
50 feet of 21-inch sewer along Route A. Conveyance would be
entirely by gravity and the St. Martins pump station would
be abandoned. Flows from the Muskego Northeast WWTP would
be conveyed to the county line by a 30-inch sewer constructed
in an open-cut method. A 36-inch interceptor, constructed
in tunnel, would convey flow from the county line to the
existing MIS system. Flows tributary to the St. Martins
pump station would be diverted to the 36-inch interceptor
through a 21-inch sewer constructed in the open-cut method.
Alternatives following Route A (Alternatives 2,3, and 4)
involve construction along Tess Corners Creek for nearly
twice the distance as the other proposed alternatives.
Environmental evaluation of these alternatives resulted in
their elimination from further consideration because of
their potential for causing severe sedimentation and wild-
life impacts. Alternatives 2 and 3 were also found to be
relatively expensive.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 requires the construction of 10,000 feet of
36-inch interceptor, 7,900 feet of 30-inch interceptor, and
80 feet of 21-inch sewer along Route A. Conveyance would be
entirely by gravity, and the existing St. Martins pump
station would be abandoned. Flows from the Muskego Northeast
WWTP would be conveyed to the county line by a 30-inch sewer
constructed in the open-cut method. A 36-inch interceptor
would convey flow from the county line to the existing MIS
system. About 4,400 feet of this interceptor would be
constructed in open-cut and the remaining 5,600 feet would
be constructed in tunnel. Flows tributary to the St. Martins
pump station would be diverted to the interceptor through a
21-inch sewer constructed in the open-cut method.
This alternative was eliminated for the same reasons as
described under Alternative 2.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 consists of pumping wastewater flows from
Franklin and Muskego in two separate segments. Flows from
Franklin would be pumped from the St. Martins pump station
through an existing 16-inch force main and 1,600 feet of new
16-inch force main along Forest Home Avenue to the 24-inch
sewer at College Avenue, a tributary to the 84-inch MIS. In
addition, 2,000 feet of 10-inch gravity sewer, a tributary
to St. Martins pump station, would be constructed along Tess
Corners Creek. This sewer would provide service to western
Franklin. The St. Martins pump station would be upgraded to
accommodate future flows.
II-4
-------
A new 8.09 MGD pump station, constructed at the Muskego
Northeast WWTP, would pump wastewater through 18,300 feet of
20-inch force main along Route A. The force main would be
tributary to the 84-inch MIS.
This alternative was eliminated for the same reasons as
described under Alternative 2.
Alternative 5
This alternative consists of 12,000 feet of a 36-inch
interceptor, 4,500 feet of 30-inch interceptor, and 50 feet
of 21-inch sewer along Route B. Conveyance would be entirely
by gravity. The 30-inch interceptor would run from the
Muskego Northeast WWTP to the Milwaukee County line, while
the 36-inch tunnel would run from the county line to the MIS
system. Open-cut construction of the 30-inch sewer would be
at an average depth of 25 feet and tunnel construction would
be at depths ranging from 25 to 100 feet. The existing St.
Martins pump station would be abandoned, and flows tributary
to it would be diverted to the interceptor through a 21-inch
sewer constructed using the open-cut method.
This alternative was acceptable on environmental considerations,
but was eliminated from further consideration because of its
estimated high cost.
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 consists of construction of 8,700 feet of a
36-inch interceptor, 7,800 feet of a 30-inch interceptor,
and 50 feet of a 21-inch sewer along Route B. Conveyance
would be entirely by gravity. The 30-inch interceptor would
be constructed using the open-cut method from the Muskego
Northeast WWTP to a point 3,300 feet east of the Milwaukee
County line. From the latter point, a 36-inch tunnel would
continue to the MIS system at depths of 25 to 45 feet. The
existing St. Martins pump station would be abandoned and
flows tributary to it would be diverted to the interceptor
through a 21-inch sewer.
This alternative was considered acceptable on environmental
considerations, but was eliminated from further considerations
because of its estimated high cost.
Alternative 7
Alternative 7 consists of constructing 8,600 feet of 20-inch
force main, 4,500 feet of 15-inch gravity sewer, 3,400 feet
of 18-inch gravity sewer and two new pump stations. It also
II-5
-------
requires the use of an existing lagoon at the Muskego
Northeast WWTP to reduce peak wastewater flows. The
existing St. Martins pump station would be replaced by a new
5.61 MGD pump station. Flows from Muskego and Franklin
would be pumped from this station through a 20-inch force
main along Forest Home Avenue and College Avenue extended to
the existing 89-inch MIS.
A new 8.09 MGD pump station would be constructed at the
Muskego Northeast WWTP to lift flows to a 21-acre storage
lagoon. Average daily flows would be discharged to the 15-
inch gravity sewer and conveyed to the county line. The 18-
inch gravity sewer would begin at the county line and convey
flows to the new 5.61 MGD St. Martins pump stations.
This alternative was considered acceptable on environmental
considerations, but was eliminated from further consideration
because of its high estimated cost.
Alternative 8
Alternative 8 consists of constructing a new 9.53 MGD pump
station (to replace the St. Martins pump station), 8,600
feet of 24-inch force main, 7,900 feet of 30-inch gravity
sewer, and 50 feet of 21-inch gravity sewer. Flows from
Franklin and Muskego would be pumped by the new 9.53 MGD
station through a 24-inch force main along Forest Home
Avenue and College Avenue extended to the 84-inch MIS.
The 30-inch sewer would be constructed in the open-cut
method at depths of 10 to 25 feet and would convey flow from
the Muskego Northeast WWTP to the new pump station. The 21-
inch sewer Would divert Franklin's flow from the St. Martins
pump station to the new 9.53 MGD facility.
This alternative was considered acceptable on environmental
considerations, but was eliminated from further consideration
because of its high estimated cost.
Alternative 9
Alternative 9 consists of pumping wastewater flows from the
Cities of Franklin and Muskego through two separate sewer
systems. Flows from Franklin would be pumped from the St.
Martins pump station through an existing 16-inch force main
and 1,600 feet of new 16-inch force main to a 24-inch sewer
at College Avenue, a tributary to the 84-inch MIS. The
capacity of St. Martins pump station would be increased from
2.6 MGD to 3.55 MGD. In addition, about 2,000 feet of 10-
inch gravity sewer would be constructed as a tributary to
the pump station to provide sewer service to the western
portion of the Franklin service area.
II-6
-------
A new 8.09 MGD pump station would be constructed at the
Muskego Northeast plant to pump flows through 16,900 feet of
20-inch force main along Route B.
This alternative was acceptable on environmental considerations
but was eliminated because of the lower cost of similar
pumping alternatives.
Alternative 10
Alternative 10 consists of construction of 4,500 feet of a
30-inch gravity interceptor, 11,500 feet of a 36-inch gravity
interceptor, and 500 feet of a 21-inch gravity sewer along
Route C. Flow from the City of Muskego would be conveyed
from the Muskego Northeast WWTP by a 30-inch interceptor
which would be constructed by the open-cut method for the
entire distance to the Milwaukee County line. From the
county line, the flow would be conveyed through the 36-inch
tunnel interceptor at depths ranging from 28 to 100 feet.
Flow tributary to the abandoned St. Martins pump station,
would be diverted to the 36-inch interceptor by the 21-inch
sewer.
This alternative was eliminated from further considerations
because of its estimated high cost.
Alternative 11
Alternative 11 consists of 8,000 feet of a 30-inch interceptor,
8,000 feet of a 36-inch interceptor and 500 feet of a 21-
inch sewer all constructed along Route C. Flows from the
City of Muskego would be conveyed through a 30-inch interceptor
sewer from the Muskego Northeast WWTP to a point 3,500 feet
east of the Milwaukee County line, with all the construction
being accomplished by use of the open-cut method. The 36-
inch tunneled interceptor would convey the flow from this
point to the MIS system. Flows tributary to the abandoned
St. Martins pump station would be diverted to the new
interceptor by a 21-inch sewer.
This alternative was eliminated because of the possible
adverse environmental impacts and an estimated high cost.
Alternative 12
Alternative 12 consists of pumping wastewater flows from the
Cities of Franklin and Muskego through two separate sewer
systems. Flows from Franklin would be pumped by the St.
Martins pump station through the existing 16-inch force main
that would extend 1,600 feet to the 24-inch sewer at College
Avenue, a tributary to the MIS system. The capacity of the
II-7
-------
St. Martins pump station would be increased 2.6 MGD to 3.55
MGD. A 2,000 foot, 10-inch sewer, tributary to the pump
station, would provide service to western Franklin.
A new 8.09 MGD pump station would pump flow from Muskego to
the MIS system through 16,400 feet of a 20-inch force main
located along Route C.
This alternative was considered environmentally acceptable
and has a low estimated cost. It was retained for detailed
analysis.
Alternative 13 !
Alternative 13 consists of the construction of 4,500 feet of
a 30-inch interceptor, 10,700 feet of a 36-inch interceptor,
and 1,100 feet of a 21-inch sewer along Route D. Flow from
Muskego would be conveyed through a 30-inch, open-cut sewer
to the Milwaukee County line. The 36-inch tunnel interceptor
would then convey the flow to the MIS system. The flows
from the abandoned St. Martins pump station would be diverted
by the 21-inch sewer.
This'alternative has some negative construction impacts and
a high estimated cost. It was eliminated from further con-
siderations .
Alternative 14
Alternative 14 consists of the construction of 7,100 feet
of a 30-inch, open-cut interceptor, 8,100 feet of a 36-inch,
tunnel interceptor, and 1,100 feet of a 21-inch sewer along
Route D. Flow from Muskego would' be conveyed through the
30-inch interceptor to a point 2,600 feet east of the Milwaukee
County line. The 36-inch interceptor would then convey the
flow to the MIS system. The flow from the abandoned St.
Martins pump station would be diverted by the 21-inch sewer
to the 36-inch interceptor.
This alternative was considered to be an environmentally
acceptable gravity alternative. The estimated cost was not
unreasonably high, so Alternative 14 was retained for detailed
analysis.
Alternative 15
Alternative 15 consists of pumping wastewater flows from
the Cities of Franklin and Muskego through two separate sewer
systems. Flows from Franklin would be pumped from the St.
Martins pump station through an existing 16-inch force main
and 1,600 feet of new 16-inch force main to a 24-inch sewer
II-8
-------
at College Avenue, a tributary to the 84-inch MIS. The
capacity of the St. Martins pump station would be in-
creased from 2.6 MGD to 3.55 MGD. In addition, about 2,000
feet of 10-inch gravity sewer would be constructed as a
tributary to the pump station to provide sewer service
to the western portion of the Franklin service area.
A new 8.09 MGD pump station would be constructed at the
Muskego Northeast WWTP to pump flows through 15,600 feet of
20-inch force main along Route D.
This alternative was considered to be environmentally acceptable
and its relative cost was low. It was retained for detailed
analysis.
Alternative 16
Alternative 16 also consists of pumping wastewater flows
from the Cities of Franklin and Muskego through two separate
sewer systems. The flow from Franklin would be conveyed to the
existing MIS system in the same manner as in Alternative 15.
Flows from Muskego would be conveyed through 15,600 feet of
a 20-inch force main along Route E by a new 8.09 MGD pump
station.
Alternative 16 was retained for further analysis for the
same reasons as Alternative 15.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The preliminary screening identified environmentally sensitive
areas likely to be affected by the construction and operation
of wastewater conveyance alternatives. The preliminary cost
estimates allowed for comparison of the alternatives and
selection of those likely to be least costly. Using these
guidelines, the MWPAP retained Alternatives 12, 14, 15/ and
for a second phase detailed analysis. Gravity interceptor
Alternatives 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 13 were eliminated on
the basis of high cost. Alternatives 2, 3, 11 13 were
also undesirable because of their projected environmental
impacts.
Alternative 4, a pumping alternative, was not retained be-
cause of its high relative cost and because of its projected
environmental impacts.
Pumping alternatives 7, 8, and 9 were rejected since they were
considered to be too costly when compared to similar pumping
alternatives.
II-9
-------
Each of the alternatives retained for detailed analysis
involves construction along Tess Corners Creek. Three
pumping alternatives (12, 15, and 16) and one gravity
alternative (14) all use the open-cut method of con-
struction and could have some impacts upon the creek.
To minimize any possible negative impacts on the creek's
water quality and aquatic biota, modifications to the original
routes of the retained alternatives were made. The new routes
are shown in Figure II-2.
Alternative 12, using Route C, was modified so that it no
longer tracks Tess Corners Creek. The new route v/ill run
along the north side of the field lying to the south of the
creek. Rather than running along Sunnybrook Road, Alternative
12 will head east along the southern edge of County Dale
School. A gravity route from North Cape Road along the southern
edge of the school and north on Forest Home to the St. Martins
pump station is proposed as part of Alternative 12.
Alternative 14, using Route D, also avoids the creek and,
instead, runs along the northern edge of the field. At North
Cape Road it heads north. In addition, a gravity leg will
run north on Forest Home Avenue from the pump station and
then west on Sunnybrook Road to North Cape Road.
Alternative 16, using Route E, has been changed and the
gravity leg that ran along Tess Corners Creek between North
Cape Road and Forest Home Avenue now runs along the southern
edge of Country Dale School and north up to the St. Martins
pump station.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Alternatives 12, 14 and 15
These three alternatives all follow the same general route
and, therefore, the associated affected environment of all
may be discussed concurrently.
The proposed construction corridor contains a variety of
land uses including residential, commercial, open areas, and
sites for community facilities. Surface water present in the
construction area involves only the Tess Corners Creek. At
Whitnall Park, the creek flows into Whitnall Park Pond, which
could also be affected by construction activities even though
the pond itself is not included within the construction cor-
ridor. The average flow rate for Tess Corners Creek is 5
cubic feet per second (cfs) with peak flows exceeding 300
cfs and the 7-day, 10-year low flow being less than 0.01 cfs.
11-10
-------
SCALE
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
ALT. 12 (FORCE MAIN)
ALT. 14 (GRAVITY SEWER)
ALT. 15 (FORCE MAIN)
ALT. 16 (FORCE MAIN)
ALT.'s 12,15,16 (GRAVITY SEWER)
ALT.'s 12,15,16 (FORCE MAIN EXTENSION)
MUSKEGO NORTHEAST WWTP
ST. MARTINS PUMP STATION (EXISTING)
200O 4000 6000
IN
FEET
11-2
FRANKLIN-MUSKEGO INTERCEPTOR
MODIFIED CONVEYANCE ROUTES
M.M.S.D.
-------
Water quality in Tess Corners Creek is characterized by
relatively low levels of suspended solids, high levels of
dissolved oxygen, and relatively large concentrations of
phosphorus (MWPAP, 1980). Most of the creek near the
interceptor corridor is well shaded and does not have ex-
tensive algal growths. However, Whitnall Park Pond, which
is not shaded, does commonly experience algal blooms during
the summer.
Fish that inhabit Tess Corners Creek include white suckers,
sunfish, bass, and bluegills.
Groundwater is present at points within the construction
corridor at depths of less than 10 feet during periods of
seasonally high water (see Figure II-3). In other areas, it
is present at 10-30 foot depths and, in a few sections, it
is at depths greater than 30 feet.
The floodplain of Tess Corners Creek has been channeled in
the City of Muskego but remains in a more natural state
throughout the City of Franklin. In that area it is forested,
while in the City of Muskego, shrubs line the creek's channel.
Whitnall Park, which lies within the floodplain, has forests
and is a sanctuary for wildlife.
Several woodlands and wetlands exist in the construction cor-
ridor are are shown in Figure II-4. Air quality in the
Franklin-Muskego Interceptor corridor is probably similar to
that measured in the City of Franklin by the Wisconsin DNR,
which was found to be in compliance with national standards.
The construction corridor includes urbanized areas along North
Cape Road, Forest Home Avenue, Highway 100 and College Avenue.
Construction may also be required along several arterial streets
which provide direct access to some businesses. Presently,
the area can be classified as a low-density residential area,
and the year 2000 plan continues this designation. Community
facilities in the construction area are shown in Figure II-4
as is the location of the one known archaeological site within
the construction corridor.
Alternative 16
Route E travels through several land uses including residential,
commercial, open areas, and sites for community facilities.
The residential category (mostly low density) makes up a
relatively larger percentage of the land use than in the other
alternatives. The community facilities in the construction
area of this route are shown in Figure II-4.
11-12
-------
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
0 2000 4000 SOOO
SCALE IN FEET
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
I I 0 TO 10 FEET
t ' 10 TO 30 FEET
GREATER THAN 30 FEET
11-3
FRANKLIN-MUSKEGO INTERCEPTOR
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
M.M.S.D.
-------
A
£
MUSKESO
LAKE
LEGEND
WOODLANDS
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
WHITNALL PARK
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
WETLANDS
FIRE STATION
HALES CORNERS AIRPORT
EEA AIRCRAFT MUSEUM
ARCHAEOLOGIC SITES
SCHOOL
0 2000 4000 SOOO
SCALE IN FEET
1-4
FRANKLIN-MUSKEGO INTERCEPTOR
WOODLANDS, WETLANDS, COMMUNITY
FACILITIES, and ARCHAEOLOGIC SITES
M.M.S.D.
-------
This alternative construction route crosses only two of Tess
Corners Creek's intermittent channels.
The groundwater and air quality characteristics are the same
as described for the previous alternatives.
Transportation routes which may be affected as a result of
the construction of this alternative include Woods Road, St.
Martins Road, North Cape Road, Forest Home Avenue, and
College Avenue.
The State Historical Society of Wisconsin has concluded that
there are no archaeological resources that would be eligible
for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
present in the study area (see Supplement 1).
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The potential impacts upon the environment which would be
caused by the construction of the Franklin-Muskego Interceptor
are discussed in the following section and are summarized in
Table II-l. The MMSD Environmental Assessment was used as a
supplemental source of information for this section.
The routes of all the alternatives are located along and
across roads. All will affect access to homes, businesses,
and community facilities. Alternative 12 would affect about
18 households and 24 businesses. A total of 1.5 miles of
road along Forest Home Avenue and other local roads would be
affected. In addition, Alternative 12 may affect access to
ti'.e Country Dale Elementary School. Alternative 14 would
cause surface disruption only at a few work sites, minimizing
the disruption of nearby residents and businesses. However,
50 homes and seven businesses in the area of work sites
could be affected for long periods of time. Alternative 15
involves open-cut construction along North Cape Road and
would affect access to about 50 households and seven busi-
nesses. Alternative 15 may also affect access to the
Country Dale Elementary School. Alternative 16 involves
open-cut construction along Woods Road and would affect
access to about 90 households and seven businesses. Alternative
16 may also affect access to the Country Dale Elementary
School.
The construction activity of all four alternatives could
produce odors and sights which would aesthetically affect
the inhabitants, workers, and visitors to the general area
surrounding the construction sites. Alternative 14 involves
tunnel construction and would be expected to have a milder
impact than the other alternatives. Furthermore, any
11-15
-------
accessories to the interceptor sewer may be visible and
cause an impact. Alternatives 12, 15 and 16 require visible,
permanent pump stations.
All of the construction alternatives will produce dust and
exhaust fumes and, therefore, will impact the air quality
of the area. Tunnel Alternative 14 would affect a smaller
area, but dust and exhaust would be more concentrated at
tunnel access sites.
The aquatic biota of the Tess Corners Creek and, potentially,
Whitnall Park Pond may be affected by the presence of sediment
eroded into the water during the construction of the interceptor
sewer. All construction alternatives can be expected to
supply sediment to the stream. Alternative 16, which was the
least proximate to the Creek, could be expected to contribute
significantly less sediment than the other alternatives.
Thus, the impact of Alternative 16 on the aquatic biota may
be less severe. Tunnel Alternative 14 could also be expected
to contribute less sediment.
No threatened of endangered species are known to inhabit the
proposed construction corridor.
Each of the alternatives would have short term energy demands
for construction. The energy impacts for construction are
not considered to be significant for any of the alternatives.
Long-term energy impacts are associated with pumping
(Alternatives 12, 15 and 16). These alternatives would each
consume about 225,000 kWh of electricity per year.
Alteration of the configuration of the Tess Corners Creek
floodplain may occur in conjunction with all of the construction
alternatives and thereby encourage flooding during and after
the construction period. However, the route modifications
that were made should minimize these impacts. Tunnel Alternative
14 would cause the least surface disruption along the creek.
All of the construction alternatives may result in spills,
silting, and/or dewatering which could affect domestic wells
in the area and may also affect the integrity of the ground-
water regime. Alternative 12 may affect up to seven wells
during construction. Alternative 14 involves tunneling and
dewatering operations. Drawdown during construction may
affect 20 to 25 wells and potable water would have to be
supplied to affected residences or businesses. Alternative 15
may affect up to 22 wells during construction. Alternative 16
may affect 8 to 12 domestic wells during construction.
There are no knov/n archaeological or historical sites that
would be affected by any of the alternatives.
11-16
-------
None of the alternatives are expected to have legal impacts.
Noise produced during construction may affect the inhabitants,
workers, visitors, and wildlife in the area neighboring the
construction corridor. Noise would be concentrated for
prolonged periods of time near the tunnel access shafts of
Alternative 14. Alternatives 12, 15, and 16 may affect students
at the Country Dale School.
None of the alternatives are expected to have an impact upon
public health.
Alternatives 12, 15, and 16 may temporarily affect the use
of playground facilities at the Country Dale School.
Construction tunnels, trenches, and equipment are potential
hazards to the safety of both the workers and visitors to the
construction site. Open-cut construction (Alternatives 12
15 and 16) would have more surface disruption and require
more safety precautions than tunnel construction (Alternative
14). In addition, public safety would be a significant con-
cern in the Country Dale school area (Alternatives 12, 15 and
16) .
Traffic may be disrupted along several streets including Woods
Road, North Cape Road, Forest Home Avenue, Highway 100,
St. Martins Road, and College Avenue during the periods of
actual construction because of an increase in traffic con-
gestion from the presence of construction workers, the
construction equipment, and the sewer line. Alternative 12
would have its major impact on Forest Home Avenue. The wide
rights-of-way and pavement along Forest Home Avenue would
allow construction to be located to minimize traffic disruption,
Alternative 14 involves tunnel construction along the North
Cape Road rights-of-way and would cause surface disruption at
a few work sites. However, the duration of these work sites
is for the construction period, and trucks traveling to and
from them could disrupt traffic. Alternative 15 involves
open-cut construction along North Cape Road. North Cape Road
is a narrow residential street, so construction here may be
more disruptive than construction along Forest Home Avenue.
Alternative 16 involves open-cut construction along Woods
Road, a two-lane residential street. Similarly, this
alternative may be more disruptive to traffic than construction
along Forest Home Avenue.
The water quality of Tess Corners Creek and, potentially,
Whitnall Park Pond may be affected by the presence of sediment
eroded into the water during the construction of the inter-
ceptor sewer. In addition, oil and grease spills during
construction could adversely affect water quality. All con-
11-17
-------
struction alternatives can be expected to supply sediment to
the stream. Alternative 16, which is the furthest from the
creek, could be expected to contribute significantly less
sediment than the other alternatives. Thus, the impact of
Alternative 16 on water quality may be less significant.
There are scattered areas of wetlands that may be affected
by interceptor construction. Construction activities may
generate sediment or disturb wildlife that inhabit these
areas.
The wildlife habitat present in the construction corridor
may be affected due to the construction of any of the inter-
ceptor alternatives. All four of the alternatives would,
for the most part, avoid the lowland forest adjacent to Tess
Corners Creek. Up to 0.5 acres of wildlife habitat may be
disturbed by each alternative, although the value of this
habitat is already diminished by small size and isolation
from other habitats.
Secondary Growth Impacts: For an analysis of secondary
impacts of this interceptor, see the Secondary Growth Impacts
Appendix or Chapter V of the EIS.
COST SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Details of the costs for the four final alternatives are
given in Table II-2. The least costly of the alternatives,
Alternative 16, has a total present worth of $4,329,000, and
an equivalent annual cost of $405,000. Alternatives 12 and
15 were relatively close in cost to Alternative 16, with
total present worths of $4,509,000 and $4,377,000, respectively,
Alternative 14 was by far the most expensive alternative
with a total present worth of $10,030,000.
The methods and assumptions used in calculating these costs
are outlined in Chapter VIII of this appendix.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Alternative 12 was selected as the preferred alternative by
the MWPAP. It is the most environmentally acceptable alter-
native because it avoids major residential areas with most
of the disruption occurring in commercial and open areas.
It would also affect the fewest domestic wells during con-
struction compared to the other alternatives. The cost
estimate for Alternative 12 is economically competitive with
less costly Alternatives 15 and 16.
11-18
-------
Cu
0
M
cn
a:
a
-.
M
H
C
I
cn
r-t EH
i U
1) flj
s
Cd M
s s
2
u
g
M
Z
O
e£
|
en
a;
O
a.
O
a
2^
»_t
O
en
S
z
i t
£
z
S
r-j
en
Cd
a
1
a
s
o
z
M
U
£4
hH
S
j
2
a
z
u
cn
Cd
S
5
u
S
S
cn
^
a
cn
>
t^
«c
;z
E:
*
g
2:
P*
-z
en
jr. c
-H 13
3 -rt
en
c a
O 44
0 01
3 CD
iH 01
JJ 01
01 a
c c
0 -i
U 01
fl *o
C 1)
FH .U
14 CU
0 UH
r9 «
CJ fl
i-t CN
,_)
H -
3 «
cn r-i
V 0
H .C
H Ul
-4 3
-H 0
O £
fl
u-t CO
JJ JJ
-H O
C 0)
| fl
U 'U
r-l
"c 0
fl O
» CN
tn i-t
41
£ a,
O >
- fl
cn C
t
4
C
CJ
fl
cn
*
> *
-4 C
jj 0
(Tj '"4
C JJ
01 T3
JJ 13
r-4 fl
C
1 1
- S
"3 cn
CO «
fl cn
c 3
:q c
fl
a)
rH tfl
fl 0)
a s
g
JJ O
3
0 -»J
u o
4)
D U-4
5 ^
TU *D
C rH
fl 3
0
- O
01
eu in
01
SI
-H fl
Is
a
>
4J
fl
C
JJ d)
< JJ
TJ
C
r-l fl
§ «
£ ,
M
3 CO
0 t3
U r-4
0
dj x!
_£; ^j
JJ tn
3
4J 0
0 -
1)
^w C\
fl
0
It
o
-U
in u
-* a)
0 u-i
> fl
1-4
jj rrj
3-3
lj 0
CU CJ
.u
rH VJ3
< rH
__,
|
"o
cn
"3
4J
C
3
0
o
y J2 ^J en
o *J en cy
fl 3 ^ TJ
rH £ TJ U
fl HO
3 3) 01 01 *
01 JJ OJ C M
.,H .^ M o a)
> ji s d jj .
