NOVEMBER, 1980
EIS801072DS
RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)RN • CHICAGO, IL 60604 • WATER DIVISION
ARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BOX 7921 • MADISON, Wl 53707 • BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Environmental
Impact Statement
Milwaukee
Water Pollution
Abatement Program
Draft
Executive Summary
-------
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 +he assistance of
ESEI - ECOLSCIENCES ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
November 1980
US F
SUBMITTED BY:
HOWARD S. DRUCKENMILLER
DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
;IONAL ADMINISTRATOR
'IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
\
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
NOV 3 1980
REPLY TO ATTENTION Of
5WEE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District's Water Pollution Abatement
Program will be held on Thursday, December IS, I980 at the Milwaukee
Area Technical College, IOI5 N. Sixth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
There will be an afternoon session beginning at 2:00 p.m. and an evening
session at 7:00 p.m. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and
this Agency will present the same material at the afternoon and evening
sessions. Both written and oral presentations will be accepted. Time
limits may be imposed on oral presentations, so that all speakers may
be included. Written statements will be accepted from those unable to
attend the hearing or who have extensive comments.
The Draft EIS will be distributed during the week of November 10, I980.
The Draft EIS and its Appendices will be on reserve for public examination
at 36 libraries located throughout the City of Milwaukee and the surrounding
suburbs. Any comments on the Draft EIS should be submitted to the Agency
by Friday, January 2, I98I.
We welcome your attendance at the hearing.
SUrcerely yours.
Charles H. Suffin
Director, Water Division
-------
.<, UNITED STATES
^ f^ r0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* t^Wf"? * REGION V
<| ,^\|^7 r 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
^5^^^^^ CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
^t PRO^t& REPLY TO ATTENTION Oh
* «w