01 X 01
o c u 01 c
jj 0 O
fl *H k| Cf] 4) -I-4,
c JJ o u x: -u
« u cu jj fl
S 3 ui £ jJ
-t u c J3 c cn
H JJ 3) 3 -ft
2J 0) 5J i4 Q,
C V4 O Cfl g
ij o y tn u 3
o u r-fi -H a
ox: o 3 x: x:
3 jj ta jj jj
ti tu x: cn
a o w x cy
H XT **
'jj *j
0 fl
Cp JJ C M
H ^ t -Q -H ti*
H JJ
fl r-4 C C
U 3 -^ D
-H 0 U C
U S JJ fl
{^ fl> rrj <^l
JJ rH CJ
cn u a*
tu iu (U
fl > -S -
H W i)
0) 4J {5 rH
JJ fl jQ
fl C
rH C
H r-t ,J -H
3 U 3
» JJ C7*
c s u u
2 3 1 u
* E . -~
0 « ±,
3
JH ca JH ^
4J r-J CJ ^
en rH TJ -
C 01 rH ^
0 S H in
CJ 01 g rH
s
LTl
rH
r^
CM
Cfi
O
JJ
1)
rfl
4J
01
fl
X
CO
3
fl
rH
H
0
en
en
- u
3 O
O J3
TJ -Q
3
JJ U
ffl U
3 M
en
3
> 3
JJ -Q
'fl (0
§ 2
fl
H kl
fl 0)
i4 r>4
fl fl
1 "
fl
y jj
||
3 eu
2 -n
3 rH
3 3
J
S -H
U-I 1)
1Q JJ
3 fl
fl C.
!< o
u jj
TJ <
fl -H
JJ C
cn s
3 2
S
i/C
-H
"^
CN
>,
ti
fl
o*
CU
cn
cn
cn
y
U
fl
r *
a
c
c
3
JJ
jj
fl
jj
fl
jj
0)
O
o
Ul
o
s
Ji
r-l
3
i
01
3
fl
C.
X
c
fl
Q
fl
fl
en
"en
3
O
?
H
rH
Jj
JJ
O
0]
3
01
01
3
01
>
JJ
fl
c
01
jj
3
-TJ
o
0
H
Jjj
fl
fl
aj
JJ
o
0)
"K
a
rH
3
cn
4J
fl
TJ
4-1
5
r1
U*T
«-"
i
r.
fl
0
Q
CJ
fl
01
7j
a
t/7
U-l
0
C
'a
cn i
-j) -H C
rH JJ a
fl H ,-t
JJ
^ (Q OJ
0) C JJ
M 0 -3
x: c
-tJ U 0
CD u m
0^ rH
JJ -J 0
0 JJ TJ
a c
JJ O T3 fl
fl ^ 0)
= JJ JJ CN
H O rH
X C 0)
0 fl C. fJl
u x: x u
04 jj dj >
H
ui c .a fl
DO C
OJ S 73 W
TJ 3 -u
-H Jl 8 <
-------
i
j
OJ
u
Li
0)
jj
C
f-t
>1
JJ
>
T3
Li
31
fl
*M
0
OJ
C/l
D
0
i t
H
31
cn
a
D
O
"3
(1
(8
C
H
tr
-4
Ll
0
0
JJ
Jj
0
3
Ll
4J
M
C
o
o
tJ
c
rti
.x
o
z
u
0)
id
3
T3
i
C
"J
Li
13
a.
e
3
~
1
(»
CP
0)
JJ
tn
N
<
Z
<
a
2
<
6.
T3 t3
0 C
3
C I
»4
AJ CO
IS
a.
s
H4
1 *4
H <
-1 5"
2
*£ C£
J ZL
§ §
S- S
HH
>
z
iu
t.
o
>
X
<
E
S
5}
OS
p
M
O
X
k£
e»
2
H*
8
a
_*;
en
a
s
!
2
h^
_j
^
2
h-1
E-
<
i
a
c*
<
W
e*
o
CO
5-
O
<
5
^
jj
o
en
0
jj
c
3
0
c
Ji
OJ
Ll
H3
0)
0)
H
o
0<
M
T.7
g
c
c
itJ
0
Lj
JJ
Li
0
O
^J
Li
CJ
c^
c
13
g
j
0
LI
0
T3
-4
Ll
L|
0
0
c
o
JJ
J
C
jj
en
c
0
y
1
en
0
0~
Li
u
JS
jj
C
w
3
*J
'T3
JJ
»_
M
'C
O
'U
>
en
Ll
a;
3
£
Li
(U
4J
1
JJ
Li
C
x:
31
0)
>
2
n-l
i-H
0
3
u
>
J-J
13
Li
O
4J
fl
r:
o
nj
M
^C
T3
fl
in
i-*
»
fN
Ul
O
>
S
*4
0
4J
f-t
<
c
0
JJ
0
3
Li
j_i
'Jl
C
G
3?
D
6
U_l
0
3
^
O
in
OJ
fN
D
Ll
S-
i)
Ll
fJl
U
>
+->
rtj
C
Li
0)
jj
r f
'13
IT
,i
£
3
C-
»
31
C
s*
3
Li
0
UJ
L>
m
cj
>
Ll
OJ
>,
-J
O
ri
Ll
jj
o
1)
^
un"
>H
^T
>-)
»
fN
^
tn
OJ
>
H
JJ
(13
C
Ll
OJ
JJ
i (
(13
S
jj
U-i
0
_£
o
fl
o
Li
0
U-4
c
o
JJ
J
C
jj
'J5
C
o
>1
^
H
tn
en
a.
*o
?
3
0
M
jj
(13
Ll
3
&
U-i
0
U
c
13
J,
"8
0
y-4
Li
a
JJ
1 1
ITS
>>
13
5
M *
C -u
0 "3
U Li
fl J
y -u
H iM
UJ <
S C
c
2g
3
Ll
tn
D jj
J= 0
C- -T3
^
i*
H
C V
-H Ifl
'C u
0 -=
in OJ
N
1) --4
CP g
(13 H
Li C
3 -H
0 £
O
G 0
3J -u
^
O
G
Li
O
a?
jj
c
o
4
(13
0
^
3
Li
!fl
T3
D
o
fl
Uj
Li
Jl
JJ
en
(13
i)
rH
OJ
ZJ
CJ
71
fl3
O
QJ
J=
jj
T1
C
1-1
Li
OJ
3
0
^
>i
>
3
'JJ
Ll
J
4J
rC
>
JJ
y
14-1
U-i
(T3
rD
3
o
c
0
f-l
-J
0
3
Li
JJ
Jl
0
in
:N
en
D
>
jj
(«
LI
D
JJ
<-4
<
CJ
^
J-I
JJ
aj
JT
jj
o
u
H-t
U-*
(0
T3
rH
3
O
o
n
c
1 1
o
>
c
1-1
U2
T3
C
13
>.
0
>
H
JJ
U
a
^T
i)
Li
'Jl
>4
T
3
O
jj
'Jl
a
S
'S
rj
r^
p
XI
'U
«J
rjv
C^l
r*»
T:
i-H
3
0
O
"2
(5
0
jj
y
Li
J^
cn
C Jl
C -»
y *-*
o
r-J 3
W
c y
c -f
3 -u
JJ Jl
OJ
tn s
OJ 0
tfi T3
3
U~l
T 'N
0
0 u
> _
J-l r\l
(C
C 4J
L( U
i a
rH U-i
< >T3
0
3 a
u a u
1=7
c
o
0
-------
a
a
-
HI
^ a
T3 a
o
3 1
C
0 <
U 2.
2
1 >J
M r*
Z
^ t3
J £
§ C
M
U
0
P
£
U
o
^
o
S
M
1
Z
3
^:
z
£L,
a
M
o:
z
6;
3
Cd
t,
O
Ul
r
a;
£
M
i*
IB
Q
-4 yi
y O
0 >
jj H
^ j-i
-* rt3
-i= C
^
u o;
0 *J
PH
i-t fl
n3
0 V
J5
r^ U*4
0 0
1)
"u 13
^
03 >i
" J
3 TJ
0 a
C -u
Ji 0
23
D 3
o
o
a.
-
0
O t3 0
1*4 fl
0 .! I1
O 01 U ~<
01 01 U
3 0 3 JJ
H 13 01
S) > C 18
a o ti
6< 13 O -I
c D SM *
18 01 rcj ON
H 0 ^H
a) o c
MS 01
& o o
o
1J TJ W
O -I 0
'** O T3 (-1
fl 0 0 <
-I 0 01 U
-I .H C,~
n rr-* _j
0 U ffl 4)
H JJ C >
4J tn o <
0 C r-t 4J
3 o o us
^ a u c
0 4J 0 "-*
o ^ <
H 03 4J 4J
t( a 03 y-t
TJ
u-t 0
W fl 0
ui rtj cn
3) g
U >i
1 H °
^ 0) O
Ci* y-i -Q
1) "H 73 Q) C O
H rH 3 C , O
S 5 §323
o -a
*j jr
a u
-------
<
U
Z
a} ij
W U
0 0
- u
31
tTJ >t
> *
0 O
U HI
> 3
13 CT-
< X
5- C
K £
O < 1-1
u a.
4
3
3
i
3
AJ
O
2.
5
C
to
V
>
(0
J=
r-4
-rt
3
01
0
>
Jj
fl
C
i-4
O
4J
f-4
fl
0
Jj
U-l
0
ca
^
S
>1
fl
a,
a
x
jj
LU
0
OJ
'Jl
3
i 1
fl
C
0
r-t
JJ
fl
1)
^
0
f fee ted.
fl
OJ
,Q
>,
fl
£
r-(
.C
o
C75
>
U
fl
jJ
u
§~
jj
OJ
fl
s, and tunnel access are;
2
"u
3
^
4J
Jj
a)
§,
4
2i
cu
c
0
JJ
y
3
U
.iJ
«
8
Cfl
U
IJ
^
U
i
n
c
fl
en
O
4J
01
c4
>
0)
en
0
jj
T3
*4
1J
N
S
>
4J
a
M-l
fl
yi
fl
CJ
ii
-1
3
more surface disruption
a
>
2
U3
73
fl
in
rg
01
y
>
^
fl
U
0)
<
T
r-4
a
>
P
2
s
O
4J
r-4
<
J
4J
Cfl
C
0
-H
4J
U
'J
M
>-,
JJ
J
ti
J]
1)
^
0
OJ
^
cr
'j
U
fl
i4
fl
|
"o
en
3J
*
4J
C
§
OJ
£
c
%J
"J
o
0
U
fl
o
j2
T3
0
3
>-
4J
0;
fl
'Jl
r-4
"3
C
fl
!N
r-t
CC
J
>
H
4->
T3
c
^4
4J
i-^
<
0
M-4
-------
W-t
0
?
H
JJ
3
O
i*
OJ
u
1
IB
C
0
'H
JJ
0
01
a
c
0
CJ
3
M
01
C
0
CJ
0
r
o
a
c
H
H
Ll
3
13
1
a
01
I^J
3
o
3
0
Uj
2
E-«
0
IB
LI
JJ
01
j=
o
3
3
C
0)
-J
S
jj
01
OJ
Ll
£
4J
OJ
U-l
2
3
S
CN
^
01
-H
rO
C
0!
*£
01
"J
>
0
c
H
^
g
>
03
C
JJ
<
JJ
C
>
nr
IB
>,
3
04
0
1
01
jj
jr
-H
a
o
3
S)
01
3
IB
y
13
l-l
3
S
"O
c
13
41
3*
j.
JJ
0>
Q
0
m
c
0
0
3
Ll
jj
01
0
u
0)
c
3
C
O
10
3
13
J
CO
JJ
-H
Ul
*
S
CD
>,
*H
C
O
JJ
cB
C
o
4J
Qi
01
CJ
O
03
a
01
native
0)
^
.
0
r-i
O
a
o
Ll
H
JJ
c
J
f
0
U-l
a
3
S
Ul
O
jJ
OJ
01
Jj
U-l
0
tj
S
0)
a
3
4J
i
C
0
13
C
0
jj
u
3
JJ
C
0
0
JJ
y
i
S
o"
en
o
0
LD
(
tn
0)
F 1
0
1
i^Q
0)
-H
JJ
2
S
a
jj
il
S
J^
JJ
r-t
^
Jj
3
^
ji
0
s
0
'-4
C
0
f-4.
fl
c
0
Jj
0
JJ
01
0
JJ
3
o
c
a
3"
a
*c
c
a
01
2
0
Ll
4J
C
i-H
JJ
JJ
-4
JJ
H
cn
C
en
0
>
<
jj
i r-J
J3 113 J
OJ > N
(0 o jJ en
JJ fl
a o w *
M 0) H rH
OJ IU JQ (T3
CJ "4-i
3 ^H
M (TJ
JJ J^
01
ecu
o o c
H O 0
JJ
O 14 O
a o -J
0 U
O Of
o T:
-u
TJ
-J lit
2 -^
^ r-l
H 3
r-J
^ o
3 'H
kj
0)
n3 -^
0)
^ 0 (T3 =.
o :J «
-------
g 5
W J
rJ < EH
< D CO
> 2 O
M 2 U
D <
O
W
to
~ EH
CM 2
r4 W E
< CO EH
EH Cd OS
o os o
EH CH S
^
C£!
C
<
>
,
E-<
EH 2
2 t:
H s:
S t:
£4 U
M <
D r^
C' P-
a K
PS
. .
s
i-a
O
EH
^*j ^"]
W E-,
CO OS
Cd O
& 2
&4
m
o
o
CN
E-i
£2 ^n
W E-
CO OS
fc] C
PS 2
PH
in
o>
CT>
EH
^ ^
W E^
CO PS
W O
PS 3
/>
r-H
>;
f 1
PS
H
rH*
rj ~
<
EH E-
M CO
a c
< U
U
<
O
o
o
CN
CN
o
*J'
o
o
o
^
r-
r--
ro
^
o
o
o
rH
«3
rr
O
O
0
ro
1"
r~-
rH
0
o
o
ro
0
i
o
o
o
"*sT
in
rH
O
o
0
^r
^r
^r
0
o
in
rH
TT
0
O
O
=^
CO
CN
'J1
m
rH
o
o
o
in
o
^H
^"T
O
O
o
^
Crt
CN
ro
'sr
o
o
o
m
m
"sr
0
o
C-
CTi
rH
r~-
rH
O
o
o
CO
0
J 1
o
o
o
^Jl
m
rH
O
o
0
w
^j*
^
^r
0
o
m
rH
^r
0
o
0
en
CN
CN
Tf
vc
rH
H
O
CO
CM
1!
H
U
U
1
K
3
W
tn
SH
03
i i
rH
O
13
O
CO
01
rH
C
H
13
0)
in
in
0)
M
a
X
01
0)
SH
03
tn
4-1
in
0
o
i i
i i
1
tr>
o
rH
0
13
C
4J
0)
e
CP
c
-rH
4->
01
0
O
SH
0
MH
H
H
M
>
SH
0)
4-1
*^
03
x:
CJ
0)
0)
w
.
H
W
W
W
13
03
C
03
rH
d,
>i
4J
H
H
O
03
fc.
Q
CO
S
S,
(D
U
in
D
0
CO
and non-related construction costs.
4J
0!
0
O
C
0
rH
4-1
U
D
M
4-1
0!
C
0
u
0]
0)
13
3
rH
O
c
n
4-1
tn
O
U
rH
03
4J
rH
a
03
CJ
c
03
0)
Cn
03
>
rH
03
in
01
4J
in
0
u
4-1
C
01
0)
o
n3
rH
a
0)
SH
tn
4-1
in
0
u
S.
U)
o
01
4-1
01
O
o
rH
03
4-1
H
a
03
u
01
0)
13
rH
0
C
H
£
-U
SH
C
3
4->
£
OJ
in
cu
SH
o
rH
03
4->
0
EH
C
0
H
4-1
U
3
SJ
4-1
01
C
0
U
CT
rH
1-1
rj
4-1
in
0)
SJ
0)
4->
^
H
-------
SUPPLEMENT II-l
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
September 17, 1979
Mr. Fred J. Meinholz SHSW: 793-79
Manager/Facilities Planning RE: Interceptor routes;
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District archeological survey
735 North Water Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Dear Mr. Meinholz:
Our staff archeologists have reviewed the Field Reconnaissance of the
Franklin-Muskego interceptor Route Report by the Great Lakes
Archaeological Research Center.
The survey and testing procedures utilized were sufficiently thorough
to justify the conclusion that there are no archeological resources
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
within this project area.
As indicated in the report, it is always possible that deeply buried
archeological sites may be found during construction. If such finds are
made, please contact the State Archeologlst, Dr. Joan E. Freeman
(608/262-9566), immediately.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Erney
State Historic Preservation Officer
By William Green
Archeologist
RAE:rdd
cc: Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
816 STATE STREET- MADISON .WISCONSIN 5370(5 RICHARD A ERNEY, DIRECTOR
-------
CHAPTER III
FRANKLIN-NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR
-------
CHAPTER III
FRANKLIN-NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR
PURPOSE OF THE INTERCEPTOR
The proposed Franklin-Northeast Interceptor would provide
centralized sewer service to the eastern portion of the City
of Franklin and smaller portions of Greenfield and Greendale.
A total of six pump stations would be abandoned. Construction
of the interceptor would alleviate existing and future
problems of bypassing raw sewage during periods of peak flow
and power failure. The interceptor would also allow for the
elimination of about 110 septic systems which have been
installed in soils that are generally considered as severely
limited in suitability for septic systems.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUTES
Four different routes were identified for the proposed
interceptor. These routes, designated as Routes A, B, C and
D, are shown in Figures III-l and III-2 and are described
below.
Route A
Route A, as shown in Figure III-l, starts at College Avenue
and 35th Street, travels south along 35th Street-extended to
Drexel Avenue, turns west along Drexel Avenue to 51st
Street, then south along 51st Street to Forest Hill Avenue-
extended and finally west along Forest Hill Avenue-extended
to the 84-inch Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer (MIS). Route
A is 21,400 feet long.
DESCRIPTION OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
A total of nine alternatives were developed and screened for
the Franklin-Northeast Interceptor. These included a No
Action Alternative, seven action alternatives, and an
alternative which proposes to upgrade the existing facilities.
A screening of the preliminary alternatives was conducted
for the purpose of identifying the most feasible alternatives.
Each of the preliminary alternatives was examined for
probable environmental impacts, the relative cost of construc-
tion and technical feasibility. The alternatives which were
judged unacceptable, either environmentally or economically,
were eliminated from further consideration. The remaining,
more feasible alternatives, were then subjected to a more
detailed analysis in the secondary phase of screening.
III-l
-------
LEGEND
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
i > i i RAILROAD
WATERWAY
PLANNING AREA SCALE
BOUNDARY
EXISTING MIS
LOCAL TRUNK SEWER
ROUTE A
ROUTE 8
EXISTING PUMP STATION
IN
M.M.S.D.
FRANKLIN-NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ROUTES A AND B
-------
LEGEND
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
RAILROAD
WATERWAY
PLANNING AREA
BOUNDARY
EXISTING MIS
LOCAL TRUNK SEWER
ROUTE C
ROUTE D
EXISTING PUMP STATION
PROPOSED PUMP STATION
A
2000 4000 6000
SCALE
FEET
111-2
M.M.S.D.
FRANKLIN-NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ROUTES C AND D
-------
The following is a brief description of each of the pre-
liminary alternatives and an explanation of whether or not
they were retained for the secondary screening. The MMSD
Facility Plan was used as a supplemental source of in-
formation for this section.
Alternative 1
This is the No Action Alternative and calls for continued
operation of the local existing sewerage system with no
capital improvements except those already under or approved
for construction. Under the No Action Alternative, the six
existing pump stations would remain in operation. This would
severely limit development because of the general unsuitability
of soils in the area for septic tank disposal systems. No
cost estimate was made for the No Action Alternative because
of the difficulty in assessing its impacts.
Route B
Route B, as shown in Figure III-l, starts at College Avenue
and 35th Street, travels south along the East Branch of the
Root River to a point approximately 350 feet north of Drexel
Avenue. Then it follows the river west to 51st Street and
turns south along 51st Street to Forest Hill Avenue extended.
It then turns and continues west along Forest Hill Avenue-
extended to the 84-inch MIS. Route B is 22,350 feet long.
Route C
Route C, as shown in Figure III-2, is basically a component
of Route A. It starts at College Avenue and 35th Street and
proceeds south along 35th Street-extended to Drexel Avenue.
It then turns west along Drexel Avenue and proceeds for
approximately 3,900 feet before turning south across Drexel
Avenue. Route C is 14,450 feet long.
Route D
Route D, as shown in Figure III-2, starts at the Route C
ending point and moves west along Drexel Avenue to 51st
Street. From that point, Route D proceeds south along 51st
Street to Forest Hill Avenue-extended, to the 84-inch MIS.
Route D is 6,850 feet long.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of the construction of 21,400 feet of
21-inch gravity interceptor along Route A. Construction
would be by the open-cut method at an average depth of 20
feet. The six existing pump stations would be abandoned.
III-4
-------
Flows from these pump stations and the College Meadows
apartment complex would be tied into this interceptor by
8,000 feet of 8, 10, and 15-inch gravity sewers. This
alternative was acceptable on both environmental considerations
and cost estimates. It was retained for further detailed
analysis.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 consists of the construction of 21,400 feet of
21-inch gravity interceptor along Route A. Construction
would be by the tunnel method at an average depth of 50
feet. The six existing pump stations would be abandoned.
Flows from these pump stations and the College Meadows
apartment complex would be tied into this interceptor by
8,000 feet of 8, 10, and 15-inch gravity sewers.
This alternative was acceptable on the basis of environmental
considerations, but the costs were relatively high. However,
because of the slight negative impacts associated with this
alternative, and the desire to assess a tunnel alternative in
more detail, it was retained for further analysis.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 consists of the construction of 22,350 feet of
a 21-inch gravity interceptor along Route B. Construction
would be by the open-cut method at an average depth of 20
feet. The six existing pump stations would be abandoned.
Flows from these pump stations and the College Meadows
apartment complex would be tied into this interceptor v/ith
8,490 feet of 8, 10, and 15-inch gravity sewers.
This alternative follows the Root River and would have some
very severe environmental impacts. Therefore, it was not
retained for further detailed analysis.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 consists of the construction of 22,350 feet of
a 21-inch gravity interceptor sewer along Route B. Construction
would be by the tunnel method at an average depth of 55
feet. The six existing pump stations would be abandoned.
Their flows and the College Meadows apartment complex would
be tied into this interceptor with 8,490 feet of 8, 10, and
15-inch gravity sewers.
This alternative was acceptable on the basis of environmental
considerations but the engineering costs were high enough
that the alternative was not retained for detailed analysis.
Ill-:
-------
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 consists of the construction of 21,400 feet of
10-inch gravity interceptor along Route A. Construction
V7ould be by the open-cut method at an average depth of 20
feet. The six existing pump stations would be upgraded and
would remain in operation. The College Meadows apartment
complex would be tied into this interceptor with 1,750 feet
of a new 8-inch gravity sewer. Also, a new 1.08 MGD pump
station would be constructed and placed into operation in
1997 to replace the Greendale pump station.
This alternative was acceptable on the basis of environmental
considerations and cost estimates. It was retained by the
MWPAP for further detailed analysis.
Alternative 7
Alternative 8 consists of the construction of 22,350 feet of
a 10-inch gravity interceptor along Route B. Construction
would be by the open-cut method at an average depth of 25
feet. The six existing pump stations would be upgraded and
remain in operation. The College Meadows apartment complex
would be tied into this interceptor with a new 8-inch gravity
sewer. A new 1.08 MGD pump station would be built as des-
cribed in Alternative 6.
This alternative would produce some very severe environmental
impacts to the Root River and has a relatively high cost.
Therefore, the MWPAP did not retain it for further detailed
analysis.
Alternative 8
Alternative 8 consists of the construction of a central pump
station (3.48 MGD capacity) which would be located
3,850 feet west of the intersection of Drexel Avenue and
35th Street-extended, and 140 feet south of Drexel Avenue.
The conveyance system would use Routes C and D. The inter-
ceptor along Route C would convey wastewater flows from
College Avenue and 35th Street to the central pump station,
and the interceptor along Route D would convey wastewater
flows from the central pump station to the 84-inch MIS-
Along Route C, 14,450 feet of a 21inch interceptor and 8,000
feet of 8, 10, and ISinch collector sewers (from the six
abandoned pump stations and the College Meadows apartment
complex) would be tied into the proposed new central pump
station. The 21-inch interceptor would be constructed by the
open-cut method at an average depth of 20 feet.
III-6
-------
of 20 feet.
Along Route D, 6,850 feet of a 16-inch force main, which
would empty into the existing 84-inch MIS, would be construc-
ted. The construction would be by the open-cut method at an
average depth of 19 feet. In addition, 3,890 feet of a 10-
inch sewer would be constructed along the Drexel Avenue and
51st Street sections of Route D. This portion would be a
gravity sewer and would be constructed by the open-cut
method at an average depth of 20 feet. The six existing
pump stations would be abandoned.
This alternative could disturb wildlife and plant habitats
if precautions are not taken during construction. The cost
estimate was not unreasonably high and, because of the
uniqueness o£ this alternative, it was retained for detailed
analysis.
Alternative 9
This alternative consists of upgrading the six existing pump
stations with new equipment, such as pumps, motors, starters,
and auxiliary power generators. The six pump stations would
continue to operate throughout the planning period. The
Greendale pump station would be replaced with a new 1.08 MGD
facility in 1997. About 110 septic systems would remain in
operation. The service area for this alternative would
include only those areas tributary to the pump stations. No
new conveyance system would be necessary.
This alternative would have only slight environmental impacts
and had the lowest cost of any alternative. It was therefore
retained for detailed analysis.
SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The preliminary screening identified environmentally sensitive
areas likely to be affected by the construction and operation
of the wastewater conveyance alternatives. The preliminary
cost estimates allowed for comparison of the alternatives
and the identification of the least costly alternatives.
Based upon these two criteria, Alternatives 2, 3, 6, 8, and
9 were retained for further detailed analysis. Alternatives
4 and 7 were unacceptable because of environmental impacts,
and Alternatives 5 and 7 were not retained because of their
relatively high costs.
III-7
-------
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed routes are located primarily in rural and
agricultural areas. Open fields, woodlands, wetlands, and
recreational lands can also be found in the surrounding area
(See Figure III-3).
Alternatives 2, 3 and 6
All three of these alternatives use Route A. Route A is
bordered on the north by a multi-family residential area, a
recreational area (Grobschmidt Park), and a small wetland.
Further south, the land uses include agricultural lands,
open fields, woodland and urban residential development.
Two grade schools are also in close proximity to this portion
of the route (See Figure III-4).
Along the path of the interceptor which borders Drexel
Avenue, and to the south along 51st Street, are agricultural
lands, a high school, and residential development. In
addition, a municipal nursery and the lands of the Milwaukee
House of Correction are along the route. The Root River and
its associated floodplains are in close proximity to this
route.
Alternative 8
This alternative uses Routes C and D. These two routes
follow essentially the same path as does Route A, except for
the area at the intersection of 51st Street and Drexel
Avenue. Here, Routes C and D are closer to the Root River.
However, the environmental setting is still similar to that
described for Route A.
The groundwater is located, at all points within the construc-
tion corridor, at depths less than 30 feet (See Figure III-
5) .
All of the alternative construction routes would be located
in areas that may contain archaeological artifacts. However,
the State Historical Society of Wisconsin has concluded that
there are no archaeological resources in the project area
that would be eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places (See Supplement III-l).
Alternative 9
No new conveyance system would be required for Alternative
9.
Ill-f
-------
LEGEND
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
RAILROAD
WATERWAY
SERVICE AREA
BOUNDARY
COVER TYPE
WETLANDS
WOODLANDS
FIELD
AGRICULTURE
URBAN
i_
2000 4000
6000
SCALE
FEET
111-3
FRANKLIN-NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR
LAND COVER TYPES
IN THE SERVICE AREA
M.M.S.D.
-------
0 2000 4000 6000
SCALE IN FEET
1-4
LEGEND
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
RAILROAD
WATERWAY
SERVICE AREA
RECREATION FACILITIES
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
CIVIC FACILITIES
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
SCHOOL
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
FRANKLIN-NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR
RECREATION, GOVERNMENT, CIVIC,
HEALTH CARE AND SCHOOL FACILITIES
M.M.S.D.
-------
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
RAILROAD
WATERWAY
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
0 ZOOO 4000 SOOO
SCALE IN FEET
llt-5
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
i i 0 TO 10 FEET
t I 10 TO 30 FEET
GREATER THAN 30 FEET
FRANKLIN-NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
M.M.S.D.
-------
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The potential impacts on the environment which would be
caused by the construction of the Franklin-Northeast
Interceptor are discussed in the following section and are
summarized in Table III-l. Environmental impacts are presented
for each of the alternatives retained for detailed analysis.
These are 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9. The MMSD Environmental Assessment
was used as a supplemental source of information in this
section.
Access to homes, businesses, and public facilities along
35th Street, 51st Street, and Drexel Avenue could be affected
by construction of the interceptor sewer. Alternatives 2,
6, and 8 would have nearly identical impacts because they
are constructed using the open-cut method and follow almost
identical routes (Routes A, and D). Each would have the
potential for affecting access to 55 households and one
public facility. Alternative 3, to be constructed by the
tunnel method, would affect only a few construction work
sites.
The construction activity of all four alternatives could
produce odors and sights which would aesthetically affect
the inhabitants, workers, and visitors within the general
area surrounding the construction sites. Furthermore, any
accessories to the interceptor construction may be visible.
Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 would have nearly identical impacts
because they are constructed using the open-cut method and
follow almost identical routes. Alternative 3 involves
tunnel construction and, therefore, could have less surface
disruption during construction than open-cut construction
alternatives.
All of the construction alternatives would temporarily
produce dust and exhaust fumes, thus affecting the air
quality of the area. Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 use open-
cut construction, have similar routes, and would have
similar impacts along the construction routes as the sewer
is installed. Work activity is concentrated at tunnel
access sites for Alternative 3, and effects on air quality
could remain at these points for the entire construction
period.
The aquatic biota of the East Branch of the Root River, and
perhaps in the Root River itself, could be affected by the
presence of sediment eroded into the water during the con-
struction of the interceptor sewer. All construction alter-
natives could be expected to supply sediment to the stream,
although Alternative 3 (using the tunnel method of construction)
could be expected to contribute less sediment than the other
111-12
-------
alternatives. If there is a large increase of sediment
remaining in suspension, the feeding ability of filter
feeding organisms and the breathing of gilled organisms may
be impaired. In addition, increased suspended sediments may
interfere with breeding and spawning. Decreased light penetration
could inhibit growth of aquatic plants and algae.
No threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit the
proposed construction corridor.
Each of the alternatives would have short-term energy
demands for construction. The energy impacts for construction
are not considered to be significant for any of the alterna-
tives. Long-term energy impacts are associated with pumping
alternatives. Alternatives 6, 8, and 9 would consume,
respectively, about 73,100, 50,000, and 58,700 kWh of
electricity per year. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no
significant long-term energy impacts.
Alteration of the configuration of the Root River floodplain
may occur with construction of the interceptor. Alternative
9 involves no new sewer and, therefore, would have no
effect upon the floodplain. Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 would
have nearly identical impacts because they are constructed
using the open-cut method and follow almost identical routes
(Routes A, C, and D). They would alter the floodplain,
which could encourage flooding during and after construction.
Alternative 3 involves tunnel construction and would not
likely affect the floodplain.
Average depth to groundwater within the construction corridor
is 0-30 feet. Any construction occurring below the water
table would allow drainage of groundwater into the construc-
tion trench. Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 would be constructed
at an average depth of 20-25 feet, and Alternative 3 would
be constructed at an average depth of 50 feet. If drainage
occurs, construction of the interceptor at any of these
depths could affect groundwater supply, although a pressure
differential makes this unlikely. Local wells are more than
125 feet deep and well below the construction activities,
but it is expected that 10 wells could be affected by
Alternative 6 and 12 wells could be affected by Alternative
8. Alternatives 2, 3, and 9 would not affect any wells.
All of the alternative construction routes are located in
areas that may contain archaeological artifacts or sites.
However, the State Historical Society of Wisconsin has
concluded that there are no archaeological resources in the
project area that would be eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places (see Supplement I).
Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 (through use of open-cut construction)
would have the greatest chance of finding and possibly dis-
111-13
-------
rupting new archaeological sites. It is unlikely that
Alternatives 3 or 9 would encounter new archaeological
sites.
None of the alternatives is expected to have impacts related
to legality.
Noise produced during construction may affect the inhabitants,
workers, visitors, and wildlife in the area neighboring the
construction corridor. Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 would have
similar noise levels because they are constructed using the
open-cut method and follow almost identical routes (Routes
A, C, and D). Noises produced by Alternative 3 would be
limited to the areas surrounding tunnel access shafts and
manholes. Trucks traveling to and from these areas may
increase noise levels. Alternative 9 would have the least
impact, as it requires no new sewer construction.
Construction of the interceptor could require the use of prime
farmland (see Figure III-3). Because Alternatives 2, 6,
and 8 are each constructed using the open-cut method and
follow similar routes, their effects on prime farmland would
be the same. These alternatives have the potential for inter-
rupting normal farming operations and disrupting the original
characteristics of the soil. Alternative 3 would have less
of an impact because it involves tunnel construction. Alter-
native 9 involves no new sewer construction and would not
affect any farmland.
None of the alternatives is expected to affect public health.
Recreation may be affected by construction of the interceptor.
The recreational facilities within the construction corridor
include school playgrounds, public recreation areas, and one
privately owned park area (see Figure III-4). The publicly
owned recreation facilities include Grobschmidt Park, which
is currently undeveloped, and three small city-owned playgrounds,
Because Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 are constructed in the open-
cut method and are routed near or alongside those recreational
areas, they could temporarily disrupt playground or outdoor
activities.
Construction tunnels, trenches, and equipment are potential
hazards to the safety of both the workers and visitors at the
construction sites. Open-cut construction (Alternatives 2, 6,
and 8) would require more safety precautions than the tunnel
alternative (Alternative 3). As Alternative 9 requires no
construction of a new conveyance system, it would present the
fewest hazards.
111-14
-------
Traffic flow would be disrupted along Drexel Avenue and 51st
Street during interceptor construction. Alternatives 2, 6,
and 8 would disrupt traffic equally because their open-cut
construction follows almost identical routes. Drexel Avenue
is a heavily traveled road with a relatively wide right-of-
way and pavement. The width of the road may facilitate re-
direction of traffic during construction. Traffic disruption
may be greater along the narrower 51st Street. Alternative 3,
a tunnel alternative, would cause less surface disruption and,
therefore, have less of an effect upon traffic. Truck traffic
to and from construction sites may increase local traffic.
Alternative 9 involves no new sewer construction and would
not affect traffic.
The water quality of the East Branch of the Root River, the
main branch of the Root River, and perhaps Mud Lake, may be
affected by construction of the interceptor. Open-cut con-
struction (Alternatives 2, 6, and 8) would expose large amounts
of soil which could erode into nearby waterways. Increased
particulate matter in the water could hamper breathing, feeding,
and reproduction of various aquatic organisms. Should the water
become too turbid, less light penetration could interfere with
photosynthesis of aquatic plants. Alternative 3, the tunnel
alternative, could be expected to contribute less sediment
than the open-cut alternatives. In addition to sediment
erosion, oil and grease spills during construction could ad-
versely affect water quality. The possibility of spills is
greater with Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 than with Alternative 3.
Alternative 9 would not affect water quality.
Scattered areas of wetlands near the northern end of the
interceptor alignment could be affected during construction
(see Figure III-3). The open-cut construction for Alternatives
2, 6, and 8 would disrupt the flora, fauna, and hydrology of
the wetlands. Because Alternative 3 involves tunneling 50 feet
below the surface, it is expected that flora and fauna would
not be disturbed, except near access shafts. All four of the
conveyance system construction alternatives (2,3,6, and 8) could
result in some drainage of the wetland areas, although the
extent of this impact is unknown. Alternative 9, involving
no sewer construction, would not affect the wetlands.
Wildlife habitat may be disturbed by construction of the
interceptor. The sewer would pass through or near a wetland,
fields, and several wooded areas, upsetting both aquatic and
terrestrial biota. Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 use open-cut
construction and would disrupt 8, 10, and 12 acres of wildlife
habitat, respectively. The affected area includes two tracts
of high quality woodlands and wildlife habitat and three tracts
of low to medium quality habitat. Because these areas return
111-15
-------
to previous conditions very slowly, any impacts should be
considered significant. The tunneling required for Alternative
3 would cause less disturbance to wildlife habitats than the
open-cut alternatives. Alternative 9 would not affect
wildlife habitats.
Secondary Growth Impacts: For an analysis of secondary
impacts of this interceptor, see the Secondary Growth
Appendix or Chapter V of the EIS.
COST SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Details of the costs for the five final alternatives are
given in Table III-2. The least costly of the alternatives,
Alternative 9, has a total present worth of $2,194,000 and
an equivalent annual cost of $205,000. This alternative
would not involve any new sewer construction. The least
expensive alternative involving construction of an interceptor
was Alternative 2. It had a total present worth of $5,890,000
and an equivalent annual cost of $551,000. The methods and
assumptions used in calculating these costs are outlined in
Chapter VIII of this appendix.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Alternative 9, upgrading the six existing pump stations, was
initially recommended as the preferred alternative in the
draft MFP. It is the least costly alternative. However,
Alternative 9 would not accommodate all development ultimately
expected to occur within the Franklin Northeast service area.
In June, 1980, the MMSD commissioners found this possibility
unacceptable and incorporated Alternative 2 into the Re-
commended Facilities Plan.
111-16
-------
TJ
-i G
-J -H
JJ
cn M
c --4
-* co
rH
JJ p
OJ (TJ
cn --4
LI
UH CM 01
0 0 r-t
QJ i 0
-D nj* M
cn
M
cfl
>-
j
rt
z
U
<
E-
Q
p-i cn
i 6-
w CJ
M <
H i.
2
2
a J
< <
£ £
z
z
o
1 1
>
z
a
t4
o
>H
si
<
s
53
^
yi
8
a-
cu
u
OS
£_,
r-t
C-"
cn
<
H
Ep
cd
*2
i
z
r-t
2
<
S
a
>
E->
<
Z
oi
M
&H
<
S
£
CL.
o
g
u
<
a.
s
M
.2
"0
r»4
O
5
cn
QJ
r-4
-H
U
[Q
U-4
O
H
r-l
3
04
TJ
C
"3
in
o
in
QJ
c
cn
5
cn
-G
0
4J
cn
QJ
o
J
CO
c
fl
CN
OJ
r4
Jj
fl)
G
Li
0)
JJ
rt!
0
jj
U
JJ
in
c
0
o
31
?s
Li
jj
CJ
!H
JJ
0
o
.^
c
a
jj
a
0)
0)
m
c
tn
jj
o
f3
S^
r4
1]
r-4
3
13
C
jJ
<
^
jJ
H
r-t
H
O
TJ
CJ
H
r-4
3
OJ
0
T3
G
in
r-t
0
3
LTt
C
Q
0)
U-i
"ffl
QJ
JJ
o
QJ
a
X
0)
cn
T3
g
C
o
r4
JJ
O
3
JJ
cn
c
0
o
y_j
0
3
jj
o
r-4
OJ
G
3
4J
4J
cn
cu
cn
3
m
'J3
CJ
.5
H
r-J
0
TJ
0
JJ
m
jj
-i
Ul
!
cn
aj
CO
»**
>i
i ^
0
4J
CJ
4-J
f!
0
JJ
OJ
lM
O
c
0
~*
JJ
0
3
Li
m
3
r-t
r4
cn
a
5
r-l
3
2
CO
T3
(TJ
'
rj
03
a;
jj
rcj
a
jj
i-H
r 1
OJ
c
fl
rH
.2
cn
1
c
0
o
3
jj
cn
c
0
o
jj
3
O
^
CU
Cu
0
OJ
3
>,
0)
cn
3
u
Jl
§
*0
3
s
«J
c
0
Jj
o
3
jJ
in
£
0
o
14
c
c
3
JJ
in
£j
CO
O
jJ
C
0
JJ
in
CU
3
0
H
5*
Vf
^
13
0
in
r-i
JJ
2
LI
^j
c
0
JJ
3
in
QJ
U
U-i
3
cn
cn
cn
O
OJ
J
QJ
C
0
cn
2
3
tr
0)
CO
0
r-*
Jj
G
TJ
j
r 1
rrj
fg
J}
G
0
-J
ITS
CO
c
QJ 0
rH -r^
-Q -U
H TJ
cn jJ
X S
H 3
cn CL,
T3
C
3
o
!H
1C
cn
QJ
£
3
UH
jJ
cn
3
S
*x
^
c
(T3
JJ
cn
3
QJ
JJ
nj
Li
2J
CJ
C
0
Jj
o
c
0
u
4J
3
CJ
1
3
0
QJ
in
3
GO
TJ
C
fl
-1
CN
cn
CJ
>
jj
^
c
<
cn
(3
0)
Ui
13
Ll
i
LI
(TJ
r-(
^4
£
r4
in
QJ
-4
0
G
(TJ
cn
CJ
*j
3
o
!H
TJ
1-4
£
cn
G
jj
O
0
a
x
i-4
0
3
C
0
JJ
o
3
jj
J)
C
0
u
rH
r4
JJ
5
"J
JJ
<
7]
JJ
U
(TJ
g4
-H
T3
cn
0
il
cn
cn
^j
CJ
^
r-i
G
C
3
jj
JJ
fl
T3
a
JJ
fl
jj
C
O
o
c
0
u
Si
H
>,
Jj
fl
c
H
JJ
fl
3
G
C
O
rH
O
,3
3
s
Jj
in
2
0)
tj
y-j
O
fl
jj
0
-H
O
H
JJ
fl
a1
fl
OJ
J=
JJ
JJ
o
14-1
fl
>
fl
*J
a
£
T3
a
T3
o
OJ
cn
3
CO
c
fl
CN
cn
QJ
>
jj
fl
c
CJ
JJ
rH
<
U
CJ
>
r4
X
0
o
a)
-u
0
o
c
03
D
CC
T3
3
0
"3
fl
cn
a
-U
3
0
V4
Li
fl
r-t
H
S
cn
i)
>
fl
c
0
-H
JJ
Q
3
Li
JJ
in
c
0
o
3
1
J
£*
i4
fl
OJ
£
H
1
cn
cn
in
a
rH
a
jj
3
-r-4
JJ
G
O
0
0
-lj
0
^ 'Jl
0- O
i) -p-t
JJ
5 5
LI
T3 CJ
rH JJ
3 r-t
0 fl
0
Ll
- "J
C ~
0 ^J
* 0
Jj
O CJ
Ll Jj
-UJ
0
CJ >
a
>
S
«:
u
-------
U)
<
H
U
i-i
5-
01
M
O
"3
,
JJ
-H
>
fl
01
fl
0)
tn
D
O
rH
.a
tn
in
£
-a4
3
r-*
c
JS
31
3
O
c
0
H
JJ
fl
!H
3
Oi
H
c
3
0
4J
jj
0
JJ
c
H
X
0
s
u
0)
JJ
(H
3
n,
04
a.
3
fl
5)
4J
fl
C
U
HI
JJ
r-t
(0
c
fl
0
u
a.
>i
i4
fl
O
u
0
c
14
s
"5
ui
M
«
z
a
w
3 £
~* E- a.
a) o c*
3 OS
H E-
JJ W Z
C £-1 W
o «e E-
s <
w :J
1 r2 &*
M < K
w &^ C
M Z Z
Ci] 1
a s z
J Z 1-1
9 ° J
^ ^
c
>t
CC
<
s
ZD
(71
a
c*
2
ud
eg
Cu
o
tn
O
<
r- 1
a
iJ
o
w
3
0
4J
c
3
0
c
0)
fl
fi
tu
p
'ji
T3
J)
2
fl
OJ
4->
^1
0
^
i4
^
CT
C
fl
TJ
O
^
0
H
1
fl
£
tj
0)
V-i
H
3
&
n
rH
3
0
3
Vj >, O
SH a»
0
y
0
-H
4J
0
3
Jl
q
O
0
U
1
0
U
JJ
c
M
JJ
3
jj
TJ
JJ
2
0)
c
0)
0!
jj
t
JJ
0
>
5
'a
r-l
0
3
>
JJ
C
!M
O
jJ
i-H
«
O
CJ
*O
C
fl
v£
Ul
>
JJ
fl
C
a
jj
r I
<
C
0
H
U
3
£
'ji
0
0
S1
3
T3
fl
>
O
>i
JJ
H
U
o
0)
OJ
Q
3
o
r^
30
LA
i
o
o »
C N
o a
- jj
o u
o aj
m 0)
r* IH
fl
=
-5
as
jj
S
en
jj
0
g
o
c
03
[JJ
o
j3
CT1
C
0
rH
fl
0
r-4
JJ
3
!_l
U]
0
0
o
fl
r-t
0
o
c
0)
'c
fl
c
H
fl
r-t
rg
Q
1-4
JJ
0
0
Jj
fl
3
U-4
C
0
O
OJ
Jj
0)
JJ
fl
c
0 ><
>-* i-H
JJ U
O .*
3 -*
JJ
tn 01 jj
C JJ 0
0 U C
0 fl
&4 t3
3 -H 'S
o o
1 rJ 3
C fl
0 M TJ
a-H c
0 £ fl
H
01 o
3 0) --I
CO fl U
3
u ^
, 3 C
va 0 0
3 U
C 0>
fl TJ C
0) C
> Jl 3
H 01 *J
JJ JJ
fl 3 C/l
coo
U U Jl
0! 3
*J U
( fl ro
< r-1
-i 01
S >
-4 -rj
m w jj
C fl
H 3 c
TJ 0 w
0 -H
3
o
>1
JJ
H
fl
5,
fl
rH
CO
fJl
a
>
s?
4J C
IS
0 -1
C 01
fl ^:
jj
w
H UJ
0
Jj
M >i
C
fl
a >
a
I)
0
jj jj
1) u
0) 01
m fl
fN
rt 5
c
fl rH
£. i-*
JJ -H
3
01
i-l LC
0 rH
£ rH
rH
t4
OJ JJ
0
3^ JJ
fl a O
^3 ^ 01
5 £ JT
-------
s c
13 3
O
03
3
u m
o c
3
13 4J
3 3
0 0
cn
M
Cd
'a g
(t! -Q
1
0
0 01 -
ij C
O4 0
O
O
(d
a
ul 3 CJ cn
30 g C
1C M -~ O 0
Z
s
, ]
11 Q
3
C 1
4J cn
C £-"
0 0
U <
~- a
s
i >-!
1-1 s-1
M ^
Cl4 S!
03 O
t* M
Z
o
>*
s
s
cn
a:
p
a,
H
O
Cd
Z
M
w
Cd
P
^
o
z
z
J
z
^
Cd
e-"
<
2
E-
J
Cd
^
O
cn
CJ
0.
s
1 t
cn
m
o
M
t
a>
o
0
0)
CJ
3
0
i-l
c
0
3
Cn
0
O
0)
JJ
U-l
0
^4
JJ
01
0)
cn
0
cn
jj
O
fl
^
T3
0
31
0
0
0)
0
nj
jj
c
o
CJ
rO
OJ
ttj
'U
3
CO
73
C
*
£
0
,IJ
0
3
in
f
p
"j
OJ
^
CP
c
p-l
c
-H
JJ
Jl
TI
"M
0
a
c
cn
c
H
C
H
Uu
0
a
c
o
n
a
2
.^
c
a>
jj
r-t
"3
^
C
C
3
CJ
rO
OJ
r-4
JJ
(13
O
jj
r-<
OJ
H
Jl
C
3
0
c
c
cn
u
2
rj
^,
OJ
0
Jj
JJ
o
OJ
X
o
o
<4_l
0
OJ
Jj
n3
U
0
X
H
a
(0
0
u
T3
1)
jj
O
OJ
a
X
D
V4
(13
'J]
0)
>
H
JJ
«
C
'*4
TJ
yj
0
1)
O
>
jj
-H
C"
r 1
o
JJ
3
CJ
(13
CJ
Cit
0
JJ
u
OJ
U-l
(13
3
0
H
u
3
JJ
0
o
c
j-J
3
TT
O
0
»
CJ
01
H
Iq
0
H
Li
0
o
0
JJ
u
3
4J
'J\
0
u
4J
^j
^v,
_Q
0)
o
U-l
H
JJ
0
^,
r-t
T3
01
1)
fO
r^J
3
C
3
CO
c
n3
a
H
JJ
[^
OJ
Jj
c
fl
TJ
0
s
u
c
0
a
jj
.^
3
j^
O
3
jj
Jl
C
0
O
1^4
Q
JJ
3
0
i-i
03
S
0
tn
0
H
U
T3
O
C
0
( 1
0
0
r^
JJ
rj
jj
C
0
0
CJ
J
OJ
H
o
(3 3
C ^
S-4 -U
o cn
JJ C
-4 0
< 0
~* 3
cn
o
> 3
^ a
4J C
c o
S-4 C
OJ
-J 'Jl
* JJ
0
(/I TJ
JJ 2U
<13 H
Jl -U
Jl iT3
O -M
0
O CJ
JJ
*U CJ
c >
3 5
i-i (-*
"3 3
J D
J O ^ 3
fl ci
0
o -i
t 0
u a
0 U
-------
0 r-l C
JJ 0 0
CO
M
CO
>
_J
72
Q
M
cj a
3 Q
rH i
J
C 01
"* "3*
a.
rH M
M M4
M <
z;
-4 E
h- 1
z:
Vj
IX
Ofi
g
cu
a
u£ >
a hH
2 <
r-f 2
gH til
cn 5-t
< j
£ a
^ x
O c-
z:
z o
£ H
2 U
S
-1-t
U-i
o
OJ
3
S
4J
JJ
^j
cn
rH
M
r-4
o
o
o
4J
O
0
CJ
c
H
1)
JJ
U-J
o
5
Jj
o
01
c
8
*
c
0
JJ
o
01
c
0
u
JJ
3
u
c
OJ
JJ
fl
o
JJ
1 1
c
ts
r '
s
.13
c
i-t
OJ
JJ
rH
<
01
JJ
o
3L
g
r4
u
fl
1 t
'H
£
01
CJ
>
5
"3
1 1
3
r-
3
JJ
3
0
S_l
r-l
s
H
o
c
JJ
CJ
u
c
H
01
<0
9*
.5
c
y
yj
c
H
01
id
>
-o
0
2
X
iJ
0
5
3
c
o
JJ
u
en
o
u
U-J
o
1
a
,_(
OJ
3
4J
Jl
OJ
3
o
£
c
o
C
0
4J
T3
OJ
JJ
u
X
0)
1)
fl
'Jl
a
JJ
0)
Jj
r-t
(0
CJ
JJ
44
2
5
7
o
a,
e~
0
3*
T3
0)
4J
u
a
U-4
IJ-1
0
^2
rjj
01
H
o
fO
U-4
0
H
JJ
1)
0
SH
U_i
0
?
0)
ca
3
CO
c
03
.
04
OJ
H
fl
JJ
<
Q
0
H
JJ
o
4J
1
0
u
in
p
CJ
-jj
c
o
T3
c
OJ
JJ
01
fl
OJ
OJ
JJ
o
0 "H
O JJ
.a u
i4 JJ
(0 rH
0) <
c
01
(13
JH
(0
01
01
OJ
0
u
fO
rH
0)
c
c
JJ
c
(13
O
c
a
i-l
4J
1
3
OJ
0
H
JJ
3
uT
S
3
U
C
o
OJ
!M
0
jj
yi
>
C
01
OJ
^
s
o
4J
fl
4J
U-4
0!
r~t
H
3
fl
3
in
H
T3
3
0
3
CD
C
(0
CN'
OJ
>
*J
2
4J
<
C
0
o
1-4
01
c
o
1
0)
JH *
JJ >
CJ H
ij-t JJ
(0 "3
01 C
o a
0 rH
OJ
!-l 1)
3 'H
cr -u
1 5
(0 r-t
01
TJ
CJ r^
SH CJ
C
CJ 3
y jj
4 O
3 -J
OJ
C
«
(0 JJ
rH
4J 0
JJ H
03 JJ
"J 3
^ 0
-------
a u
-I O
o
z
M
§
M
fri
H
s
J
0
CT
0 M-<
0) <*J
14 "3
H H
Q JJ
H jj .c
rH 0
use
*J 0 3J
aj LI
oi rH -u
£> Jl
H U
2. "
0) a
TJ 13
10 V
1>
3 a
13 o
H AJ
> 1
< a
"I
M 0)
M
TJ 0
ul
to
^
z
q
M
<
9§
3 ""
C 1
H
0 U
o <
"- cu
7 j
w §
M S
i-J S
il
E~t M
z
Cd
O
CO
a
o
a tn
o u
a: >
z <
M Z
Ei M
1 1
_x z:
0 rH
s
2 O
3 V)
s O
2 Cb
un s:
M
L|
0
JJ
a
y
jj
c
H
A
O
jj
p.
en
--1
13
Ji
T3
g
y
3
Q
rH
y
H
fc
£
o
rH
JJ
3
Ul
TJ
rH
a
5
CO
c
-
fN
'Jl
0)
H
M
CJ
jj
rH
C
Q
O
3
4_)
c
0
o
TJ
OJ
3
C
o
rH
03
X
OJ
c
0
rH
(TJ
TJ
3
l
O
1
~£
H
T:
c
rrj
jj
a
OJ
i-l
JJ
0
JJ
JJ
c
a
Jj
u
rH
IT)
tn
OJ
rH
0
H
u
-w
c
in
a
id;
0)
"in
cn
?
o
y
'TJ
H
X.
0
s
D
U-4
0
y
(O
ca
cn
>u
T3
3
g
TI
C
a
3
0
H
s
Ul
OJ
2
o
y
3
^j
0
y
jj
3
y
i
c
jj
c4
01
3
C
o
H
JJ
U
3
M
cn
c
0
y
rH
O
C
C
3
JJ
O
4-J
n
a
TJ
c
Sj
CJ
<
'Jl
JJ
y
'3
H
£
J]
TJ
JJ
C
O
"S
Ul
Ul
0)
a
£
-H
JJ
C
0
y
0
jj
i
o
X
Ji
1
0
y
u
(TJ
C
jj
TJ
aj
H
TJ
C
H
4J
TJ
%4
OJ
<
c
0
Jj
u
3
'Jl
C
0
y
O"1
'£
TJ
"a
jj
C-
3
CT
Tj
TJ
ti
-1-1
Ul
O
4_i
3
0
!M
rH
H
£
3
0
0
tw
0
r4
4J
y
3
=
0
y
y
i
5
G
Jl
3
'X
C
TS
O
fN
TJ
y
H
(TJ
CJ
r-4
'Jl
4-1
y
-H
TJ
s
u
2
3
3
'S
^J
g
cu
c
a
c
c
3
TJ
5
a
w
(TJ
y
OJ
^
y
a
c
H
i-l
o
Ul
rH
to
g
0
0)
4J
y
x"
j
3
'Jl
r-t
y
3
Jl
y
U-4
C
c
0
JJ
y
3
C
0
y
-
jj-
0
JJ
3
TJ
TJ
CO
jj
C!
Ul
T!
0)
-a
TJ
rH
3
5
rj
i
r-4
S
y
H
TJ
3
U
3
jj
tn
5
TJ
3
0
CO
T?
C
fl3
tM
cn
0)
>
_>
«J
c
u
0)
Jj
<
Jw
0
JJ
y
u
CJ
u-
0
>t
0 -P
» 3
O Jl
CJ TJ
rH
>i 3
i ( 0
JJ iTJ
-
cn
0
Jl Uj
CJ 0
Li
y -n
OJ OJ
is
r^ y
rH ITJ
'O y
C H
(T3 'Jl
- 3
03 "rj
jj
0-
3
'Jl
TJ
3
3
rO
01
>
-H
JJ
(TJ
Ll JJ
O (TJ
< ^2
2
-J u
> u_
~> I 1
TJ TJ
-J -
'J 3
4J
r < <-U
TJ C'
C Jl
J U
r 'i
^ m
T3 4J
3
'" X
u-i T5
-------
2 w-
W J "~
J 2 O
M 2 U
D <
O
v>
EH '
J W ~
C
} -[
cn
CO-
^-*
EH
EH 2
2 t;
H S'
CH U
M <
CD 3
C' P-
fyl
* .
^
s
o
r.
2 C
[d £H
CO Pi
tj O
cu *"
tn
o
o
CN
EH
2 E
W E-
cn Pi
w c
Pi 2
PLI
in
CJ^
1 '
EH _
bJ !?
CO Pi
w o
O4 ^
SH
n
pi
ff.
>
H
EH E-
H CT-
o, c
in
CN
0
o
0
0
, 1
^
cn
o
o
0
o
o
ro
o
o
r~^
CO
o
o
o
o
cn
CO
ro
CN
ro
0
O
O
rH
in
o
0
0
00
rH
ro
VD
o
0
o
r-
^
m
o
o
o
rH
CN
CN
CN
O
0
o
ro
CN
CN
O
o
0
CO
CO
ro
o
o
o
o
ro
rH
O
0
°1
H"
CN
rH
0
O
0
CO
in
ro
in
-0
0
0
o
00
CO
m
0
o
o
00
CO
CN
0)
O
o
0
o"
00
["-
0
o
0
[
^*
°1
CN
o
0
o
ro
o
o
o
«.
cn
in
o
o
0
ro
0
ro
o
o
ro
00
CN
0
o
0
vo"
CN
r-
^o"
CO
o
o
0
in
o
CN
o
o
o
CT\
rH
^
CN
O
O
o
co"
VD
O
O
O
ro
CN
CN
O
O
O
ro
CN
CN
O
o
o
CO
00
ro
o
O
o
CN
00
CN
rH
O
0
CN
in
rH
rH
O
o
0
[C
o
CO
cn
o
c
CD
rO
cq
^H
O
2
O
CO
<"M
&,
\
K
2
tn
^
rd
rH
1 1
0
T3
O
CO
CJ^
1
c
r->
T3
cu
tn
in
CD
S-l
^
X
CD
CD
JH
rO
tn
4-)
cn
0
0
r 1
, |
<
0
rH
0
"0
0
^
4-1
0)
E
C7^
C
H
4->
tn
0
0
^4
0
H
H
H
^>
^_j
CU
4J
GH
2
u
OJ
0)
CO
*
H
U
CO
w
r0
C
rO
C
rO
H
p ,
>.
4J
rH
H
H
U
rO
fa
Q
CO
2
0)
o
<*4
p
o
CO
and non-related construction costs.
4-1
tn
O
u
c
o
H
4J
U
3
!H
4-1
tn
c
O
0
tn
0)
3
H
u
c
rH
4J
in
0
o
H
rO
4-1
rH
O |
ro
CJ
sts, O&M costs, replacement costs, salvage
o
u
, i
rO
4J
-rH
p ,
rO
U
cn
CD
Ti
p
rH
O
C
ri
r;
-P
SH
O
3
4J
C
0)
cn
0)
!H
p
, {
ro
4-1
0
.
r-
0
H
jj
CJ
3
4J
in
o
o
Cn
C
rH
Jq
3
13
4J
W
0)
J^
CD
4J
C
H
-------
HISTQ,
'x
SUPPLEMENT III-l
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
<
I'OF WISC
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
September 26, 1979
Mr. Fred J. Meinholz, P. E. SHSW 0793-79
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District RE: Franklin Northeast Interceptor
735 North Water Street Route Survey
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Dear Mr. Meinholz:
Our staff archeologists have reviewed the "Field Reconnaissance of
the Franklin Northeast Interceptor Route - July 1979" by Mr. Mark E.
Bruhy and David F. Overstreet of the Great Lake Archaeological Research
Center, Inc.
The survey and testing procedures utilized were sufficiently
thorough to justify the conclusion that there are no archeological
resources eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places within this project area.
As indicated in the report, it is always possible that deeply
buried archeological sites may be found during construction. If
such finds are made, please contact the State Archeologist,
Dr. Joan E. Freeman (608/262-9566), immediately.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Erney
State Historic Preservation Officer
., ,//^-- y----
By William Green
Archeologist
RAE:cm
cc: Mr. David Overstreet, G.L.A.R.C.
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
Vfl<5 STATE STREET- MADISON .WISCONSIN 537O6 mCHAROA ERNEY, PIKECTOK
-------
CHAPTER IV
OAK CREEK NORTH BRANCH INTERCEPTOR
-------
CHAPTER IV
OAK CREEK NORTH BRANCH INTERCEPTOR
PURPOSE OF THE INTERCEPTOR
The Oak Creek Interceptor would provide additional sewer
service to portions of the Cities of Oak Creek and Franklin.
Specifically, this would be the provision of additional
capacity to eliminate present bypassing, to allow for future
development, and to expedite the connection of up to 250 septic
systems, 75 percent of which are estimated to be failing. The
interceptor will also allow the elimination of two wastewater
lift stations in Franklin and Oak Creek (MWPAP-EA).
DESCRIPTION OF ROUTES
Twelve wastewater conveyance alternatives, in addition to a
No Action Alternative, were suggested by the MWPAP for the
Oak Creek Interceptor. The conveyance alternatives follow six
different routes (designated as A,B,C,D,E, and F) which are
shown in Figure IV-1.
Route A
Route A commences at the Wildwood Drive lift station and pro-
ceeds southwest, south, and then southeast, along the North
branch of Oak Creek to a point 1,500 feet east of 13th Street.
At this point it heads south along a line 1,500 feet east of
and parallel to 13th Street. The total length of Route A is
10,210 feet.
Route B
Route B commences at the Wildwood Drive lift station and
proceeds southeast along Wildwood Drive to its intersection
with Sixth Street extended. At this point it heads south along
Sixth Street extended to the 84-inch MIS in Ryan Road. The
total length of Route B is 10,430 feet.
Route C
Alternatives using Route C would consist of two separate sewer
components; one north of and one south of the secondary drain-
age boundary between Drexel Avenue and Puetz Road. The sewer
route for the northern area would commence at the Wildwood
Drive lift station and proceed northeast along the north
branch of Oak Creek to its intersection with Drexel Avenue.
At this point it heads east along Drexel Avenue to the 48-inch
MIS at Clement Avenue. The total length for this component is
8,150 feet.
IV-1
-------
GENERAL
MOTORS
iSPARK PLUG
DIVISION
IV-I
LEGEND
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
RAILROAD
ROUTE A
ROUTE B
ROUTE E
EXISTING PUMP STATION
OAK CREEK NORTH BRANCH INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ROUTES A,BandE
0 2OOO 40OO SOOC
SCALE IN FEET
M.M.S.D.
-------
The sewer for the southern area would commence at 13th
Street and Puetz Road and extend south along 13th Street to
the 84-inch MIS in Ryan Road. The length of this component
is 5,260 feet and for the entire route is 13,410 feet long.
Route D
Alternatives using Route D would also consist of two separate
sewer components; one north of and one south of the secondary
drainage boundary between Drexel Avenue and Puetz Road. The
sewer route for the northern area is identical to that des-
cribed under Route C. The sewer route for the southern area
would commence at a point 1,500 feet east of 13th Street
along Puetz Road. It then extends south to the 84-inch MIS
in Ryan Road. The length of this component is 5,260 feet and
for the entire route is 13,410 feet.
Route E
Route E commences at the Wildwood Drive lift station and pro-
ceeds southwest along the north branch of Oak Creek to its
intersection with a tributary drainage channel. At this point,
it heads west along the channel to its intersection with 13th
Street and then south along 13th Street to the 84-inch MIS in
Ryan Road. The total length of Route E is 11,380 feet.
Route F
Alternatives using this Route F would consist of two separate
sewer components; one north of and one south of the secondary
drainage boundary between Drexel Avenue and Puetz Road. The
sewer route for the northern area is identical to that des-
cribed under Route C. The sewer route for the southern area
would commence at the intersection of Puetz Road and Sixth
Street extended and proceed south along Sixth Street extended
to the 84-inch MIS in Ryan Road. The total length of Route F
is 13,410 feet.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
Initially, twelve wastewater conveyance alternatives, in addi-
tion to a No Action Alternative, were suggested by the MWPAP
for the Oak Creek Interceptor. A screening of these preliminary
alternatives was conducted by the MWPAP in order to identify
which of them were the most feasible. Each of the alternatives
was examined for probable environmental impacts, the relative
cost of construction, and compatibility with the local com-
munity plans.
IV-3
-------
This preliminary screening by the MWPAP and community
officials indicated that no single conveyance alternative
of this group of thirteen was acceptable and all were eliminated.
The following is a brief description of each of the alternatives
and the reasons why it was not retained for further analysis.
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Alternative 1 consists of not constructing an interceptor
sewer or any conveyance system capable of handling present
and future flows. Under this alternative, future urban
development in the interceptor area would be limited because
a majority of the soils are unsuitable for the use of septic
systems. The Wildwood Drive pump station is currently
operating at design capacity and cannot be easily modified
to accept greater flows. This alternative was not accepted
because of the continued pollution of surface and groundwater
caused by wet weather bypassing at the Wildwood pump station
and by failing septic systems.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of 10,430 feet of 30-inch gravity
interceptor along Route B as shown in Figure IV-1. Construction
would be accomplished by the open-cut method at depths of 25
to 35 feet. The Wildwood Drive and Forest Hill Avenue lift
stations would be eliminated. Alternative 2 was not retained
for further analysis because construction could adversely
affect a hardwood woodland along Sixth Street. Also, con-
struction along Route B would have required costly railroad
crossings and, upon conferring with local authorities, it
was determined that this alternative would be incompatible
with the muncipality's future sanitary collector sewers.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 consists of 10,210 feet of 30-inch gravity
interceptor along Route A, as shown in Figure IV-1. Construction
would be done by the open-cut method at depths 25 to 35
feet. The Wildwood Drive and Forest Hill Avenue lift stations
would be eliminated. Alternative 3 was not retained for
further analysis because construction could produce unacceptable
amounts of sedimentation in the North Branch Creek. Also,
Alternative 3 was generally incompatible with respect to future
subdivisions and industrial developments.
Alternative 4
This alternative consists of 11,330 feet of 30-inch gravity
interceptor along Route E, as shown in Figure IV-1. Construction
would be done by the tunnel method at depths of 30 to 52
IV-4
-------
feet. The Wildwood Drive and Forest Hill Avenue lift stations
would be eliminated. Alternative 4 was not chosen for
further analysis because of its high cost due to the necessity
of tunneling beneath 13th Street. It was also undesirable
in terms of designing and constructing future sanitary col-
lector sewers.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 consists of two sewers, a 8,150 foot, 24-inch
gravity sewer to drain the northern portion of the service
area and a 5,260 foot, 18-inch gravity sewer to drain the
southern portion. The routes taken by these sewers are
shown in Figure IV-2 as Route F. Construction would be in
open-cuts of depths of 25 to 40 feet. The Wildwood Drive and
Forest Hill Avenue lift stations would be eliminated. This
alternative was not considered for further analysis because
of the detrimental effects to the woodland through which the
route passes. It was also undesirable in terms of designing
and constructing future sanitary collector sewers.
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 consists of the same two sewers as in Alternative
5. The route taken by this alternative is shown in Figure
IV-2 as Route D. Alternative 6 was not analyzed further because
of incompatibility with the proposed sanitary collector
system.
Alternative 7
Alternative 7 is comprised of the same sewers described in
Alternatives 5 and 6. The route taken by this alternative
is shown in Figure IV-2 as Route C. Alternative 7 also was
found incompatible with design and construction of future
sanitary sewers and was the most costly alternative considered.
Alternative 8
Alternative 8 consists of a pump station along with a 8,150
foot, 18-inch force main that would serve the northern
portion of the service area and a 5,260 foot, 18-inch gravity
sewer to serve the southern portion of the service area.
Both sewers would be constructed in a open-cut method with
depths of 8 feet for the force main and 25 to 35 feet for
gravity sewer. The route taken by these sewers is shown in
Figure IV-2 as Route F. The new pump station would replace
the lift station at Wildwood Drive and the Forest Hill Avenue
lift station would be eliminated. Alternative 8 was not
chosen for further analysis due to the damage which would
occur to the hardwood woodland located by the southern sewer
IV-5
-------
IV-2
LEGEND
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
RAILROAD
ROUTE C
ROUTE 0
ROUTE F
EXISTING PUMP STATION
OAK CREEK NORTH BRANCH INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ROUTES C,D and F
0 2OOO 40OO SOOO
SCALE IM FEET
M.M.S.D.
-------
and to the reduction of water quality of the North Branch
which would occur as a result of the construction of the
northern interceptor. It was also incompatible with future
sanitary collector sewers.
Alternative 9
Alternative 9 is comprised of the same sewers and pump station
described in Alternative 8. Construction would be along
Route D as shown in Figure IV-2. Alternative 9 was not
considered for further analysis due to the adverse impact of
the northern interceptor on the North Branch as well as
being judged incompatible with proposed subdivisions and
industrial developments.
Alternative 10
Alternative 10 is also composed of two lengths of interceptors
and a pump station, , as described in Alternative 8, along
Route C as shown in Figure IV-2. This alternative was not
chosen for further analysis because it was found to be
incompatible with the location of future sanitary collector
sewers.
Alternative 11
Alterntive 11 consists of a pump station along with 5,170
feet of 18-inch force main connected to 5,260 feet of 30-inch
gravity sewer along Route B which is shown in Figure IV-1.
The Forest Hill Avenue lift station would be eliminated and
the new pump station would replace the Wildwood Drive pump
station. The new pump station would serve as the starting
point for the southerly flow in the 18-inch force main. The
force main would meet the gravity sewer at the intersection
of Puetz Road and Sixth Street extended. Construction would
be by the open-cut method at depths of eight feet for the force
main and 25 to 35 feet for the gravity interceptor. Alternative
11 was eliminated for the same reasons that Alternative 2
was eliminated.
Alternative 12
Alternative 12 consists of a pump station along with 4,950
feet of 18-inch force main connected to 5,260 feet of 30-inch
gravity sewer along Route A, as shown in Figure IV-1. The
Forest Hill Avenue lift station would be abandoned and the
new pump station would replace the Wildwood Drive lift station.
The new pump station would serve as the starting point for
the southerly flow in the 18-inch force main. The force main
would meet the gravity sewer at the intersection of Puetz Road
and a point 1,500 feet east of 13th Street. Construction would
be by the open-cut method at depths of 8 feet for the force
IV-7
-------
main and 25 to 35 feet for the gravity interceptor. Alternative
12 was eliminated from further study for the same reasons that
Alternative 3 was eliminated.
Alternative 13
Alternative 13 consists of a new pump station along with
6,120 feet of 18-inch force main connected to 5,260 feet of
30-inch gravity sewer along Route E, as shown in Figure IV-1.
The Forest Hill Avenue lift station would be abandoned and
new pump station would replace the Wildwood Drive lift station.
The new pump station would serve as the starting point for
the southerly flow in the 18-inch force main. The force main
would meet the gravity sewer at the intersection of 13th Street
and Puetz Road. Construction would be by the open-cut method
at a depth of 8 feet for the force main and by the tunnel
method at depths of 30 to 55 feet for the gravity interceptor.
This alternative was eliminated from further study for the
same reasons that Alternative 2 was eliminated.
SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The preliminary screening of the original 13 alternatives can
be summarized as follows. Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
11, and 13 were incompatible with future sanitary collector
sewers. Undesirable effects on future subdivisions and
industrial developments were found in association with
Alternatives 3, 6, 9, and 12. Alternatives 11, 12, and 13
were considered workable for future points of connection,
Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 were not cost-effective, and adverse
environmental impacts were found with respect to Alternatives
2, 3, 5, 8, 11, and 12. All of the alternatives involving
force mains (8, 9, 11, 12, and 13) would require continual
unacceptable levels of energy consumption.
Since none of the original preliminary alternatives were
found by the MWPAP and community officials to be satisfactory
with respect to environmental impacts, construction costs,
and community plans, three new conveyance alternatives were
developed. These alternatives, labeled 3A, 9A, and North
Branch, are described in the following section.
Alternative 3A
Alternative 3A consists of constructing of 10,940 feet of a
30-inch gravity interceptor along Route 3A, as shown in
Figure IV-3. The interceptor would commence at the existing
Wildwood Drive pump station, extend south along a proposed
subdivision street to Puetz Road, and then south along the
limits of the SEWRPC-delineated primary environmental corridor
to Ryan Road. The interceptor would be constructed by the
IV-8
-------
open-cut method at depths of 20 to 35 feet. The existing
pump stations at Wildwood Drive and Forest Hill Avenue would
be abandoned.
Alternative 9A
Alternative 9A consists of two separate interceptors for the
service area, as shown in Figure IV-3. The north interceptor
is composed of two parts, one gravity and one pumping, and
connects to a 42-inch MIS at the intersection of Drexel and
Clement Avenues. The gravity part is a 15-inch sewer which
runs to the Wildwood Drive pump station from a point 1,000
feet south, along the North Branch of Oak Creek. Construction
would be done using the open-cut method at depths of 12 to
15 feet. The second, pumping part, is 8,150 feet of an 18-
inch force main which begins at the Wildwood Drive pump
station and runs northeast along Oak Creek to Drexel Avenue
and then east to Clement Avenue. Construction would be in
open-cut at an average depth of 8 feet. A new pump station
would be built at the Wildwood Drive site and the existing
Forest Hill Avenue pump station would subsequently be
abandoned.
The southern portion of the interceptor would use gravity
transport and connects to an existing MIS in Ryan Road. It
would consist of 6,710 feet of 18-inch interceptor. The
route begins at a point on Oak Creek approximately 1,000
feet north of Puetz Road and runs south along the western
boundary limits of the environmental corridor to Ryan Road.
Construction would be open cut at depths of 22 to 25 feet.
No pump station would be necessary.
North Branch Alternative
The North Branch Alternative consists of constructing 11,150
feet of 30-inch gravity interceptor, as shown in Figure IV-3.
The interceptor would begin at the existing Wildwood Drive
pump station and extend southward, roughly following the
course of Oak Creek, to Ryan Road. Construction would be in
an open-cut trench at depths of 15 to 20 feet. The existing
pump stations on Wildwood Drive and Forest Hill Avenue would
be abandoned.
Summary of Alternatives 3A, 9A,and the North Branch Alternative
The screening of these preliminary alternatives concluded
that Alternatives 3A, 9A, and the North Branch Alternative
should be evaluated in detail. In addition, it was suggested
that a fourth alternative, combining Alternative 3A and the
North Branch Alternative, be considered in the detailed analysis,
It was called the Combination Alternative and is described
below.
IV-9
-------
PORESTHtUAv
LIFT
STATION
(sitting)
IN
IV-3
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
RAILROAD
ALTERNATIVE 3A SCALE
ALTERNATIVE 9A
NORTH BRANCH ALTERNATIVE
EXISTING PUMP STATION
OAK CREEK NORTH BRANCH INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ROUTES FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
M.M.S.D.
-------
Combination Alternative
The Combination Alternative consists of constructing 10,590
feet of 30-inch gravity interceptor. Construction would be
in open-cut at depths of 15 to 35 feet. The Wildwood Drive
and Forest Hill Avenue lift stations would be abandoned.
The interceptor route, as shown in Figure IV-1, would begin
at the Wildwood Drive lift station and extend south along
the North Branch of Oak Creek and then along the western
limits of the SEWRPC-delineated primary environmental cor-
ridor to Ryan Road.
Wildwood Drive Pump Station
In addition, an ElS-generated alternative was developed and
it was suggested that it be examined in the detailed analysis.
This alternative involves only upgrading the Wildwood Drive
pump station to meet future flow requirements. No new inter-
ceptor would be constructed under this alternative. The reasons
for examining this alternative and the impacts associated with
it are presented in more detail in the Secondary Growth Impacts
Appendix and Chapter V of the EIS. A cost estimate for this
alternative is given in Table IV-2.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Alternative 3A
The major land use along this route is agricultural land,
with only a relatively small portion at the northern end of
the proposed interceptor being developed. That development
is a single-family residential subdivision. One other
building exists along the route; a highway department
building. There exists a wooded floodplain that is suitable
for wildlife habitat along a section of the North Branch of
the Oak Creek between Puetz and Ryan Roads. The area has
been designated as a primary environmental corridor by
SEWRPC.
Alternative 9A
This alternative consists of two separate interceptors - a
north and a south interceptor. The route of the north
interceptor follows Drexel Avenue which, for the length of
the proposed interceptor, is bordered on the south by residential
and industrial land uses for the majority of the length.
The northern side of the road has several residential areas
with the rest of the length being either agricultural or
unused lands. A park also exists on the south side of the
road at the eastern end of the proposed route.
IV-11
-------
The south interceptor starts approximately 1,000 feet north
of Puetz Road and continues south along the same route as
described in Alternative 3A.
North Branch Alternative
This interceptor route travels through the same general
areas as does Alternative 3A, although this route will
follow the course of the North Branch of Oak Creek entirely.
Therefore, the environment to be affected will include
agricultural lands, a wildlife habitat area, the stream and
its associated floodplain, and an area of residential
development.
Those community facilities near enough to the construction
site to be potentially affected are shown in Figure IV-4.
The construction corridor is located in an area that may
contain archaeological artifacts. However, the State Historical
Society of Wisconsin has concluded that there are no archaeological
resources that would be eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places present in the project
area (see Supplement IV-1).
Combination Alternative
Refer to the sections addressing Alternative 3A and the North
Branch Alternative.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The potential impacts upon the environment which would be
caused by the construction of the proposed Oak Creek Interceptor
are discussed in the following section and are shown in
summary form in Table IV-1. The MWPAP Environmental Assess-
ment was used as a supplemental source of information for
this section.
Access to homes, businesses, and public facilities would be
affected by construction of the interceptor. Alternative 3A
would disrupt access to 20 residences in a subdivision near
the northern end of the interceptor. In addition, access to
the city's highway department building on Puetz Road would be
affected. Alternative 9A would disrupt access to 35 single-
family residences, 16 multi-family residences, 4 small
businesses, and one large plant which employs about 1,500
people. Access to a 40-acre park, Abendschein Park, may also
be affected. The North Branch Alternative would disrupt
access to eight residences and the city's highway department
building. The Combination Alternative would disrupt access
to 9 residences in addition to the city's highway department
building.
IV-12
-------
SRO8SCHMIOT
PARK '
COLLEGE
RAWSON
AVE
DREXEL
GENERAL
j MOTORS
SPARK PLUG
J DIVISION
PUETZ
RO
1
1
OAKWOOD
PARK
OAKWOOO
RO
LEGEND
- CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
RAILROAD
SERVICE AREA
SCHOOL
CHURCH
RECREATION FACILITIES
ARCHAEOLOGIC SITES
200O
400O
6OOO
SCALE
FEET
IV-4
OAK CREEK NORTH BRANCH INTERCEPTOR
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES, SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES
M.M.S.D.
-------
The construction activity of all four alternatives could
produce odors and sights which would aesthetically affect
the inhabitants, workers, and visitors within the general
area surrounding the construction sites. Furthermore, any
accessories to the interceptor construction may be visible
and cause an impact. It is assumed that the various
alternatives would affect the same residences, businesses,
and public facilities as discussed under the access criterion.
In addition, the aesthetic value of the North Branch and main
stem of Oak Creek would be reduced by increased turbidity
caused by sediment erosion. The North Branch and Combination
Alternatives would contribute the most sediment.
Construction of the interceptor would produce dust and exhaust
fumes and, therefore, impact the air quality of the surround-
ing area. All of the alternatives use the open-cut method of
construction and would affect nearby residents in relation to
the particular route used. Thus, it is assumed that the
magnitude of the impact is related to the number of people it
affects and this point is described under the access criterion.
The aquatic biota of the North Branch and main stem of Oak
Creek may be affected by the presence of sediment eroded into
the water during the construction of the interceptor. All
four conveyance alternatives use the open-cut method of con-
struction and, therefore, have the potential for sediment
erosion. Alternaive 3A would expose the most soil to the
elements, but an undisturbed band of vegetation between the
construction route and the creek would help to minimize the
erosion. Alternative 9A would expose the least amount of
soil to the elements and, relative to the other alternatives,
is located farthest from the creek. The North Branch and
Combination Alternatives may have severe impacts because of
open-cut construction in and near the creek bed.
No threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit
within the proposed construction corridor. Each of the al-
ternatives will have short-term energy demands during
construction. These energy requirements would be approximately
equal for each alternative and would not be expected to be
significant. Long-term energy impacts are associated with
pumping alternatives. Alternative 9A would require approxi-
mately 220,000 kWh of electricity per year.
Alteration of the configuration of the Oak Creek floodplain
may occur and thereby encourage flooding during and after the
construction period. Routes 3A and 9A are removed from the
creek bed and would be expected to have minimal impacts. The
North Branch and Combination Alternatives involve open-cut
construction in and nearby the North Branch of Oak Creek.
IV-14
-------
Construction activities may promote flooding by altering the
geometry of the creek channel .and floodplain.
None of the alternatives is expected to have an effect on
groundwater quantity or quality during construction. No
private wells would be affected.
All of the alternatives are located in areas that may contain
archaeological artifacts or sites. However, the State
Historical Society of Wisconsin has concluded that there are
no archaeological resources in the project area that would be
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places (see Supplement IV-1).
Construction of the interceptor would affect land use by dis-
rupting a portion of primary environmental corridor. Since
these areas return to previous conditions very slowly, any
impacts should be considered significant. Alternatives 3A,
9A, and the Combination Alternative each have the potential
for disrupting 1 acre of this land. In contrast, the North
Branch Alternative could disrupt 11 acres of primary environ-
mental corridor.
None of the alternatives is expected to have any legal impacts,
Noise produced during construction may affect the inhabitants,
workers, visitors, and wildlife in the area neighboring
construction. It is assumed that the severity of the impact
is proportional to the number of people affected. The house-
holds, businesses, and public facilities affected would be
the same as those discussed under the access criterion.
Construction of Alternatives 3A, 9A, and the Combination
Alternative would require the use of some farmland and, there-
fore, normal farming operations may be interrupted.
None of the alternatives is expected to have impacts related
to public health.
Recreation may be affected by construction of the interceptor.
Alternative 9A may disrupt access and the use of the 40-acre
Abendschein Park at the eastern end of the route.
Construction trenches and equipment are potential hazards to
the safety of both the workers and visitors of construction
sites. It is assumed that the safety hazard is proportional
to the number of people who will be exposed to construction
sites. The households, businesses, and public facilities
exposed to construction are the same as those discussed under
the access criterion.
IV-15
-------
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
-t 1 (- RAILROAD
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
JZ: ' 0 TO 10 FEET
I I 10 TO 30 FEET
IV-5
OAK CREEK NORTH BRANCH INTERCEPTOR
DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
M.M.S.D.
-------
Traffic may be disrupted by construction of the interceptor.
Alternative 3A, the North Branch Alternative, and the Com-
bination Alternative would have only slight impacts. Each
would affect only one street crossing and possibly one
railroad crossing. Traffic disruption would be greater for
Alternative 9A which runs along 8,000 feet of Drexel Avenue,
a narrow, heavily-used street.
Construction of the interceptor may affect water quality in
the North Branch and main stem of Oak Creek. The impacts of
each alternative would be the same as those discussed under
the aquatic biota criterion. In addition, oil and grease
spills during construction of any of the alternatives could
adversely affect water quality.
Construction of Alternative 3A would cross and disrupt a small
wetland. This would affect the biota and hydraulics of the
wetland.
Some wildlife habitat may be affected by construction of the
interceptor. The North Branch Alternative involves open-cut
construction and would destroy 11 acres of high quality wild-
life habitat along the North Branch of Oak Creek. Each of the
three other alternatives also involve open-cut construction,
but would only disrupt one acre of quality wildlife habitat.
Secondary Growth Impacts: For an analysis of secondary im-
pacts of this interceptor, see the Secondary Growth Impacts
Appendix or Chapter V of the EIS.
COST SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Details of the costs for the five final alternatives are
given in Table IV-2. The least costly of the alternatives,
the North Branch Alternative, had a total present worth of
$3,26,000 and an equivalent annual cost of $305,000. The
next least costly alternative was the Combination Alternative.
It had a total present worth of $3,492,000 and an equivalent
annual cost of $326,000. This cost is seven percent higher
than the North Branch Alternative.
The methods and assumptions used in calculating these costs
are outlined in Chapter VIII of this appendix.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
The Combination Alternative was selected as the preferred
alternative by the MWPAP because it uses a gravity conveyance
system, avoids the most sensitive environmental areas and is
the least expensive of the environmentally acceptable al-
ternatives .
IV-17
-------
An alternative designed to mitigate the environmental as
well as secondary impacts was developed by the EIS study
team. This mitigative meausre is to upgrade the Wildwood
Pump Station.
This alternative would have none of the environmental impacts
assocated with those conveyance alternatives that would re-
quire construction. It would, therefore, be more environmentally
acceptable. Its cost is assumed to be less than any of the
construction options. For further justification of this miti-
gating measure, see the Secondary Growth Impacts Appendix or
Chapter V of the EIS.
IV-18
-------
a
s
H tj
3 H
S
J
C C
0 -H
0 U]
o3
3
t:
3 -i
-= o
u
z
u
u
0
8
&s
3
0
o
w
l-t
en
j
z
a
a
a
Q
1 CJ
a ~
5- E-
z
u
z
o
M
>
z
u
Cu
o
s
D
-j.
g
a*
u
^4 ^>
Z w
M S-
s z
cj a
2 1-4
CQ <
iX c-»
o
Z Cu
o
u en
S S
u S
« s
o "
JJ
o
3
0.
0
I
73
H
z
jj
D
i_j
10
a
j.
"3
3
."
^
0)
o
CJ
V
o
0
u]
0)
u
JJ
2
0)
4J
1
<
D
JJ
,
-fl
jj
y
u
Ji
0
Xl
rH
3
O
05
r- I
3
§
£
a
IS
OJ
jj
r^
01
OJ
c
CJ
^
c
0
J
03
l-t
s
0
u
c
y
c
CQ
73
3
i
$
at
H
JJ
C
CU
g
73
a
o
r-l
0
en
0)
y
y
«j
u
3
'Jl
0
1
JJ
3
£
^
cu
CJ
c
OJ
.^
in
n
w
>i
i t
4-t
1
OJ
i1
tn
in
0
jj
S
a
o
y
u
ji
o
jj
c
2
u
TJ
0
2
en
tn
ai
l)
en
3
Z3
^
JJ
S
^4
OJ
JJ
r-4
<
y
c
fO
03
2
_^
^
j
a
0
i
O
LH
C
0
ai
GO
0
Jj
en
'ji
0
y
y
^
u
3
en
0
i i
i ^
0)
o >
r-* 4J
jj y
fa o
S-i 'Jl
jj vj
pH
< *
o y
H C
JJ >D
^3 73
G H
H Jl
-3 OJ
S H
O
u ^
(j ,
r-H
-^
4J
-C
JJ
01
fl
D
y
0
73
3
0
C
0
Jj
y
3
jj
C1
C
o
u
en
(U r-t
JJ |
M y
T3 fO
X4
2 y
C H
J2
-M 3
ul
0 03
Jl 'Jl
f-( CU
r-t 01
U fJl
E CJ
73 t/l
C 3
ftj J2
a
c-
a
1
c
w
0)
JJ
r-1
0
JJ
il
y
CJ
jj
c
H
3
0
O
jj
,_
"y
s
U_(
0
c
o
-r-t
JJ
3
_u
Jl
C
0
tn
OJ
i
U-t
Jj
tn
S
0)
73
5
en
3
73
0)
y
3
73
0
p.
73
i t
3
O
3
r^
0
CJ
c
jj
y
c
o
fj
J!
C
CJ
0
73
-J
>
O 0
_Q _^
fa
y ',i
jj u
y y
(U U
i <
a
y en
en
o y
CJ
-------
en
en
3
<2
d)
TAILED
0) M
3 Q
C
H 1
JJ
c en
SB
kU
s
f-4 M
1
f*
a z
a E
< z
EH g
Z
a
o
>4
cc
z
§
en
CEPTOR
X.
a
M
RANCH
en
&
a:
o
z
a
§
CJ
o
en
£
£j
CO
a
s
z
t^
5
U
p-l
M
s
J
s
a
z
cj
a
M
t4
i
=
&U
o
en
e*
G
cu
E
en
;>
rf
z
a:
^
"Z
c
o:
E-1
°
13
C
fl
M
CT>
3
Q
JJ
c
iH
JJ
Jj
o>
w
o
0)
in
D
O
4J
01
JJ
C
0)
£
T3
0)
C
O
01
0
W
. U
X
44 0
0
T3
S >
CO "3
ul
C CO
(d Q
s
2 '
0
I3
U
J= -n
U JJ
C fl
fl 3
u cr
04 fl
-C 01
14 -H
O 4J
Z 0
i)
11 44
4J fl
^
O C.
C 0
fl r-f
!-4 JJ
CD fl
£. -r4
tj e
0 0
S U
. a;
(Jl JJ
JJ 3
C -G
S r4
r4 JJ
OJ O
m u
u-< 13
0 r-t
a
amount
ves wo
i~t
jj JJ
in nj
fl C
. en
cu en
jj
id cu
S -2
x o
0 JJ
\1
ft 4J
U
0) d)
ja a
x
T3 0)
-j ^
0 0
in o
13 M
C fl
fl
E *J
CU 3
fQ J3
>i U3
CP O
r^ >
0) -^
C JJ
a> fl
c
£ ^
i-4 O
JJ r-<
JJ
r-* 1J
0 3
0
en u-t
jr
o
c
fl
* P.'^
CTi ~
- ij
< O
>,
T
U
qj
c
:_i
o
c
0
H
fl
c
^
c
0
o
0)
g
55
c
o
U
T3
1 i
3
*2
fl
c
H
S
3
£
V4
OJ
1
O1
c
0
01
o
-H
3
a1
0)
<
D
'Ij
fl
C
S_i
i
JJ
U
ectri
r-l
a
«-4
0
"3
0
0
c
fN
OJ
Jj
fl
g
X
0
U
a*
fl
-ai
fl
O
0
T3
j3
0)
OJ
o
c
0
-4
T3
0}
O
i-i
fl
"D
C
n
'Jl
JJ
c
OJ
4J
r-t
'X
nation
§
0
3
"o
c
fl
03
j=
JJ
0
2
OJ
jJ
U-i
C
0
*>
3
in
c
o
U
J=
0
c
U
-3
^
Ui
0
Z
T3
C
fl
Ul
«
c
,c
3
0
!-4
en
c
0
H
JJ C
fl O
3 J-l
H JJ
«-i O
C Oi
0 OJ
U >
0)
0 C
e "-*
0 fl
^ rH
could
1 flood
s
o
-a rH
O
-------
Sc
o
w
M
E
j
ft 0)
,13 2
T3 -
c c a)
rcj 0 14
3 14-4
1-1 0
S
I
3 b
0 0
O 'tJ
H
O fc
JJ 0
03
C i-H
SM in
OJ -U
JJ C
r-i 0)
c
0
r-t
to
Ul
1)
H
JO
03
U
0
r- 1
0
03
3
0
c
0)
>1
f3
-
0
o
U
0)
c
0
S,
S'
01
3
0
o
OJ
H
4J
c
0)
4J
a
c
CQ
Sj
o
t:
H
^
0
O
^
to
4J
c
Q
0
H
c
a o
in c ID
H 10 IM
0 O
a iJ
o o
13 w
Ot^
3 n
T) 3
c oi
3
O -5
S-l C
o H
O !/)
0)
4-1 U
rt IB
-------
01 OJ
IS S
M
3
c a
a o
J H
M a.
«t a
a OS
Q a
i z
4J 01
C E»
0 U
O <
O.
z o
31s
m z x
«t
t. o
a S
c u
o
I
a 3
c ±*
cu o
nj .c
4J
0) -H
O U
0) -I
18
* C
rt -i
eji ^3
<; 0
m O
3
O 0
H Ij C
V F t
i *C h
c.
3
C
0
U
T3
U T3
fl C
N HI
U K
C
0)
en
a cy
l'a
> T3
ell
T3 C
cu
a CD
3 U
0
3 TJ
fT3 -H
U -1
CQ (0
C
.£ H
-U ^
b o
g
S
o
en
c
0
as
-------
cn
1
cn
a
3 a)
o -u
EH
S
J
3
Eg
fi
c cu
H o
JJ 0
a j=
u: .-» o
-i c
o 0 cu
in Oj >.
M
cn
j
S
3
p
M
M
-g
TJ JH
0) Q
3
- \
-j tn
0 U
u <
-^ a.
M
M t-
2
j g
a z
< o
5- 2
M
2
Ct4
0
SH
Ci
s:
S
CO
o
EH
S
o
a
E-
Z
g
Z
g
a
|
O
"Z
^
o
<
o
01
ht
E-
<
i
3
r^
?
Q
cn
0
a.
2
^
3
tn
>
H
U
fl
C
0)
JJ
_j
0
jj
a.
o
o
^j
S
2
AJ
UJ
0
13
UJ
0
c
0
JJ
O
3
0
O
c
"V
c
c.
a
c
a
i
31
j:
3
01
CP
c
H
r- *
JJ
S
H
T;
o
'ji
a>
a
o
c
H
0
x:
c
H
JJ
S
QJ
o
c
2
o
5
S
M
o
0
s
CO
c
r*
JJ
»1
C
01
s
^3
2J
0)
g
?
10
3
2
>
,
r^ _!
fl r-t
r-f 3
H CT1
0
0 D
3 (0
"3 3
O
4J
"D 0
r^ CJ
3 4-1
0 w
O fl
E"
a
S
jj
o
3
10
co
fn
0
u
r-4
3
§
CD
>
jj
CJ
r 1
U-j
0
C
0
4J
a
n
0
u
D
ra
j
]J
3
aj
jj
0
n
2
-M
u
TJ
§
0
-Q
4J
4J
0
UH'
3
0
0
a
>
jj
s
r-l
OJ
4J
1-4
<
U
C
nj
03
£
-U
0
xJ
0
tw
0
4J
U
3
J->
'J]
C
0
0
i->
u
c
u
0
JJ
(0
J4
H
J2
iTj
J=
O
U-l
-H
,-H
T3
ft
rH
3
OJ
rH
3
CT
r?
0
a>
i-t
o
(0
0
i-i
JJ
'Jl
4-J
-^
JJ C.V
^J T3
O r-4
> 3
< ?
< 0 0
m 2 o
-3
H
3
-------
CO DS
H O
CO EH
< U
2 BS
< a
W H
H ffi
CN < U
I EH 2
> W 2 O
M 2 U
D <
O
W
~ EH
r4 W =
"r"
H £
CO PS
W C
CS 3:
D-J
in
0
i i
EH
2 =
W E-
co cs
W C
OS 2
w
-1
rV
<
t:
1 '
<£ ^
EH EH
j i tLO
PH C
5^ ^^
U
.
E-
t
<*
0
o
o
rH
OO
O
O
O
m
CO
OO
o
0
o
ro
in
0
o
0
^
CO
ro
rH
o
O
0
O
O
in*
00
o
o
0
OO
o
0
o
O^
o*^
rH
^r
r^-C
OO
o
0
o
rH
OO
O
o
0
CN
m
>~Q
oo
0
o
o
o
5
o
0
o
V
^*
Ifl
^o
rH
0
o
0
oo
o
0
o
0
in
o
0
o
v^o
VD
CN
0
o
o
in
CN
O
O
0
r-T
VO
^*o
oo
.
^
(Tl
o
o
0
in
o
on
o
0
o
^
i i
**o
CN
ro
0
o
o
^
CN
oo
o
0
C
V
CN
OO
rH
0
O
O
0
O
in
OO
o
o
o
ro
O
o
o
vo"
oo
in
oo
£
JZ 0
4-1 q
0 S-i
2 ca
0
o
0
^
CN
OO
0
o
o
CN
O1
^
oo
0
o
o
«.
oo
^
o
0
0
V
0
in
rH
O
o
o
0
o
oo"
OO
o
o
rH
OO
O
0
o
CN
(Ti
r-
OO
i
c q
H o
A -H
£ 4-1
O 03
O
O
o
o
in
CO
0
o
o
*r
r-
00
o
0
0
^
00
o
CN
0
o
0
^
^o
o
o
0
o
CN
CN
*
o
o
o
rH
*^J*
*
O
0
o
r-
r-
rH
O
O
m
M)
rH
O
0
o
0
^J*
0) o q
T! 0 0
03 3 01 -H
01 rH -rH £ 03
£4 -H !H 34-J
[D S Q P^ Cfi 1
'
O
CO
II
H
U
u
1
K
2
a
tn
)H
03
rH
£
O
CO
rH
q
H
0)
M
tn
0)
X
S-l
0)
4J
O ,
03
^
U
0)
0)
I
M
w
CO
w
TJ
q
03
q
03
i i
a.
-^
4-1
H
rH
H
O
03
r-
Q
CO
S
«
0
u
^4
3
O
and non-related construction costs.
tn
4-1
tn
o
u
G
O
H
4J
U
3
in
4-1
tn
q
0
o
in
0)
rc
3
rH
0
q
H
-p
tn
0
0
1 1
R3
4-J
-H
cx
ts, O&M costs, replacement costs, salvage value, and
tn
0
o
rH
03
4-1
H
O
03
U
W
0)
T-J
3
rH
U
q
H
s:
4J
^4
0
5
4J
q
CU
w
-------
XATE HISTQ.
SUPPLEMENT IV- 1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
September 17, 1979
Mr. Fred J. Meinholz SHSW: 793-79
Manager/Facilities Planning RE: Interceptor routes;
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District archeological survey
735 North Water Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Dear Mr. Meinholz:
Our staff archeologists have reviewed the "Field Reconnaissance of the
Oak Creek Interceptor Route Report," by the Great Lakes Archaeological
Research Center.
The survey and testing procedures utilized were sufficiently thorough
to justify the conclusion that there are no archeological resources
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
within this project area.
As indicated in the report, it is always possible that deeply buried
archeological sites may be found during construction. If such finds are
made, please contact the State Archeologist, Dr. Joan E. Freeman
(608/262-9566), immediately.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Erney
State Historic Preservation Officer
* / »
; - ///. >
1 i ( 'it'-'"'-" -' > u. <- - ^
By"William Green
Archeologist
RAE:rdd
cc: Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
Hl<5 STATE STREET- MADISON .WISCONSIN ?^7Of> RICHARD A ERNEY, DIRECTOR
-------
NOTE TO READER
Chapters V, VI and VII provide the EIS analysis of the con-
struction impacts for the Hales Corners, Root River, and
Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptors. These interceptors
were originally evaluated by the MMSD in a 1976 Comprehensive
Facilities Plan and subsequent interceptor environmental
assessments. When preparation of the current MFP began in
1978, there was no known need for updating these three
assessments. However, in time, it became apparent to the
MMSD that, in order to comply with the requirement of the
Dane County Stipulation that the Root River Interceptor be
completed by July 1, 1983, it would be necessary to commence
the design of this project by December, 1980. Therefore, the
MMSD has submitted a request for a "Finding of No Significant
Impact" (FNSI) for the Root River Interceptor. This request
is currently being evaluated by EPA and DNR.
As indicated in the Notice of Intent, the EIS addresses the
construction impacts of only that portion of the Hales
Corners Interceptor from the Milwaukee-Waukesha County line
to the Hales Corners Treatment Plant (which will be abandoned
once construction of the remaining portion of the interceptor
is completed). Only that portion of the Menomonee Falls-
Germantown Interceptor between Bradley Road and County Line
Road (not the portion between Good Hope Road and Bradley
Road) will be evaluated for construction impacts. The
southern portion has received a "Finding of No Significant
Impact" (FNSI). The entire length of the proposed Root
River Interceptor will be analyzed for construction impacts.
Finally, the Secondary Growth Impacts, concerning future
development in an interceptor's service area, for all three
interceptors are discussed in detail in the Secondary Growth
Impacts Appendix and Chapter V of the EIS.
-------
CHAPTER V
MENOMONEE FALLS-GERMANTOWN INTERCEPTOR
-------
CHAPTER V
MENOMONEE FALLS-GERMANTOWN INTERCEPTOR
INTRODUCTION
The Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor has been previously
planned by the MMSD. The southern portion of the interceptor
being constructed at this time under contract Number 813, is
approximately one mile in length and extends north from West
Good Hope Road to West Bradley Road along North 129th
Street. This section of interceptor will extend MMSD sewer
services to the Village of Menomonee Falls. Two treatment
plants in Menomonee Falls (Parkview and Riverside) will be
taken off line and a sewage bypass at the Riverside plant
will be eliminated. This southern portion of the Menomonee
Falls-Germantown Interceptor (Contract 813) has been given a
negative declaration by the EPA (meaning that no significant
impacts are expected from the project) and, therefore, will
not be addressed in the EIS on the MWPAP. This Interceptor
Appendix will deal exclusively with the remaining northern
portion of the interceptor.
PURPOSE OF INTERCEPTOR
The proposed Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor would
extend MMSD sewer services to the Village of Germantown. It
would eliminate the Old Village WWTP and an existing sewage
bypass in the Village. The proposed interceptor would provide
sewer service to a larger area than is presently being
served in Germantown, and would eliminate existing septic
tank systems, some of which are failing.
DESCRIPTION OF ROUTES
The proposed alternatives are located in the Northwest
corner of Milwaukee County.
Route A: Route A, as shown in Figure V-l, begins at the
intersection of North 124th Street and West County Line Road
where it would join the planned Germantown connection. From
this extended point, the route proceeds south along North
124th Street and connects to an existing 72-inch MIS at West
Bradley. This route requires easement acquisitions for the
section between Brown Deer and Bradley Roads where 124th
Street is not constructed.
Route B: Route B also begins at the intersection of West
County Line Road and North 124th Street and would meet the
proposed Germantown connection. The interceptor then travels
east along West County Line Road for one mile to North 107th
V-l
-------
LEGEND
COUNTY LINE
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
RAILROAD
ROUTE "A"
0 2000 4000 60OO
SCALE IN FEET
-------
Street where it connects with an existing 57-inch Metropolitan
Interceptor Sewer (MIS) that runs south on North 107th
Street. Route B is shown in Figure V-l.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Two conveyance alternatives were developed for the Menomonee
Falls-Germantown Interceptor, one for each proposed route.
The No Action Alternative was also considered. Each alternative
is described below.
The No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative calls for continued operation of
the local sewerage system with no capital improvements except
those under or already approved for construction. The Germantown
Wastewater Treatment Plant would remain in operation and
would receive no interceptor relief from peak flows. This
plant currently operates near design capacity on a daily
basis and, without relief from the interceptor, violations
of its discharge permit could occur. Without an increase in
capacity, future development would be limited.
Alternative 1
The proposed interceptor consists of 11,405 feet of 54-inch
gravity sewer along Route A. Construction would be by the
tunnel method. Standard manholes will provide access to the
sewer, and drop manholes will provide both access and a means
of intercepting flow from local collection systems.
Alternative 2
This alternative consists of 1 mile (5,280 feet) of 30-inch
gravity sewer constructed along Route B by the open-cut
method at depths of roughly 25 feet. A hydraulic analysis
of the existing MIS system indicates that sufficient capacity
is available to accomodate either of the connections.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed routes are located in generally undeveloped
rural and agricultural areas that are gradually being developed.
Lowland forest, wetlands, open fields, agriculture, industries,
and urban land uses constitute the cover types that are
present in the general area of the construction corridor.
There are approximately twelve houses along Route A. The
interceptor passes along the western edge of a large re-
creational area, the Jerome Dretzka Park and Golf Course.
The route would intersect the Menomonee River and one of its
tributaries.
V-3
-------
Along Route B, there are five residences, two of which are
actively engaged in farming. There also exists a tank-farm
complex involving several companies. One pipeline is present
along the path of Route B.
There exists a small, intermittent stream which crosses West
County Line Road approximately midway through the route.
Most of the forested areas and wetlands along the route are
associated with this stream. The stream has unknown water
quality.
Also present along Route B is a relatively large sanitary
landfill. This landfill is located at the starting point
for both proposed routes.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental impacts of both proposed routes are similar.
Alternative 2 has the advantage of being only half the
length of Alternative 1 and the route is an existing public
right-of-way. Alternative 1 uses the tunnel method of
construction, which generally has fewer impacts than the
open-cut method, but requires a public acquisition. The
potential impacts upon the environment which would be caused
by the construction of the proposed interceptor are discussed
in the following section and are shown in summary form in
Table v-1.
For either construction alternative, 1 or 2, restrictions
on access would be temporary and limited only to the con-
struction period. Because Alternative 1 uses tunneling, only
those areas immediately surrounding tunnel access shafts would
be affected. Alternative 2, using the open-cut method, would
affect access to five residences along County Line Road (Route
B). Mitigating measures include coordination with affected
residents, barricades, and other traffic control measures.
Aesthetically, construction could cause temporary impacts.
The stream crossing County Line Road (Route B) would probably
receive sediments eroded from excavations for Alternative 2
and become silty and turbid. Mitigative actions include
using settling troughs for pumped water and minimizing erosion
caused by rainfall. The tunnel construction and shafts of
Alternative 1 would not provide large amounts of sediments
to any nearby water bodies. In addition, both Alternative 1
and 2 would require heavy machinery and perhaps protective
fencing to be present and visible at the construction sites.
V-4
-------
Temporary elevations in dust levels and emissions from con-
struction and operation of vehicles could be expected from
either Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. It is expected that
these effects on air quality would be greater for the open-
cut construction of Alternative 2.
Aquatic biota would be affected by the sediments contributed
to the stream by the construction of Alternative 2. An
overload of eroded sediments could easily interfere with
breathing, feeding, and reproduction of aquatic fauna.
Dissolved oxygen could also be reduced by the introduction
of excessive amounts of oxygen-demanding organic matter.
Increased turbidity could impair the photosynthetic abilities
of aquatic plants, causing them to die and further increase
the amount of oxygen-demanding organic matter. These effects
would be limited to the construction period of Alternative 2.
No effects are expected from the implementation of Alternative 1,
No threatened of endangered species are known to inhabit the
construction corridor for either alternative.
No construction would occur in a floodplain for either
Alternative 1 or 2.
Dewatering activities used in the open-cut construction of
Alternative 2 could cause a drop in the local groundwater
table. This could temporarily reduce the amount of water
available to any residents who obtain their water supply
from local wells. The same potential impacts would occur
with Alternative 1, and the chances of them happening would
be greater because of the greater depths of construction.
It is not expected that either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2
would encounter any archaeological sites, although of the
two, the open-cut construction would be more likely to do
so. The construction corridor was identified as a possible
area for archaeological sites, so it would be necessary for
construction crews to remain alert for any such discovery.
For impacts related to land use, see the Secondary Growth
Impacts Appendix or Chapter V of the EIS-
Neither alternative would have impacts related to legality.
Construction activity for Alternatives 1 and 2 would have a
certain level of noise which could present a short-term
nuisance in either case. Considering the relative isolation
of the area and the use of mufflers and other noise reducing
devices, as well as the proper timing of construction, any
impact would not be expected to be severe. Blasting during
the tunneling process of Alternative 1 could cause vibrations
to propagate through the surrounding area. Structures in
V-5
-------
the vicinity should be monitored for susceptibility to
damage during blasting.
Neither Alternative 1, nor Alternative 2 would have an
impact on prime agricultural land. Neither construction
alternative would have any impact on public health or
recreation.
Construction of either alternative would present hazards for
local residents and workers. Mitigating measures including
covering all excavations during inactive construction periods
and controlling access to the construction sites by barriers
and fencing. All machinery should also be secured when not
in use.
The open-cut construction Alternative 2 could limit traffic
on West County Line Road for the duration of the construction
period. Mitigating measures would include rerouting traffic
and the use of barricades and flagmen to direct traffic
flow. Alternative 1 would not affect traffic for it requires
only tunnel construction.
Water quality of the stream crossing West County Line Road
would be temporarily affected by the open-cut construction
of Alternative 2. The probable impacts and mitigating
measures are discussed under aesthetics and aquatic biota
above. Alternative 1 is not expected to affect water quality.
The vegetation and hydrology of small wetlands in the path
of the interceptor could be damaged during the construction
of Alternative 2. These wetlands should be restored as
nearly as possible to their original condition before con-
struction is completed. Alternative 1 would not encounter
any wetlands.
Neither Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would disrupt any
wildlife habitat outside of those associated with the wetlands,
discussed above.
COST SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The least costly alternative is Alternative 2, with a con-
struction cost estimate of $1,071,000. The total present
worth of the project is $1,442,000, and the equivalent
annual cost is $135,000. Details of the cost are given in
Table V-2. The MMSD Recommended Alternative follows the
alignment described in Alternative 2.
Procedures and assumptions used in calculating costs are
contained in Chapter VIII of this appendix.
V-6
-------
nate construction with
.^4
^3
i4
CJ
ed residents.
jj
o
D
U_i
U-l
(0
<-,
0
ILJ
TJ
exhaust scrubbci s and
1^4
0
0)
01
3
c
JJ
< E
|
ccess are 1 1 ma ted to tlie construction perio<
(0
0
JJ
= 'Jl
cn i y
o
<3
e4
jj
0
0
U-l
04
0)
JJ
c
'-1
JJ
fl
H
4J
C
'-J
QJ
4J
JJ
2
^
0
IJ-4
>^
< (
c
0
b
Cd
0)
c
0
o
0
a
c
a)
T3
H
U)
^w
0
u
yi
7i
o
j
u
ra
3
0
3
rg
a
jj
13
C
0
X
5
<
U-l
'O
a
0
a
01
c
a;
s
T3
^0
increase the turbidity of the steam crossun
Line Road. Both Alternatives, 1 and 2,
>. >
f~> jj
H G
!-j 3
03 0
i4 CJ
Cj JJ
= fJl
i) il
i-i 2
e fully visible machinery and perhaps
encinq duririy construction .
^
3 ~J
cr >
o ^
!-* --J
o
r * jj
3 O
§ -
en
'O
OJ
JJ
n3
>
OJ
CJ
>1
M
u
n3
!j
0
1
jj
T3
*3
CM
TT
c
03
f- 1
U3
O
>
jj
03
C
^
O
JJ
rH
0
CQ
0)
>
jj
'2
!-j
j
4J
< 4
<
c
0
Jj
o
3
jj
Jl
0
o
s
^1
3
T3
fJl
jj
rt3
C
U
OJ
JJ
(-<
(0
4J
4J
0
a
H
U
U
JJ
rO
1)
^
O1
H3
0)
>
«
T3
0
3
0)
U
1)
u
i-i
OJ
4J
C
rH
1
OJ
>
-1
4J
2
0)
rH
<
73
j_i
^i
4J
C
p
rJl
^
±!
0)
fi
nq , feeding / and reproduction of aquatic
eased turbidity could inpede photosynthesis
» s-t
-I CJ
4J C
(T3 "-H
"J
<~i
2
-J 3
-* ct3
3 'j-i
OJ
81
< a
-------
s
i
M
c
0 01
tM C
OJ H
.a 01
04 4J
3 10
en 3
U)
>4
(£
a
U
kJ
M
E"
H
8 G
3 1
C
-H tfl
*-> ^4
C U
0 <
U 04
s
1 <
> 6-
z
J 2
§-z
o
6- a:
^,
a
14
O
S
c/i
o
Qj
0
S
z
Q
^r
i
Cd
1
j
i-
^j
O
O
a
E
M
M
e-
2
t-
a
f-4
^j
O
en
u
<
c-
Jj
H
c
o
5
0
aj
Ul
H
0
(^
^1
(^
OJ
Jj
(U
0
^
0
^4
0
U
o
-H
3
4_)
01
C
/-\
1
c
>t!
r-j
a
0
*W
id
u
3
O
U
O
T^
3
C
0
H
-»J
o
3
r4
JJ
fT3
JH
O
JJ
i (
C
i-l
0)
JJ
<
-U
4J
0
.u
i4
o
Q
U
>
Jr
T3
3
>
*J
fd
i^
a)
jj
r-<
<
4
m
U
o
>,
C-
3
tn
u
u
3
U
O
1
,_«
ttJ
g
3
-U
T3
3
O
o
'n
*2
-U
o
01
iTJ
3
1)
>
<-t
^j
2
n
OJ
U
(0
'J
(d
o
0
M-l
4-1
0
r?
--i
^
^
0
0
c
c
JJ
o
c
Jj
Ul
c
,-\
0
c
5
O
.U
as
».
01
JJ
4J
P^
C/l
fd
o
~>
0
1 1
0
1J
S
ij
ia
0
13
U
rtJ
O
i-*
j2
H
-fl
t,T
0
3
0
^
>i
-LJ
0)
U
^1
e-
<
z:
as
4-1 J3
C it)
03 JJ
C
C-l ^T
-i 3
V4 'J
0 «l
-------
.-. a
1 0 rl
C i"
y-4
UJ 3
0 S
4J 3
o -
03
yl
cj
o;
a
-u E-
C 'J
0 «S
u a.
>
2:
<
S
-------
~ H E*
13 Q 3
CJ
-H J O
I "C I
> c- LT1
w £ J
J E <
o
a
c
0
o
3 c jj
00
o o a
a a 01
Ul 0)
C W
0 CJ
u VI VI
a 3 nj
td "O
c
-------
§2
31
3
N
UJ -rt
0 3
o = s
£
O
J
M
£S
3) Q
C 1
H
-u cn
|S
~ a.
E
"V j
Cri
H Z
J K
a s
< 2
^ O
a
M
aj
S
M
2
CK
U
si
a
£-
0
a.
s.
M
0
4J
«c
<4_l
0
Ul
C
0
H
4J
fl
fl
X
0
CJ
e
o
s-i
U-t
?
-a
o
0)
rJl
JJ
c
OJ
s
H
T3
U
a
S
T3
C
03
>i
-Q
3
tfi
TJ
a;
1-1
^
[J
nj
0
a
c
3
4J
r-t
3
0
3
J
C
3
Q
U
(ft
CJ
c
M
0
y
c
O
4J
in
a
5
01
u
4-1
SI
£
0
01
4J
(0
c
u
u
^-4
<
4-1
0
'n
C.
-------
CO
2 ^
W iJ ~~
J < EH
< D CO
> 2 O
M 2 CJ
D <
a
w
v>
r j ..
CM 2
iJ W IT
< cn EH
EH Cd Pi
0 « 0
EH CU ,2
W
&:
5
CO
£
EH
EH 2
2 PJ
PJ ST
a, u
H <
c: a
H fc:
Pi
_
"""**
s
o
EH
2 E
w e-
CO Pi
Cd O
ft ^
in
o
o
CM
E-i ^
W P
co Pi
Cd O
S S
in
cn
rH
EH
CO Pi
H O
a- "~
5
S
H {/>
1 .- 1 {J~}
c, o
-
O
O
0
O
0
rH
0
O
ro
rH
O
O
O
rH
0
rH
0,
w
EH
O
2
dollars. ENR-CCI=280.
o
CO
0>
H
C
H
T3
01
tn
tn
0)
IH
Qj
X
0)
0)
1-1
ro
tn
4J
tn
0
0
r i
H
<£
hodology.
4-1
0)
e
0^
c
rH
4-1
tn
0
o
^_t
0
M-l
H
H
H
^>
J-j
0)
-P
a
f^
rC
O
0)
01
to
t
M
w
to
w
T3
£
ro
Q
cn
a
s
OJ
u
^_)
p
o
to
n cost and non-related construction costs.
o
rH
4-1
O
3
IH
-P
tn
C
0
o
tn
0)
13
D
H
O
C
H
4-1
(n
O
o
1 I
fd
4-1
H
CH
rd
O
tal costs, O&M costs, replacement costs, salvage value
-H
p
rd
O
tn
0)
13
p
H
O
C
H
(~;
4J
^_i
0
^
4J
C
Ol
tn
0)
^
f^
! 1
rrj
-P
0
EH
.
C
O
H
.p
u
p
1-1
^J
tn
^
0
o
Oi
rH
1-1
D
T3
4J
tn
01
^
0)
-P
c
H
-------
HISTC
'<
**/ 1^ '<£^
jE SfQS S SUPPLEMENT V-l
5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1846
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
December 20, 1979
Mr. Fred J. Meinholz SHSW: 793-79
Group Administrator RE: Menomonee Falls - Germantown
Facilities Planning/EIS Interceptor Route
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
735 North Water Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Dear Mr. Meinholz:
Our staff archeologists have reviewed "Results of the Archaeological
Inventory and Evaluation of the Proposed Menomonee Falls-Germantown
Interceptor Route" by The Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center,
Inc.
The survey and testing procedures utilized were sufficiently thorough
to justify the conclusion that there are no archeological resources
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
within this project area.
As indicated in the report, it is always possible that deeply buried
archeological sites may be found during construction. If such finds are
made, please contact the State Archeologist, Dr. Joan E. Freeman
'(608/262-9566), immediately.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Erney
State Historic Preservation Officer
By William Green
Archeologist
RAE:dc
cc: G. L. A. R. C.
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
STATE STREET MADISON .WISCONSIN ^7Of> KICHAKP \ [ KMN DIK.TIi >'
-------
CHAPTER VI
ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR
-------
CHAPTER VI
ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR
PURPOSE OF THE INTERCEPTOR
The proposed Root River Interceptor would provide sewer
service to the extreme northwest portion of Greenfield, the
extreme southwest portion of West Allis, and the northern
portion of New Berlin. The interceptor would provide additional
capacity within the Root River watershed, so that '.sewage
generated in the tributary area of West Allis would be
properly conveyed. This area is currently tributary to
interceptor sewers that lie outside of the Root River
watershed. As a result, the sewage must be pumped outside
of the watershed into sewers that were never intended to
accommodate the resulting flows. The additional flows are
contributing to serious surcharge and subsequent bypassing
problems.
In addition, 75 septic systems in Greenfield would be elimi-
nated as a result of the construction of the associated
local collection systems. Finally, a 1.7 MGD lift station,
which was built in New Berlin to eliminate 250 septic systems,
would be abandoned upon completion of the Root River Inter-
ceptor.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUTES
Two different routes were identified for the proposed
interceptor alternatives. These routes, designated as -A and
B, are shown in Figure VI-1 and are described below.
Route A
Route A commences at West Needham Drive and South 124th
Street, at the Greenfield Golf Course, and proceeds south
along 124th Street, (the border between Waukesha and Mil-
waukee Counties) to approximately halfway between Lincoln
and Cleveland Avenues. From there1 it travels along the Root
River to Oklahoma Avenue, where it follows 116th Street
south to a point just south of West Morgan Avenue. It then
travels southeast to its terminus at the junction of West
Cold Spring Road and the South Root River Parkway. Route A
is approximately 21,000 feet in length.
Route B
Route B is approximately 21,600 feet in length and is iden-
tical to Route A except for that portion of the route between
West Oklahoma Avenue and West Cold Spring Road. Between
these points, Route B follows the proposed and existing
VI-1
-------
COUNTY LINE
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
M ROUTE A
ROUTE 8
14 MGO PUMP STATION 3CALE
(Altar-natives 2 and 9)
I8ACRE-FT STORAGE FACILITY
(Alternatives 3 and 6)
zooo
4000 6000
IN
FEET
Vl-l
ROOT RIVER INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ROUTES
M.M.S.D.
-------
Milwaukee County Parkway Drive.
Other routes are possible along existing streets. However,
these routes would involve additional urban disruption and
increased cost and, therefore, were considered unacceptable.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
There were six initial alternatives suggested for analysis
by the MMSD. These included two gravity sewer alternatives,
two gravity sewer/force main alternatives, and two alterna-
tives using storage facilities served by gravity sewers. All
of the alternatives were screened with respect to environmental
impacts and construction costs. The alternatives which were
judged unacceptable were eliminated from further consideration.
The following is a brief description of each of the prelimi-
nary alternatives and an explanation of whether or not they
were retained for further consideration. In addition, a
brief description of a No Action Alternative is given. The
MMSD Planning Report was used as a supplemental source of
information in this section.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative (not considered by the MMSD) calls
for continuing operation of the existing MIS system and
local sewerage system with no capital improvements except
those already under or approved for construction. Sewage
generated in West Allis would continue to be pumped outside
of the watershed where it would contribute to surcharge and
subsequent bypass problems. Seventy-five septic systems in
Greenfield would remain in operation as well as a 1.7 MGD
lift station in New Berlin. No cost estimate was made for
this alternative because of the difficulty in assessing its
impacts.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 consists of constructing 21,000 feet of 42-
inch gravity sewer along Route A. Approximately 9,200 feet
would be constructed using the open-cut method, and the
remaining 11,200 feet would use the tunnel method of construction.
The tunnel construction would take place along the northern
segment of the route. One river crossing would be required
during open-cut construction.
This alternative was not chosen by the MMSD because Route B,
located further away from the river, was more environmentally
acceptable.
VI-3
-------
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of constructing 15,600 feet of 42-
inch gravity sewer and 5,400 feet of 20-inch force main
along Route A. Approximately 9,800 feet of the 42-inch
interceptor would be constructed using the open-cut method
and the remaining 5,800 feet, would use the tunnel method of
construction. The 20-inch force main would be built along
South 124th Street from Needham Road to the South Root River
Parkway. A 14 MGD pump station would be built near the
intersection of South 124th Street and Needham Road. For
purposes of the planning analysis it was assumed that the
pump station would pump both dry and wet weather flows. In
addition, one river crossing would be required during open-
cut construction.
This alternative was not chosen by the MMSD because Route B,
located further away from the river, was more environmentally
acceptable.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 consists of constructing an 18 acre-foot
(784,000 H^) , below-ground storage facility in Greenfield
Park (just east of South 124th Street and Needham Drive).
The purpose of this facility is to store peak wet weather
flows and then to gradually discharge the stored wastewater
to the existing MIS system. This storage would eliminate
the need for any interceptor construction along South 124th
Street. In addition, Alternative 3 requires 15,600 feet of
36-inch gravity sewer along the remainder of Route B.
Approximately 9,800 feet would be constructed using the
open-cut method of construction, and the remaining 5,800
feet would use the tunnel method of construction. One river
crossing would be required during open-cut construction.
Likewise, this alternative was not chosen by the MMSD because
Route B, located further away from the river, was more
environmentally acceptable.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 consists of constructing 21,620 feet of 42-
inch gravity interceptor along Route B. Approximately
11,200 feet would be constructed along the northern segment
of the route using the tunnel method of construction (identical
to that proposed under Alternative 1). The remaining
10,420 feet would be constructed by the open-cut method
along the proposed and existing Root River Parkway Drive.
Three river crossings would be required during open-cut
construction.
VI-4
-------
This alternative was not retained by the MMSD because of its
relatively high cost.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 is a combination of Alternatives 2 and 4. It
consists of constructing 16,220 feet of 42-inch gravity
sewer and 5,400 feet of 20-inch force main along Route B.
Approximately 10,420 feet of the 42-inch interceptor would
be constructed using the open-cut method along the proposed
and existing Root River Parkway Drive. The remaining
5,800 feet would be constructed by the tunnel method, along
Route B, from South 124th Street to West Oklahoma Avenue.
The 20-inch force main and 14 MGD pump station would be
built along South 124th Street as in Alternative 2. It is
assumed that the pump station would pump both dry- and wet-
weather flows. In addition, 3 river crossings would be
required during open-cut construction.
Alternative 5 was chosen as the most desirable alternative
by the MMSD. It is environmentally acceptable and was the
second least costly alternative.
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 consists of constructing an 18 acre-foot
storage facility, as in Alternative 3. In addition, Alter-
native 6 requires 16,220 feet of 42-inch gravity interceptor
along Route B. Approximately 10,420 feet of the 42-inch
interceptor would be constructed, using the open-cut method,
along the proposed and existing Root River Parkway Drive.
The remaining 5,800 feet would be constructed by the tunnel
method along Route B from South 124th Street to West Oklahoma
Avenue. In addition, three river crossings would be required
during open-cut construction.
This alternative was not retained by the MMSD because of its
relatively high cost.
Cost estimates were made for the six Root River Interceptor
alternatives. A cost summary is presented in Table VI-2.
Since Alternatives 2 and 5 were the least costly alternatives,
an analysis was made to compare the interceptor size and the
cost of these alternatives with the Underwood Creek Interceptor
tributary to the Root River Interceptor. The cost of these
modified alternatives is also presented in Table VI-2. The
new pump station capacity and interceptor diameter are
described below.
VI-5
-------
Alternative 2 (Underwood Creek Interceptor tributary)
This alternative requires a 46 MGD pump station, 15,600 feet
of 60-inch gravity interceptor, and 5,400 feet of 42-inch
force main. The interceptor would be constructed as des-
cribed under Alternative 2 (Underwood Creek Interceptor not
tributary).
Alternative 5 (Underwood Creek Interceptor tributary)
This alternative requires a 46 MGD pump station, 16,220 feet
of 60-inch gravity interceptor, and 5,400 feet of 42-inch
force main. The interceptor would be constructed as described
under Alternative 5 (Underwood Creek Interceptor not tributary)
A cost-effectiveness analysis was made for Alternatives 2
and 5, with and without the Underwood Creek inter-connection.
This analysis found it to be more cost-effective by about
$4,000,000 not to combine the Root River and Underwood Creek
Interceptors. These alternatives were, therefore, eliminated
on the basis of excessive cost. A more detailed analysis is
given in the Cost Summary section.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The Root River is a channelized, narrow, slow-flowing stream
throughout the construction corridor. It parallels the
route that the Root River Interceptor is proposed to follow.
Much of the adjacent land is a parkway, bordered by homes on
the outer extent. The stream is considered to be well
oxygenated. However, suspended solids levels become high
during high-flow conditions, and the concentrations of
nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) are relatively high
(SEWRPC 1978) ; the latter condition possibly reflecting
extensive lawn fertilization within the watershed.
The northern portion of the interceptor would be built along
124th Street. The land use along this path includes a golf
course on the eastern side and houses on the western side.
It is assumed that all the houses along the Root River
Interceptor route use city water supplies rather than private
wells, so drawdown or contamination due to construction is
not expected to occur.
The southern portion of the interceptor would approach a
small woods located near the Root River at Oklahoma Avenue.
The remainder of this portion of the route would traverse
land which contains vegetation typical of recently abandoned
fields.
VI-6
-------
An archaeological site has been identified near the construc-
tion corridor (MWPAP, 1980). However, the State Historical
Society of Wisconsin concluded that "there are no archaeolo-
gical resources eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historical Places within this project area" (see
Supplement VI-1).
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The potential impacts upon the environment which would be
caused by the construction of the proposed Root River Inter-
ceptor are discussed in the following section and are shown
in summary form in Table VI-I. The MMSD Environmental
Assessment was used as a supplemental source of information
for this section.
Generally, the open-cut method of construction has more
significant impacts on the environment than the tunnel
method. This is due to the presence of construction equip-
ment and activities along the total length of construction.
Tunnel construction, on the other hand, will have only a
few staging areas where an access shaft will be constructed.
Construction by tunneling takes place beneath the surface of
the ground without disturbing the surface area along the
route.
Access to homes, businesses, and institutions could be
affected by interceptor construction. It would seem that
the main disruption would take place along 124th Street.
Alternatives 1 and 4 would use the tunnel method of con-
struction along South 124th Street and, except for areas
nearby the work sites, would cause no disruption. Alternatives
2 and 5 would use the open-cut method of construction and
would disrupt access more than other alternatives. However,
none of the alternatives are expected to seriously disrupt
access to homes, businesses, or institutions. Alternatives
3 and 6 use storage facilities in Greenfield Park and do not
involve sewer construction along South 124th Street.
The construction activities of all six alternatives could
cause odors and sights which would aesthetically affect the
inhabitants and workers within the general area surrounding
the construction sites. Furthermore, any accessories to the
interceptor may be visible. All of the alternatives use
open-cut construction along the Root River Parkway, south of
Oklahoma Avenue. Also, each alternative involves tunnel
construction between South 124th Street and Oklahoma Avenue.
Any differences in impacts would be due to construction
along South 124th Street. Alternatives 2 and 5 use the open-
cut method of construction along this street and would
disrupt the most land surface area. Alternatives 1 and 4
VI-7
-------
use tunnel construction and Alternatives 3 and 6 do not use
South 124th Street. Also, Alternatives 2 and 5 require
permanent visible pump stations, while Alternatives 3 and 6
may have visible accessories to the storage facilities.
All of the alternatives would produce dust and exhaust fumes
and, therefore, impact the air quality of the area. Again,
all of the alternatives would have similar impacts except
for the segment along South 124th Street. Alternatives 3
and 6 involve no sewer construction but require an 18 acre-
foot storage facility in Greenfield Park. Dust and exhaust
would be localized, but more concentrated near these areas.
Similarly, dust and exhaust would be more concentrated at
tunnel access shafts associated with Alternatives 1 and 4.
Alternatives 2 and 5 use open-cut construction along the
124th Street and would generate dust and fumes along the
entire segment.
The aquatic biota of the Root River may be affected by the
presence of sediment eroded into the water during construction
of the interceptor. All of the alternatives use open-eut
construction along or nearby the Root River (south of West
Oklahoma Avenue).
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 use Route B, which is located
further away from the main bed of the river, and they would
be expected to contribute less sediment from construction.
However, Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would each cross the river
three times, whereas Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would only
cross it once. The flow of the river would be temporarily
stopped or rerouted. Either action could cause various
disruptions to the aquatic biota and their habitat downstream.
No threatened or endangered species are known to use the
habitat within the proposed construction corridor.
Each of the alternatives would have short-term energy demands
during construction. The energy impacts for construction
were not considered to be significant for any of the alter-
natives. Long-term energy impacts are associated with
pumping. Alternatives 2 and 5 require the use of a 14 MGD
pump facility throughout the planning period.
Alteration of the floodplain can occur in conjunction with
construction activities and thereby encourage flooding
during and after the construction period. However, none of
the alternatives is expected to cause any serious hydraulic
changes in the Root River. In general, Alternatives 4, 5,
and 6, using Route B, are located further away from the main
bed of the river. However, the routes for these alternatives
require crossing the river three times, whereas Alternatives
1,2, and 3 would only cross it once.
VI-8
-------
Construction below the water table may allow drainage of
groundwater into trenches and tunnels. Subsequent dewater-
ing activities could affect the groundwater supply by
lowering the height of the groundwater table in the con-
struction area. However, the dewatering activity is not
expected to affect any residents, all of whom are assumed to
be relying on the city water supplies.
The State Historical Society of Wisconsin has concluded that
"there are no archaeological resources eligible for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places within this
project area" (see Supplement VI-1). However, an archaeological
site has been identified near the construction corridor.
None of the proposed alternatives would be expected to
affect this site.
The construction of an interceptor would affect portions of
the Root River Parkway which has been delineated by SEWRPC
as part of a primary environmental corridor. Since these
areas return to previous conditions very slowly, any impacts
should be considered significant. In general, it was felt
that those alternatives using Route B (Alternatives 4, 5,
and 6) would have relatively less of an impact upon the
primary environmental corridor.
None of the alternatives are expected to have impacts
related to legality.
Noise produced during construction of the interceptor may
affect the residents, workers, and wildlife in the area
neighboring construction. These noises would be a short-term
nuisance and no long-term adverse impacts are expected to
result from construction generated noise. Tunnel construction
would limit noise to a few areas, but the intensity could be
higher and for prolonged periods of time in these areas.
Open-cut construction would generate noise along the entire
segment at one time or another. Alternatives 3 and 6 do not
involve sewer construction along South 124th Street. However,
noise would be produced during the long-term construction of
the storage facilities associated with these alternatives.
None of the alternatives would affect the use of prime
agricultural land.
None of the alternatives would have an effect upon public
health.
Construction of the interceptor would affect the use of
recreational facilities in the areas neighboring construc-
tion activities. All of the alternatives involve construc-
tion along the Root River Parkway and would temporarily
VI-9
-------
disrupt its use as a recreational area. Also, each of the
alternatives would affect the Greenfield Park and Golf
Course. Alternatives 3 and 6 involve construction of an
underground storage facility and would cause surface dis-
ruption throughout the construction period. Alternatives 2
and 5 involve construction along the western border of the
park and golf course as well as a pump station located in
the golf course. Alternatives 1 and 4 would use tunnel
construction along 124th Street and would cause minimal
disruption.
Construction of the interceptor will present potential
safety hazards to construction workers and nearby residents.
Open-cut trenches, tunnel access shafts, and construction
machinery could be very dangerous if adequate safety pre-
cautions are not taken. With good safety measures, all of
the alternatives would have minimal impacts.
Traffic flow would be disrupted during periods of inter-
ceptor construction. Disruptions would occur along South
124th Street for Alternatives 1,2,4, and 5. Alternatives 1
and 4 use the tunnel method of construction and would have
relatively fewer impacts. Alternatives 3 and 6 do not
involve construction along 124th Street and, therefore,
would have minimal impacts. Also, Alternatives 4, 5, and 6
could affect traffic flow along the proposed/existing
Milwaukee County Parkway Drive.
The water quality of the Root River may be affected by the
presence of sediment eroded into the water during construction
of the interceptor. Suspended solids currently become high
during high-flow conditions and the presence of additional
sediment may aggravate existing conditions. All of the
construction alternatives use open-cut trenches along or
nearby the Root River (south of West Oklahoma Avenue).
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 use Route B which is located further
from the main bed of the river, relative to Route A, and
they would be expected to have relatively less sediment
erode into the river. However, Alternatives 4, 5, and 6
would each cross the river three times, whereas Alternatives
1, 2, and 3 would only cross it once. These river crossings
would disrupt the river bottom and would increase sediment
loadings downstream of the crossing.
None of the construction alternatives would have an effect
upon wetlands.
Construction of the interceptor would cause disruption of
wildlife habitat nearby the construction area. The Root
River and adjacent park flood lands would most likely be
affected since all alternatives have easements through these
VI-10
-------
areas. In most cases, the effect of construction would be
to move the boundary of wildlife habitat back from the work
sites a few hundred feet. This disruption would be temporary,
Construction could damage a wooded floodplain located just
south of Oklahoma Avenue. This area would return to its
previous condition very slowly and its preservation should
be a concern.
Secondary Growth Impacts: For an analysis of the secondary
impacts of this interceptor, see the Secondary Growth
Impacts Appendix, or Chapter V of the EIS.
COST SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The least costly of the alternatives, Alternative 2, has a
total present worth of $13,026,000 and an equivalent annual
cost of $1,218,000. However, this alternative, as well as
Alternatives 2 and 3, were rejected because they use Route A
(judged by the MWPAP to be less desirable than Route B).
Details of the costs for each of the alternatives are given
in Table VI-2.
Of the alternatives remaining, Alternative 5 was the least
costly with a total present worth of $13,174,000 and an
equivalent annual cost of $1,231,000. Alternative 5 is
cost-competitive with Alternative 2 since it represents only
a one percent increase in cost. The remaining alternatives
(1, 3, 4, and 6) were at least 21 percent higher in cost
than Alternative 2.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was completed to compare the
cost of Alternatives 2 and 5 with and without the Underwood
Creek Interceptor tributary to the Root River Interceptor.
Based upon this analysis, it was found that the total present
worth cost of interconnecting the Root River and Underwood
Creek Interceptors would be $22,531,000. On the other hand,
constructing these two interceptors separately with no
interconnection would have a present worth cost of only
$18,473,000. Therefore, it would be more cost-effective by
about $4,058,000 not to combine the Root River and Underwood
Creek Interceptors.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Alternative 5 was selected as the preferred alternative by
the MWPAP. It is an environmentally acceptable alternative
and the least costly alternative.
Vl-11
-------
JJ
F^
3
C
0
H
jj
u
u
JJ
tn
c
0
u
o
jj
fl
£
H
TJ
'*
s
1
fl
31
a
t/i
«
0)
C
"4
'Jl
I
1
Jj
I
U-l
U-l
fl
0)
£
jj
CO
0
o
c
o
TJ
H
en
0)
u
0
TJ
0
H
a
a
jj
31
G
£
3
TJ
^
0
3
2
a
TJ
tn
c
0
0
4J
0
fl
s*
4J
fl
3)
tu
0
c
CP
cn
0)
TJ
OJ
^
c
H
o
H
JJ
a
jj
cn
a)
fl
_^
en
u
0
cn
CO
a
o
o
fl
i-i
O
JJ
a
0.
o
0)
V
c
cn
c
0
Jj
fl
-iJ
en
a.
a) 3
in 0
3 13
M
CO
"Z
Q
^
a
1
cn
7 S
t-H <3S
> a.
S
U M
J
Ss
z
2
s
M
>
2
ca
Cu
o
3
erj
1
M
CJ
a
z
a:
a
IH
EH
O
g
cn
t^
z
a:
H
fr;
X
s-
Ub
o
cn
O
<
2
cn
u
>
S
<
z
u
u
t;
Q
H
3
TJ
TJ
JJ
O
3
JJ
0
I
TJ
3
3)
31
tn
01
c
31
3
TJ
C
fl
CO
fl
c
jj
fl
X
-l-t
31
fl
0
JJ
>
Jj
U
fl
C
0
3
jj
cn
c
o
y
£
U5
ul
0
3"
m
CJ
>.
fl
y
4J
«
U
cn
OJ
£
TJ
3
2
3
31
JJ
"§>
-^
en
TJ
c
fl
en
0
TJ
0
0)
y
3
-M
C
c
3
U
fl
cn
0)
£
X
CO
JJ
TJ
en
(U
>,
j2
iJ
fl
0)
C
0
JJ
c
en
fl
o
a
cn
TJ
0)
c
u
0
H
JJ
y
3
jj
CO
G
0
y
to
0)
y
c
0)
-1-1
Jj
3
1
G
OJ
a
0
cn
a
.^4
CO
3
TJ
3
til
jj
fl
C
01
fl
U
5
0
pH
p4
<
rH
O
a
31
u-i
0
c
o
3
01
C
3)
^1
a
i
jj
?
M
JJ
cn
CN
u*
0
fl
JJ
§"
u
X
a
Ji
jj
CJ
H
fl
rH
-r4
E
tn
«
>
fl
JZ
TJ
rH
3
TJ
C
fl
C
0
H
O
3
C
0
JJ
0
1
c
01
a
0
ty
cn
3
m
1
fl
CN
cn
>
fl
G
a.
r-»
<
c
fl
CO
4)
4J"
fl
G
0)
fl
U
fl
3
cn
TJ
G
fl
t-t
jj
en
0
1)
rC
4J
U
Vj
en
TJ
\0
TJ
C
m
cn
(U
H
jj
fl
C
cu
TJ
C
G
0
y
3
JJ
cn
c
0
y
t
H
y
fl
U-l
a
fl
o
jj
CO
fl
IM
0
C
0
JJ
y
3
en
0
y
0)
r-H
0
c
0)
H
3
cr
o
m
TJ
c
fl
CN
tn
fl
c
M
at
<
*
0
H
JJ
.H
fl
M
a.
m
O
r-4
3
jT
i4
3
It
0)
r-4
H
cn
*j
a
c
fl
S
Q
jj
CO
3
fl
X
Q
fl
en
3
TJ
0)
y
3
0
r-t
3
i
CO
OJ
-4
jj
(0
C
u
03
0)
U-i
0
<
\jQ
m
b
H
JJ
fl
M
a
jj
i
jj
c
*4
en
a.
>i
J
fl
OJ
C
2
jj
0
fl
a
o
c
o
Jj
fl
u
4J
O
-G
4J
0
c
.c
Jj
c
0
'_^J
u
3
cn
0
y
i
c
u.
0
"J
0
£
01
c
en
3
LH
TJ
C
CN
G
0
fl
CO
0)
E
3
en
3
fl
X
1
fl
JJ
CO
3
TJ
JJ
fl
O
O
c?
TJ
3
O
cn
CD
Jj
fl
c
fl
TJ
i (
3
TJ
C
fl
cn
H
4J
G
OJ
JJ
t-4
3!
«
2
jj
»w
jj
71
C
OJ
0
JJ
fl
JJ
en
3
fl
X
a
TJ
c
fl
JJ
3
TJ
0
jj
3
0
fl
0)
jj
fl
0)
C7*
f-t
>
fl
O
(TJ
O
"
C
cn
OJ
H
jj
C
OJ
Jj
3
cn
-^
cn
cn
0)
O
CJ
fl
0)
c
c
3
TJ
3
p
03
TJ
t4
i !
03
O
--,
"^
rC
TJ
3
fl
* a,
jj n^
H i4
r-l O
y M-I
fl G
OJ
0) 'H
fl
0 H
cn >»
jj
tJ >
tt4 4
I -p
a y
u fl
0
CO -H
H 4J
y
O 3
tr s-i
^j a:
i-H G
p
C OJ
rl JJ
LI iq
-* i-i
3 4J
i) a
Sa O
- 0
^o y
0 TJ
o c
< fl
-------
M
(H
CO
>t
J
<
5|
a
3
H
-g
TJ W as
Sag
c i a.
H U
4J Ul U
c EH a.
0 CJ Cd
U < 6"
~as
M
- , g
i < >
> H M
z a
Cd &3
S S 8
EH * OS
M
>
z
a
§
X
a:
M
EH
«:
I
Cd
ij
<
U
h
o
CO
B
<
0,
S
HH
cn
u
M
S
S
1
2
Q
*H
as
&J
a:
O
TJ
2 Oi
id js
-a £
en
£ C
HI 0
g1 u
0 >-t
D 4
4J Q
S
Ci M
c
H o
rH J=
JJ JJ
JJ
0) U-4
Ul O
y-i j^
O C
H
G rH
en -H
D a
-u
c
at
5
TJ
0>
ul C
Ht
>1
.a
TJ C
0) 0
JJ -H
O *»
0 U
tw 3
,
S 5*
4
W Ul
a 3
> TJ
-r4
& Ui
09
o
o c cn
rt en
TJ tn a»
C 3 r-t
(d
. en >.
cn 0)
* "4 >
*r JJ -.H
ctl JJ
cn c id
> at ai
H JJ Ul
JJ rH
U (d OJ
C 4J
SH TJ 3
a c -2
.u id -H
i-H Li
< Ll JJ
01 C
> 0
CO -H O
Ut
U 0
JJ 0) 4J
3 A
0 -U TJ
as UJ
S ^J
rH Ul 0)
Ul X
0) >* 01
c a
g ^ a
31 (d .a
TJ
3
Ul
0)
>
-4
Li
0)
J=
-U
cross
U3
TJ
C
(d
Ul
»
en
OJ
>
H
JJ
fd
c
Ll
01
jj
<
C
0
H
JJ
u
3
JJ
en
C
0
O
en
en
0
Ui
u
>,
r 1
C
0
m
s
id
CN
rH
cn
01
>
4J
td
c
Ll
1>
jj
rH
^
UJ,
0
U
(TJ
Q
Ul
(d
0)
Ul
0)
"3
cn
01
e
r-4
4J 0!
01 C
0) 0
S u
U H
JJ
«
4J
H
XI
4)
.C
4J
jj
e
3
0
*4
14-1
D
>. rH
jj a
r* -H
> M
03 Ul
U 0
CP iJj
OJ Q
Ij
« a
ul .£
3 3
Ul
T:
c
IB 0)
S t/l
0 3
T3
a
> £
at JJ
±4
0) 01
c u
O -4
3
E 0*
^ OJ
-J h
jj
t in
jj
H T3
0 C
J= 0
Ul
v-N
0)
> ul
03 0)
>
T3 JJ
3 C
O U
3 0
JJ
Ul --!
0 <
>
H
JJ
IB C
C 0
Ul --I
O JJ
JJ O
"H 3
fl M
jj
U Ul
JJ 0
u
U-l
c
£ H
o u
11 3
Cd TJ
vO
Ul
T
m
^J
>,
3^
V4
U
5
0
a'
0
L4
0)
04
3
0
M
JJ
c
0
_4
JJ
0
^
O T3
i-4 ^
14-1
rH Ul
D T3
ij t4 OJ
3 IB 14
O IB
O vD £4
0 E
T3 0
>, C O
IB fl
S U
^ ">
C >
n3 rr SH
rH
a, ui (u
73 a .£
0 > JJ
0 -1
rH JJ UH
UH IB 0
C
i) w TJ
JJ JJ -Q
rH
UH < C
o -<
.2 g1 ^
JJ -1 C
(B "3 JJ
Ij 0
01 rH O
r4 IJJ U
IJ4 IJH
C 0)
0 31 >i
U OJ IB
SJ 3
01 3 IB
0
JJ CJ ^4
c a)
0 JJ
> VJ
C XI 3
0 0) «
H W
JJ U 13
Ll Jj" JJ
OJ IB
JJ T) U
rH C 0
< (TJ rH
o
un
^*
,^n
HI
CD .=
3 3
~ en
£
m jJ
TJ OJ
c a>
TJ Ll
CN 4J
> LI
rH d)
>
Ul -r*
01 Ul
>
"H 0) 0)
JJ rC CJ
(d JJ c
c o
Ul CP
0) C >i
rH tn c
< Jl 0
0
O Ll JJ
JJ y H
-------
0) 0,
01 3
C/3
M
cn
kJ
2
*
o
>4
M
TJ e-
11 Cd
3 Q
c
H 1
JJ
0 &*
O 0
Oi
s
i-4 M
1
HI -J
3 ?
01 s
«S Z
E- o
.2
a
Ct,
o
a
s
3
cn
a:
g
Q-
CJ
H
2
OS
U
M
05
^H
Q
K
01
U
HI
Z
5
Cd
Ci.
O
01
B
2.
S
M
1
,
H
CJ
C
0
c
-4
'J
1
0
4J
TJ
a
i
31
'JJ
fl
)
(TJ
2
^
14-1
O
TJ
C
0
-H
01
3
i-4
O
O
CU
01
H
fH
CU
cn
S)
u
3
0
cn
Q
r-t
a
y
01
o
"o
CU
2
u
ro
0
c
C1J
113
0)
£
*r*
m
CN
j^
C
JJ
3
CO
y
rH
Oi
O
0
JJ
01
H
«
0
^
a
H
0)
:£
^
IS
c
O
H
4J
CU
£
JJ
c
0
c
as
jj
u
3
in
TJ
a
,-4
3
*
in
H)
>
4J
IS
C
JJ
IS
1)
JJ
I4J
0
cu
c
0
z
ra
CU
03
JJ
O
n
0
a
c.
jj
is
o
c
*o
JJ
fO
01
H
u
3
01
JJ
.,.4
01
,_J
n3
U
H
cn
0
0
CU
2
'o
H
10
c
H
JJ
cn
0
a
H
0
o
c
0
o
3
J
JJ
01
c
0
o
2
CJl IS
L!
C
H_l (jj
0 Oi
01 C
o M
H
0 0
04 rs
H
JJ 14
Oj Ll
3 0
1-1 U
01
TJ C
3 S
0 C
3 0
L4
cn -H
> c
C !*
V4 03
0 S
JJ --4
r-4 Ll
0) >o
n3
u-t CD
O C
< 13
"-
TT"
ro
CN
cn
01
CU
><
r-4
n
U
CO
3
y
3
^jO
c
«
s
fl
c
Li
a
jj
<
at
u
a
cn
cn
Oj
s
-.-4
J
its
TJ
C
0
o
CU
01
C
0
c
0
H
JJ
a
u
0
U-l
C
M
0
Cb
C
0
jj
CL
14
cn
T3
01
HI
CU
jj
UJ
0
CU
JJ
a
o
o
w
0
X
tJ
1
rtj
CO
iJ
o
1
s
M
_|j
Lj
>,
13
TJ
o
y
ii
cn
CO
u
§4
0)
0
JJ
Q
jj
y
0)
Cu
X
01
Li
to
cn
0)
jj
(TJ >i
C -P
Li (
tu -H
JJ 1C
fl iU
0
U_, rr^
o a
GJ (d
C i-t
0
-------
3 uj
0
'Jl 01
= a
0 c
O '-4
0 0)
03 cn cu
c * a
-I d) 3
3
cn 0
cn ,-1
a) -4
o 0
O 1*4
fl
jj a u
caw
u 18 in
cn
^4
cn
>
j
<
Q
3
H4
<
ji. P«t
TJ fc
g Q
3
C 1
H
jj cn
§8
o <
~ a*
s
M
,-4
1 KJ
M <
> E«
2
H a
J S
ca z
£§
M
>
S
a
s
>
X
<
3
CO
1
a.
cu
u
£
u
c*
lt
3:
CJ
>
h*
X
f
§
cn
«t
£<
S
a
(P
c3
cn
f«
O
<
a,
s
M
01
JJ
C
CD
H
01
JJ
U
OJ
TJ
3
g
C
0
JJ
o
3
4J
cn
c
0
u
u
CJ
3
TJ
0
U
a
T;
3
0
O
fl
cn
OJ
g
OJ
jj
r- 1
CU
w
0
fl
0
1)
H
JJ
CJ
0
JJ
fl
cn
CD
jj
1-4
H
U
fl
LM
0)
fl
w
0
JJ
cn
"4-1
0
c
0
H
o
u
JJ
01
c
0
u
c
fi
3
cn
0
c
c
01
U
c
s
H
W
i
'-H
0
cy
Ul
3
a
JJ
0
I/
[4-1
!-*-
fl
, ^
r 1
^
3
cn
01
>
*j
fl
OJ
jj
n3
H
JI
^J
U-i
O
C
0
c
rH
fl
'H
jJ
(
3
a
T>
13
c
o
-H
Jj
a
3
'-4
JJ
;n
0
O
OJ
JZ
jj
1
fl
>
J2
T3
0)
jj
O
OJ
U-l
U-4
fl
^
JJ
0
c
r-\
<-4
3
jj
f-4
fl
a;
0
r-l
r-4
3
cn
0)
>
jj
fl
S
OJ
jj
fl
fl
0
H
JJ
fl
y
4>
0
a
cn
'
jj
a;
U«l
T3
3
3
01
>
-4
-J
0)
JJ
i (
fl
a
U-4
0
3
c
0
H
+J
3
^i
jJ
U)
C
0
a
jj
3
0
a
Q*
0
cn
0 ^
O J-1
fl
0 C
Jj ^
0)
cn jj
-a f-i
fl
-u 0
01
T3 rH
-------
in
a u
c a
<0 U
rH O
4J C C
4J 0 1)
in --»
C "3
0)
0
01
rH
01
3
z
*
&
a
M
*O Cd
(U Q
3
C (
.H
4J O)
U <
CU
2
rH
M <
Cd U
r- Z
O Z
< o
f» a;
z
u
o
>i
a;
2
D
01
at
g
04
CJ
z
2:
>
t-t
CC
8
CZ
1
H
Z
e-
S
u*
LI,
0
en
B
a,
M
«
>
£
<
%.
&
s
0
o
4J
a
3
o
o
TJ
3
a
0)
4J
01
£
^
CM
3
0
01
C
0
10
2
o
fH
I4H
UH
10
14
^0
un
«
^7*
rH
«
A)
1)
U U
0 fO
01 3
0} in
0 T3
C C
o 10
±j
4J
4J 'Jl
3 0
o s
1
C 1)
as
o
&
3
C IH
0 01
4J -O
U
3 T3
M 3
C 3
0
O i-H
^ -a
0 C
(U CN
O
>H in
QJ OJ
'C -H
--H 4J
10
!? C
C U4
H a)
U -U
3 rH
13 <
C
0
4J
0
3
L4
in
c
0
a
0)
c
c
3
4J
C
01
3
.
T
io
^
0)
H
(0
c
0)
4J
<
rO
O
10
01
j:
TJ
3
3
0
H
Jj
U
3
4-1
cn
c
0
o
0
C
TJ
C
(T3
m
'Jl
^
_i
(13
C
OJ
-U
<
a
c
TJ
'ji
T
^4
it
3
"J
^
OJ
>
-H
iJ
ITJ
^H
OJ
>,
X3
T3
0)
4-1
O
IM
fQ
JS
(T3
OJ
>
H
3i
0
0
£
U-i
0
4-1
H
n3
3
!M
a;
4-1
.-o
3
4-1
0
C
t3
-U
^u
0
Jj
OJ
c
T3
OJ
'Jl
C
0
^
%4
4J
H
r-l
U
:
ns
4J
0
-H
ffl
U
4->
03
3
S
=
i-t
4J
(tJ
C
lM
4-t
rH
rtj
C
O
4J
O
i4
4-*
C/1
0
O
0)
.u
'4-1
0
OJ
c
0
en
(0
n
^
iT3
'"C
fl
4-1
U
3
.0
3
^J
O
OJ
<4-<
1)
c
rt3
1)
>
~
4J
it
3
[/I
T3
3
0
0
2j
a
o
OJ
c
H
OJ
U
4-4
0
0
H
JJ
o
3
4-1
cn
0
o
'vO
U")
.
^r
."O
»
CM
-U
§
^
s^
. "5
0 Jl
4J T3
a c
OJ fl
"J fH
0) -U
4J 0
C 0
U-l
1)
W C
0)
>. u
!B ?
i) 03
T3
JJ C
jj
j3 03
2 3
U fl
u-4 a*
> t i-i
T3 D
* >
-H -H
3 *
C
0
u
3 -W
IM CQ
«-J 3
Cfl r-i-
0 T3
CJ I"
fl
O
!fl O
O r-t
H C
-P H
fl (fl
5 Q4
11 T3
4-J 0
fd iH Q
5 'y >
0 0 nj
3 S
rH 0
rH 03 -£
03 03
0) rH
S
Q T: o
U T3 ^3
(U r 1 -U
4-1 0 p
O
M
3t
3
a
-------
CO
H
CO
r< Oi
2 O
< EH
PH
Q W
W U
J Oi
CN
I
CO H
W Oi
H
Oi EH
< O
S O
p
CO
EH
CO
o
U
2 w
DJ rJ """
,-q < EH
< D co
> 2 O
M 2 U
D <
0
H
, ,
CO-
~ EH
2
i-l W E
< CO EH
EH tJ Pi
O Oi O
EH CH 2
^~
w
c
h^
-)
r I
^
cn
_
.-
EH
EH 2
J2 fr~
3 5-
& U
H <
£D 13
C^' 0-4
H K
Oi
co-
-
g
<-3
o
EH
W EH
CO Oi
U 0
Oi 2
0.
in
o
CN
EH __
CJ ?
CO Ci
tJ C
oi 2
cu
in
o
r^
EH
W ?
CO Ci
prJ O
Oi 2
K^
-*
'
ci
<^
r-^
^
*^
. < f .
H
r-3
EH ^
H CO
t c
(^ ^
u
'
E-
s
0
o
o
?
^r
».
rH
0
O
O
H
CO
m
i i
0
o
0
00
00
o
CN
o
o
o
in
00
r--
i
i
i
i
o
o
o
m
rH
o
o
^
^
H
O
0
o
CTi
^«O
VD
\Q
rH
H
0 0
o o
o c
oo r--
rH 00
CN VO
rH rH
0 0
O 0
o o
>-D O
CN rH
o in
oo r-~
rH ) 1
0 O
o o
0 0
oo rr
in o
rH CN
O O
0 O
0 O
\o in
^r iH
CTi CTi
in r-
O 0
o o
O 0
in in
CN 00
rH CN
o o
0 0
0 O
oo r-
^r in
CN ^r
o o
0 0
o o
00 00
CTi CTi
CN CN
0 0
0 0
vT ^*
^ ^
r- r-
CN CN
0 0
0 0
0 0
in r-~
H in
CN r^
00 I
rH H
*
CN CN
O
O
O
CN
.
iH
O
O
O
rH
r-
^
co
i i
o
o
o
^r
00
00
CN
o
o
0
oo
CN
oo
oo
1
1
o
0
o
CN
00
00
0
0
o
rH
OO
0
o
0
o"
00
rH
CT?
rH
00
O
o
0
00
CT,
^r
H
o
o
0
o
[~~
CTi
^
in
i i
o
o
o
CTi
0
CN
0
O
0
^o
=r
^
I
I
I
o
o
o
in
rH
0
o
^*
^
rH
0
o
0
^
CN
OO
^3"
H
0 0
o o
0 0
rH CN
oo in
CN <£>
rH rH
o o
0 0
0 0
S31 OO
r- r-
rH U3
oo r-
rH rH
O O
0 0
0 0
CT, rH
CO rH
in rH
rH CN
0 O
0 0
0 0
^-D H
o oo
O CTi
VD r-
0 O
0 0
0 0
in in
CN 00
rH CN
0 0
O O
0 0
oo r-
^r in
CN ^
o o
0 0
o o
oo oo
CTi CTl
CN CN
O O
0 0
*^ ^
* n.
["*" r""-
CN CN
0 0
o o
0 0
CN O
r^ oo
00 CTi
oo r-
rH rH
^C
in uo
o
o
0
o"
r-
*
rH
O
O
O
"^
rH
l^Q
ih
00
J
t~~\
0
o
0
CTi
00
CN"
o
o
o
<*
CT,
r-
00
CO
1
1
0
o
0
CN
00
00
o
o
o
^
rH
00
0
o
0
0
CO
CN
CT?
rH
^
0
-p
p
i-H
QJ
U
0)
4-1
C
M
^
0)
01
u
13
0
0
|-4
OJ
Ti
C
^
0)
|
144
0
, 1
144
CD co
4-1 Os]
rd II
3 H
0) O
4J O
en i
03 K
3j ^
W
14-1
Oi en
C ^4
H rrj
rH rH
C 0
03 ^
r]
o
01 CO
4-1 H
0) C
13 -H
rH ^
O 0)
c en
H en
eu
en M
0) a
> X
rH QJ
4-1
03 0)
iH 03
CD
4J en
i~H 4-J
03 en
O
0) o
en
[1^ OJ rH
EH A H
0 EH <
u
0)
4-)
C
M
0)
01
u
13
0
0
0)
Ti
C
0)
|
144
0
, 1
144
r-l
0)
4-1
rd
0)
4J
en
03
in
0
i?
rH
rrj
c
03
r]
01
£2
4-1
0)
13
rH
O
C
H
en
0)
>
rH
4-1
03
C
M
Cl)
4J
H
rd
0>
en
0)
r;
EH
X
CO
'll
H
O
O
K
W
en
rH
rH
0
O
CO
CTi
H
C
H
rQ
0)
en
en
eu
^4
O,
X
OJ
1)
fk_|
03
en
4J
en
O
O
H
H
<
O
, I
O
13
0
,C
0)
E
Oi
c
H
4J
en
0
u
<>_i
0
M-4
H
H
^>
!*4
0)
^j
O ,
03
.C
U
0)
0)
00
M
w
00
a
H3
£
03
C
03
> \
p ,
^x,
4-1
H
! 1
r-l
O
03
fc
Q
CO
^
2
el)
o
^4
p
0
00
ost and non-related construction costs.
u
c
0
H
4-J
O
3
<-4
4-J
en
C
O
u
en
0)
12
i i
u
q
H
4-1
en
Q
U
H
rd
4J
H
Q^
ro
U
costs, O&M costs, replacement costs, salvage value, and
rH
03
4-J
H
a
rd
O
en
0)
T3
D
H
U
£
H
/~;
4-1
M
O
[5
4-1
£
OJ
en
OJ
^
a
, !
03
4-J
0
EH
.
C
0
H
4-1
O
2
S-l
^J
en
£^
O
o
Oi
c
H
^4
^
r^-J
4-1
01
01
M
Q)
4-1
H
-------
tsbss
'"
1846
SUPPLEMENT VI-1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
VOF
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
January 8, 1980
SHSW: 793-79
re: Root River Interceptor
Archeological survey
Mr. Fred J. Meinholz, P. E.
Group Administrator
Facilities Planning/EIS
Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District
735 North Water Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Dear Mr. Meinholz:
Our staff archeologists have reviewed "Results of the Archaeological
Inventory and Evaluation of the Proposed Root River Interceptor Route."
The survey and testing procedures utilized were sufficiently thorough
to justify the conclusion that there are no archeological resources
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
within this project area.
As indicated in the report, it is always possible that deeply buried
archeological sites may be found during construction. If such finds are
made, please contact the State Archeologist, Dr. Joan E. Freeman
(608/262-9566), immediately.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Erney
State Historic Preservation Officer
By Linda Forman
Archeologist
RAE:dc
cc: G.L.A.R.C.
THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN
Hlfi STATE STREET- MADISON .WISCONSIN £'>/Of> Kl( "HAKPA I KNI V DIKK'TOK
-------
CHAPTER VII
HALES CORNERS INTERCEPTOR
-------
CHAPTER VII
HALES CORNERS INTERCEPTOR
INTRODUCTION
The Hales Corners Interceptor was first evaluated by the MMSD
in 1976 [Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment). Since
then, the portion of the interceptor that lies downstream
(southeast) of the Hales Corners Sewage Treatment Plant has
been given a negative declaration by the EPA. This status
is a notification that the EPA believes that the project's
environmental impacts are not significant, and an EIS is not
necessary. This downstream portion of the interceptor is cur-
rently under construction (see Figure VII-1).
The environmental impacts of the remaining, upstream portion
of the interceptor were investigated for the Milwaukee EIS
and are discussed below. This western portion of the inter-
ceptor extends from the Milwaukee-Waukesha County Line, at
West Grange Avenue and South 124th Street, downstream to the
existing Hales Corners Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
PURPOSE OF THE INTERCEPTOR
The proposed Hales Corners Interceptor would provide sewer
service to southeastern New Berlin and a small area of Hales
Corners. The New Berlin Regal Manors Treatment Plant, which
is not expected to meet effluent standards in the year 2005
(without rehabilitation), would be abandoned.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUTE
All of the alternatives for the Hales Corners Interceptor
would use the same route. The entire route of the inter-
ceptor, including the portion now under construction, is
shown in Figure VII-1. The tributary area of New Berlin
would have its connection point at the upstream terminus of
the interceptor, the intersection of West Grange Avenue and
South 124th Street. The route proceeds east along West
Grange Avenue and then southeast along South New Berlin Road.
The route runs through Hales Corners Park where a connection
to the Hales Corners WWTP will be made. The western portion
of interceptor, which is being investigated for the Milwaukee
EIS, ends here. This segment of the route is 2,045 feet long.
The portion of the interceptor that received a negative de-
claration from the EPA is the eastern, downstream portion of
the route, which continues southeast along Mew Berlin Road,
VII-1
-------
LEGEND
COUNTY LINE
HIGHWAY
MAJOR STREET
WATERWAY
PROPOSED SEWER
ROUTE
SEGMENT CURRENTLY
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
HALES CORNERS WWTP
Vll-l
HALES CORNERS INTERCEPTOR
CONVEYANCE ROUTE
M.M.S.D.
-------
turns east along West Janesville Road and then south along
108th Street to a connection with the MIS system at West
College Avenue.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
Three construction alternatives, including one pumping and
two gravity flow, were screened for the western portion of
the Hales Corners Interceptor. Except for Alternative 1, the
construction alternatives, in addition to a No Action Alter-
native, were developed by the EIS study team for the purpose
of comparison.
A screening of the preliminary alternatives for the Hales
Corners Interceptor was conducted for the purpose of identi-
fying the most feasible alternatives. Each of the prelimi-
nary alternatives was examined for probable environmental
impacts and the relative costs of construction. Alternatives
which were judged unacceptable, either environmentally or
economically, were eliminated from further consideration. Any
feasible alternatives were then subjected to a more detailed
analysis in the secondary phase of screening.
The following is a brief description of each of the prelimi-
nary alternatives. All of the alternatives use a common route
and are 2,045 feet in length. The total length of the Hales
Corners Interceptor, including parts already under construction,
is 9,560 feet.
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action Alternative calls for continued operation of
the local sewer system with no capital improvements except
those already under or approved for construction. The eastern
portion of the interceptor, currently under construction,
would be completed and the Hales Corners WWTP would be aban-
doned. However, the City of New Berlin would not have a
point of connection and, therefore, would have to find an
alternate means for treating its wastewater flows.
ALTERNATIVE I
Alternative 1 consists of the construction of a 60-inch gravity
sewer that would be constructed by the tunnel method at depths
of 60 to 90 feet. The access shaft for construction of the
tunnel would most likely be located at the junction of New
Berlin Road and West Grange Avenue.
VII-3
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 consists of the construction of a 20-inch
force main that would be constructed by the open-cut method
at an average depth of 8 feet. A 5.9 MGD pump station would
also be constructed near the intersection of South 124th
Street and West Grange Avenue.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Alternative 3 consists of the construction of a 60-inch gra-
vity sewer that would be constructed by the open-cut method
at depths of not more than 25 feet.
All three of the alternatives were retained for detailed
analysis because none of them caused unacceptable environ-
mental impacts or were unacceptably costly.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The area traversed by the Hales Corners Interceptor is subur-
ban in character. There is one park, Hales Corners Park,
which would be affected by the construction. The Hales Cor-
ners Tributary is an intermittent stream which exists in the
area and could be affected. It is used for transporting the
effluent from the Hales Corners WWTP and runoff to the Root
River. If the WWTP is abandoned, only runoff will be carried
by this watercourse. There are no large tracts of field or
woodlands, nor are there any known historical or archaeolo-
gical sites present in the area.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The potential impacts upon the environment which would be
caused by the construction of the Hales Corners Interceptor
are discussed in the following section and are shown in sum-
mary form in Table VII-1. The MMSD Environmental Assessment
was used as a supplemental source of information for this
section.
Access to homes and businesses located along public street
rights-of-way could be affected by interceptor construction.
The affected areas would border the south side of West Grange
Avenue and approximately the first 1,000 feet along the south-
west side of New Berlin Road. Alternatives 2 and 3, using
the open-cut method of construction, would disrupt land surface
along the entire route. Alternative 1 uses the tunnel method
of construction and would have less of an effect upon access.
All three of the alternatives could affect access to the Hales
Corners Park and WWTP.
VII-4
-------
The construction activity of the interceptor would cause odors
and sights which aesthetically affect the residents and workers
within the general area surrounding the construction sites.
Furthermore, any accessories to the interceptor may be visible,
including a permanent pump station required for Alternative 2.
The tunnel alternative (1) would affect fewer people than
the open-cut alternatives (2 and 3) because it is less visible.
Only access shafts would be seen from the surface, whereas
the entire excavation for Alternative 2 or 3 would be visible.
All of the construction alternatives would produce dust and
exhaust fumes, thus temporarily affecting the air quality of
the area. The tunnel alternative (1) would affect a smaller
area than the open-cut alternatives (2 and 3) because dust
and exhaust emissions would be restricted to tunnel access
shafts. Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute dust and emis-
sions for the length of the excavation. Mitigating measures
would include the use of exhaust scrubbers and wetting down
dirt in the construction areas.
A small amount of silt could enter the Hales Corners Tributary
during the construction of any of the alternatives. None
of the alternatives is expected to contribute enough sediments
to adversely affect aquatic biota. No threatened or endangered
species is known to inhabit the construction corridor.
Although the Hales Corners Tributary flows near the path of
the interceptor, none of the construction alternatives would
alter the floodplain.
All three of the alternatives (1, 2, and 3) would cause de-
watering of the groundwater, thus reducing the supply in the
vicinity of construction. The availability of municipal
water would prevent this drawdown from decreasing water supply
to nearby residents. Alternative 1, the tunnel construction,
would probably draw down more groundwater than the open-
cut alternatives, 2 and 3. Although this reduction would be
temporary, the recovery of groundwater supply would be slow.
The State Historical Society of Wisconsin has concluded that,
"there are no archaeological resources available for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places within this pro-
ject area" (See Supplement I). Therefore, although the pos-
sibility exists, it is not expected that either Alternative 1,
2, or 3 would encounter any archaeological deposits.
None of the three alternatives would have land use or legal
impacts.
VII-5
-------
During the construction period, noise would be generated by
machinery and vehicles operating at the construction site.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would have more excavation area exposed
at the surface and would thus affect more people than Alter-
native 1. Mitigative measures include scheduling construc-
tion during periods of least impact and the use of proper
sound deadening devices.
Neither Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would have any impact on prime
agricultural land or public health.
Construction would occur within the Hales Corners Parks and
thereby restrict recreational use of portions of the park
while the interceptor is being installed. These effects would
be greater from Alternatives 2 and 3 because more surface
area would be disturbed than for Alternative 1. Disturbance
from Alternative 1 would be limited to tunnel access work sites,
The loss of recreational land would be temporary for it (the
plan assumes that construction sites would be restored to their
original condition).
Each construction alternative would present safety hazards
to workers and site visitors in the form of machinery, vehi-
cles, and excavations. Alternative 1 requires tunneling and
the associated blasting. Otherwise, hazards for Alternative
1 would be limited to areas around tunnel access shafts.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would present safety hazards the entire
length of surface excavations. These dangers would be limited
to the construction period only and could be mitigated by
following safety guidelines and controlling access to construc-
tion areas.
The construction of Alternative 1 would have less effect on
traffic than the construction of the two open-cut alternatives,
2 and 3. Traffic on Grange Avenue and South New Berlin Road
would be restricted during construction, but only near tunnel
access shafts for Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 could
restrict traffic for the length of excavation. Traffic con-
trol near the construction areas would mitigate this impact.
A small amount of sediments could reach the Hales Corners Tri-
butary from construction of any of the alternatives (1, 2, or
3). This sediment addition could affect water quality of the
stream causing slight turbidity, but effects would be tempo-
rary. Should it appear that erosion runoff would become a
problem, settling troughs could be used in the construction
area.
None of the three alternatives would impact wetlands or
wildlife habitats.
VII-6
-------
COST SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The least costly alternative is Alternative 3, with a
construction cost of $979,000. The total present worth
of Alternative 3 is $877,000, and the equivalent annual
cost is $82,000. Details of the cost are presented in
Table VII-2. The MMSD Recommended Alternative follows the
alignment described in this chapter.
Procedures and assumptions used in calculating costs are
contained in Chapter VIII of this appendix.
Vll-7
-------
:j -j a ^
-u -c w
0 Ji r
-------
<
h-. X
se
-------
<
z
<
D-D
JJ <
> E
>-t Jl
-j _ a
3 < 2
< j- x
H z C
2!
-------
~ J
D C
3 P
M X
-------
H
CO
< o
X EH
W
Q CO
I
W
OH
rJ CO &4
CQ W 2
< H Pi
EH Pi O
rtj U
I CO
3 W
CO r-3
EH X
CO
O
U
W J ""
p-H1 f^C E-*
< D CO
> 2 O
M 2 U
D <
O
a
-. EH --
CM 2
t 1 H £n
<£ CP E-^
EH H Pi
0 Pi 0
EH & S
CO
W
U
-i
i i
CO
co-
EH
EH 2
2 K
3 ^
Oj U
M
ro
O
0
O
[^
^T
rH
O
o
o
~
CTi
<*
o
o
o
8
o
o
o
f~
ro
W
^
0
CO
rg
II
H
U
U
K
Z
H
en
^
rd
rH
i 1
O
Ti
0
CO
CTi
rH
c
H
13
OJ
en
w
0)
<^
p !
X
0)
0)
^
ro
W
4-1
(fl
Q
O
rH
rH
f^C
o
rH
0
O
4-1
0)
e
Cn
C
H
4J
cn
0
o
^1
o
MH
H
M
H
[>
!-l
0)
4J
a
rd
,C
CJ
0)
0)
e/}
H
W
00
H
T3
C
rd
Q
cn
g
s
0)
o
^4
p
0
in
and non-related construction costs.
4-1
en
0
o
c
o
H
4J
O
^3
^_j
4-1
en
C
O
o
en
0)
13
p
rH
U
q
H
4-1
en
O
O
rH
rd
H
4-)
O (
ro
U
sts, O&M costs, replacement costs, salvage value, and
o
o
rH
rd
H
4-1
a
o
en
0)
13
p
i i
O
C
H
c~,
4-1
^
O
^
4-1
C
(U
en
0)
^
a
rH
rd
4J
O
EH
*
C
0
-H
4J
U
P
Vi
4J
en
c
0
U
Cn
c
H
>!_)
P
13
4J
en
0)
^_t
0)
4-1
C
H
-------
SUPPLEMENT VII-1
THE STATE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY OP WISCONSIN
816 STATE STREET / MADISON. WISCONSIN 53706
October 7, 1977
0106-76
Tales Comers
Interceptor severs -
nrcheologtcal report
Mr. Robert J. Borchardt, Chief Engineer SHPA-T:
Metropolitan Sewerage District of the RE:
County of Milwaukee
P. 0. Box 2079
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Dear Mr. Borchardt:
Our staff archeologists have reviewed the "Hales Corners Interceptor
Sever," prepared by John Wackcan of Great Lakes Archaeological Research
Center, Inc.
The survey and testing procedures utilized vere sufficiently thorough
to Justify the conclusion that there are no archeolop.ical resources
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
-Ithin this project area. As indicated in the report, it is always
possible that deeply buried archeological sites nay be found during
construction. If such finds are made, please contact the State
Archeologist, Dr. Joan E. Freerum (603/262-9566), imediately.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Erney
State Historic Preservation Officer
RAZ:rdd
cc: '-'Mr. John Wackman
Mr. John Rario
Mr. Bruce Baker
By Jeff Dean
State Preservation Planner
-------
CHAPTER VIII
COSTING METHODOLOGY
-------
CHAPTER VIII
COSTING METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The method used by the EIS study team to calculate interceptor
costs is identical to that used by the MWPAP to generate
preliminary cost estimates. The Haggerty (MWPAP) memo of
January 30, 1979 (revised on May 17, 1979) is a detailed explan-
ation of the preliminary costing procedure and was the basis of
the calculations done by the EIS study team.
The cost of an interceptor has basically three components:
construction costs; operation and maintenance costs (O&M);
and salvage value. The method used in estimating each of these
costs, along with the presentation of pertinent data, will com-
prise the remainder of this chapter. Also, the total cost
sensitivity to increased electrical and labor costs will be
discussed.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction costs include all engineering design costs and the
materials and labor used during construction, as well as the
construction contractor overhead and profit. Construction
costs depend on the size of pipe, depth of cut, type of
construction (tunnel or open-cut), and method of conveyance
(gravity or force main). These costs are calculated by multi-
plying the length of the interceptor by a unit cost ($/linear
foot). Tables VIII-1 and VIII-2 contain the unit costs for
open-cut construction for different pipe diameter and excavation
depths. The unit costs for tunnel construction are in
Table VIII-3 for diameters of 60-inches or more. Tunnel con-
struction of less than a 60-inch diameter has a unit price of
$325/1.f. (linear foot). Both open-cut and tunnel construction
methods are used for gravity conveyance systems. The unit
costs for force main systems are contained in Table VIII-4.
A slightly congested suburban area was assumed for all force
main systems. The construction cost for the pump stations
required by a force main system is tabulated in Table VIII-5.
VIII-1
-------
TABLE VIII-1
OPEN-CUT SEWER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH GRAVEL BACKFILL
AND SITE RESTORATION B1
Pipe
Diameter
(Inches)
8
10
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
36
42
48
54
60
Unit Cost (S/l.f.)2 by
Depth to Invert
Feet
21^25"
$29.0
30.0
31.0
36.0
40.0
43.0
46.0
$ 47.0
49.0
51.0
56.0
61.0
67.0
71.0
78.0
86.0
101.0
110.0
124.0
156.0
175.0
Restoration B - portland cement concrete pavement or
bituminous concrete pavement over portland cement concrete
pavement.
2The costs are presented in January, 1978, dollars (ENR CCI of
234) and include:
$104.0
106.0
111.0
131.0
135.0
142.0
149.0
157.0
169.0
189.0
207.0
229.0
255.0
288.0
$139.0
140.0
144.0
148.0
151.0
156.0
164.0
179.0
189.0
208.0
223.0
245.0
246.0
266.0
a. Labor and equipment
b. Pipe
c. Bedding
d. Shoring
e. Backfill
Source: MMSD I/I Study
f. Contractor's overhead and
profit
g. Manholes
h. Site restoration
i. Dewatering operation
VIII-2
-------
TABLE VIII-2
NEW CONSTRUCTION
GRAVEL BACKFILL
SITE RESTORATION B
Unit Cost ($/l.f.)
Depth to Invert
Pipe (Vertical Feet)
Diameter
(Inches) 25-30 30-35 35-40
8 $167 $204 $276
10 168 205 277
12 173 211 286
15 178 217 294
18 182 220 301
21 187 228 310
24 197 241 329
27 214 263 359
30 226 278 382
36 250 307 422
42 267 328 452
48 292 359 497
54 294 362 499
60 317 392 541
Source: MWPAP Interceptor Facility Planning
VIII-3
-------
All costs contained in the tables are in January, 1978
dollars. To reflect 1980 prices, all costs were increased by
20 percent. The calculated 1980 construction costs were also
increased by 50 percent to obtain a total project cost for
the construction of the interceptor (to account for contin-
gencies, engineering, legal and administrative fees, construc-
tion management, and interest during construction).
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
Operation.and Maintenance (O&M) cost is the expense of
repairing and servicing an interceptor throughout its 50-
year life. O&M is estimated by a unit cost per year
($/mile/year). O&M costs for gravity sewers are estimated
to be $l,300/mile/year for diameters less than 36-inches and
$350/mile/year for diameters equal to or greater than 36-
inches.
O&M costs for force main systems are derived from three
sources. First is the O&M cost for the actual pipe, which is
estimated to be $120/mile/year. Second is the O&M cost for
the pumping station (this includes yearly labor, energy and
miscellaneous supplies).
This is calculated using the following procedure:
1. Yearly labor $15,000/year
2. Yearly Energy Cost = Q Hp (0.0727)
Where Q = average daily flow (gpm)
Hp = total dynamic head (ft)
3. Miscellaneous supplies will be calculated to
be 5 percent of labor and cost.
Finally, the cost of replacing pumps, motors, and generators
is also included in total O&M costs for force main systems.
The service life of this type of equipment is ten years;
therefore, it would necessarily be replaced once during the
20-year life of interceptor project. The cost of replacement
is obtained from Tables VIII-6 and VIII-7.
In order to uniformly compare the total costs of each inter-
ceptor alternative, all construction, O&M, replacement, and
salvage value costs were expressed in terms of their value
at the start of the planning period (1985). This present
worth analysis determines the present value of future costs
and credits that will occur over the 20-year planning period.
VIII-4
-------
TABLE VIII-3
TUNNEL SEWER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Pipe Diameter Unit Cost
(Inches) ($/l.f.)
60 482
66 536
72 589
78 643
84 696
90 768
96 821
102 893
108 964
114 1,036
120 1,107
126 1,179
132 1,250
138 1,321
144 1,393
150 1,464
These costs are presented in January, 1978
dollars (ENR-CCI of 234) and include:
a. Labor and equipment
b. Materials
c. Manholes
d. Contractor's overhead and profit
e. Site restoration
Source: MMSD I/I Study, Interceptor Facility
Planning
VIII-5
-------
TABLE VIII-4
FORCE MAIN CONSTRUCTION COSTS
8'-12' Cut in
Force Main Slightly
Pipe Diameter Congested
(inches) Suburban Areas
6 $ 28.00
8 33.00
10 41.00
12 48.00
16 58.00
18 66.00
20 73.00
24 88.00
30 110.00
36 134.00
Source: MMSD I/I Analysis and MWPAP
VIII-6
-------
TABLE VIII-5
PUMPING STATION CONSTURCTION COSTS
Cost3 Million $
Rounded to Nearest
Firm Pumping Nearest 1,000
Capacity Q MGD January, 1978
0.10 0.043
0.25 0.075
0.50 0.114
0.75 0.146
1 0.175
2 0.264
3 0.336
4 0.400
5 0.457
6 0.511
7 0.561
8 0.607
9 0.654
10 0.696
20 1.057
30 1.350
40 1.604
50 1.836
60 2.046
70 2.246
80 2.432
90 2.614
100 2.782
aCosts obtained from equation C-, = 0.2436 x Q° -602
HI
This equation accounts for capital cost and reflects
January, 1978 prices.
Source: MMSD I/I Study, Interceptor Facility Planning.
VIII-7
-------
TABLE VIII-6
INSTALLED PUMP AND MOTOR COSTS
Pump
Capacity TDH
GPM Ft.
625
700
725
950
1,075
1,100
1,100
1,600
1,800
2,050
2,050
2,100
2,500
2,500
5,500
110
67
69
110
69
90
135
90
140
60
80
135
18
106-120
106-120
Motor
H.P.
30
25
25
60
30
40
75
60
100
40
75
100
25
125
250
Costx
Pump +
Motor
$
Jan.,'78
5,400
5,200
5,200
7,700
5,500
6,500
8,500
7,000
10,200
8,900
10,000
9,200
10,000
14,300
25,600
Starter^
Cost
$
Nov.,'77
900
900
900
4,400
900
1,200
4,600
4,400
7,800
1,200
4,600
7,800
900
7,800
12,800
Icosts Developed for vertical non-clog couped wastewater
pumps. (These costs are also applicable for order of
magnitude estimates for intermediate shaft pumps.)
cover full starters for motors less than 50 HP and
reduced voltage starters for motors greater than 50 HP.
Source: Interceptor Facility Planning
VIII-S
-------
TABLE VIII-7
INSTALLED GENERATOR COSTS
Source: Interceptor Facility Planning
Installed Cost
System
1-100 H.P.
1-25
2-40
2-75
2-250
1-125
2-30
1-25
1-60
1-30
2-100
1-75
2-60
1-40
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
H.P.
Generator
Size KW
175
45
100
130
750
100
130
350
230
January, 1978
$
27
13
19
23
127
19
23
55
35
,600
,900
,400
,000
,900
,400
,000
,200
,800
VIII-9
-------
Because construction costs are incurred at the start of the
planning period, those costs are already expressed in their
present worth. However, to convert 20-year annual O&M pay-
ments to a present worth, the annual payments are multiplied
by a present worth factor of 10.6977.
The present worth of equipment replaced or added during the plan-
ning period must also be determined. The cost of equipment re-
placed or added 10 years into the planning period is multiplied
by a present worth factor of 0.5143 to determine its present worth.
SALVAGE VALUE
The salvage value is the worth of the structures and equipment
after the 20-year project life. Salvage value is calculated by
using the following formula. Only pump stations and the inter-
ceptor pipes have a salvage value, since the service life of
pump equipment will be ended after the interceptor project life.
Salvage Value = (Service Life-20 years)
Service Life
x (construction cost)
Service Life = 50 Years
This type of calculation is known as a straight line depreci-
ation. To convert salvage value to its present worth, salvage
value is multiplied by a present worth factor of 0.2646.
Because salvage value is a credit at the end of the planning
period, its present worth is subtracted from the alternative
total present worth.
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH AND EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COST
The total present worth is the sum of the initial construction
costs, the present worth of the O&M costs, and the present worth
of any additional or replacements costs during the planning period,
minus the present worth of any future salvage value credits.
The total present worth represents the total cost of the inter-
ceptor during the planning period, in 1980 dollars. Total pre-
sent worth is converted to equivalent annual cost by multiplying
the former by a capital recovery factor of 0.0935. Equivalent
annual cost is the money that would have to be spent each year
to pay for the interceptor by the end of the project life.
VIII-10
-------
Total present worth and equivalent annual cost are used in
comparing alternative conveyance methods and routes proposed
for an interceptor. Both measurements of cost are used to
estimate the cost-effectiveness of an interceptor.
REFINEMENT OF COST ESTIMATES
The preliminary cost estimates were refined for those alter-
natives remaining after preliminary screening. The refinement
procedure was developed by the MWPAP in accordance with EPA
guidelines. All costs were expressed in 1980 dollars with an
ENR-CCI of 280 (1967 Base).
The calculated 1980 construction costs were increased by 30
percent (compared to 50 percent in the preliminary costing)
to obtain a capital cost for construction of the interceptor
(to account for contingencies, engineering fees, legal and
administrative fees, and construction management).
The following is a description of other considerations taken
in the refinement of preliminary cost estimates.
Interest During Construction
Interest during construction was considered separately in
the refinement of preliminary cost estimates. To calculate
the interest, the duration of construction for the particu-
lar interceptor component was determined by using the criteria
in Table VIII-9. The duration of pump station construction
ranges between one and two years, depending on factors such
as size and geologic conditions. The interest during each
year of construction was determined by multiplying the duration
of construction by the applicable interest factors presented
in Table VIII-10.
Gravity Sewers
The unit costs used for these sewers are the same as those
used for preliminary cost estimates. However, the unit cost
were adjusted, when necessary, to take into account special
construction considerations such as dewatering and soil
stabilization of trench or tunnel excavations, river cross-
ings and special manholes.
VIII-11
-------
Force Mains
The force main costs were divided into three site conditions:
congested urban, congested suburban, and uncongested rural.
All preliminary cost estimates were based on the congested
suburban site condition. The category used in the refined
cost estimates represented the actual anticipated construction
conditions. As with gravity sewers, special construction
considerations such as dewatering and soil stabilization were
taken into consideration.
Pump Station
Refined pump station costs were developed by using information
such as pump station configuration and basic dimensions,
equipment cost (including standard and auxiliary pumping
and power generating equipment) and soil and groundwater
conditions. Costs associated with the construction of the
pumping facility included excavation, backfill, reinforced
concrete, electrical and mechanical equipment, and a masonary
superstructure.
TOTAL COST SENSITIVITY TO INCREASED ELECTRICAL AND LABOR COSTS
The cost of energy and labor has, in the last decade, become a
larger share of the total cost of wastewater conveyance systems.
Force main systems necessitate the use of pumps and the con-
tinual use of electrical energy. Both force main and gravity
systems require manual labor as a part of their operation and
maintenance. Consideration of these costs is, therefore,
important in planning a conveyance system. This is especially
true since labor and energy are expected to become increasingly
costly in the future.
The two types of wastewater conveyance systems used by the MMSD
are a force main system and a gravity sewer system. A force
main system continually uses electrical energy, while a gravity
sewer system, once constructed, requires none. Force main systems
require more labor for operation and maintenance. In general,
gravity sewers are more expensive to construct due to their
larger size and depth. Force mains may be less costly to
construct but are more energy and labor intensive. The costing
methodology has considered labor and electrical costs to be
constant throughout the planning period. This sensitivity
analysis is an attempt to predict how the total cost of a
wastewater conveyance system will change upon a rise in energy
and labor costs.
VIII-12
-------
The sensitivity analysis consisted of choosing two alternatives
from the Franklin-Muskego Interceptor; No. 14, a gravity sewer
and No. 16, a force main. Costs for these two alternatives were
calculated with no escalation in electrical and labor costs and
then with varying increases to electrical and labor costs. The
method used in these calculations was identical to that described
in the Costing Methodology.
Table VTII-locontains the results of the sensitivity analysis.
Included is a description of how costs were increased and the
calculated total present worth and equivalent annual cost for
each escalation.
The two cost estimates made with no escalation indicate that
the total present worth of the gravity sewer alternative
(Alternative 14) was much higher than the force main alter-
native (Alternative 16). Only a dramatic increase in the
cost of labor and electical energy would cause Alternative 16
to become as costly as Alternative 14. A labor cost of five
times the estimated value, accompanied by an energy inflation
rate of 28 percent would be required to equalize the cost
of both alternatives. It is not expected that increased
electrical and labor costs would change a (cost-based) ranking
of alternatives for an interceptor.
Although the sensitivity analysis was performed on two alterna-
tives for one interceptor, it is expected that similar results
would be obtained for any interceptor.
VIII-13
-------
TABLE VIII-8
COST SENSITIVITY TO INCREASED ELECTRICAL
AND LABOR COSTS
Alternative
No. 14
Gravity Sewer
No. 16
Force Main
No. 16
Force Main
No. 16
Force Main
NO. 16
Force Main
No. 16
Force Main
No. 16
Force Main
No. 16
Force Main
No. 16
Force Main
Description of
Cost Increases
No labor or
electrical energy
increase
No labor or
electrical energy
increase
No labor increase
6%/year electrical
energy increase
No labor increases
12%/year electrical
energy increase
Double labor costs
6%/year electrical
energy increase
Double labor costs
12%/year electrical
energy increase
5 times labor costs
6%/year electrical
energy increase
5 times labor costs
12%/year electrical
energy increase
5 times labor costs
28%/year electrical
energy increase
Total Present
Worth
$6,903,800
$4,321,200
$4,364,700
$4,446,200
$4,761,500
$4,843,000
$5,944,500
$6,026,000
$6,892,100
Equivalent
Annual Cost
$645,400/yr,
$403,900/yr
$408,000/yr,
$415,600/yr,
$445,000/yr,
$452,700/yr,
$555,700/yr,
$563,300/yr,
$644,300/yr.
VIII-14
-------
TABLE VIII-9
DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION
Conveyance Construction
Type Type
Gravity
Gravity
Tunnel
Open-Cut
Depth (ft)
All
8-12
13-15
16-20
21-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
Progress
5,000 LF/year
3,000 LF/month
2,000 LF/month
900 LF/month
550 LF/month
450 LF/month
325 LF/month
200 LF/month
Force Main Open-Cut
3-12
3,000 LF/month
Source: MWPAP
VIII-15
-------
o
rH
1
H
H
H
>
w
H5
PQ
<
EH
2
O
H
EH
U
O
fV
P-4
EH
03
2
O
o
u
2
H
«
D
D
EH
C/}
W
«
w
EH
S
cn
».
H
fO
cu
>1
c
H
^
o
H
H
a;
CM
C
0
H
4-1
U
3
SH
4-1
cn
c
o
u
CO
CN
cn
in
CN
O
cn
CN
O
cn
cn
ro
o
ro
oo
o
CN
CN
CN
CN
00
o
CN
CN
CN
CN
cn
ro
o
ro
oo
O
CN
CN
CN
CN
00
o
CN
CN
CN
CN
00
o
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
r-~
CO
00
CO
^5
o
0
oo
|JD
o
00
^
o
O
00
U3
o
0
CO
*£>
o
rd
0)
(U
C O rO
H UH Q)
>i
tn c
^ e 4-1
m 3 m
CD rH (TJ
>^ O rH
U
<4H CU
0 +H i E
0) -H -rH
O 4-1 -
!H U to >
a 3 o V4
ro ^ 4J 4J
4-1 U C
T3 W rs 0)
fd C <4H
(DO O
« U r-H 2
cn
C
0
H
4-1
O
4J
tn
C
cu
<
CM
S
S
0)
U
o
cn
VIII-16
------- |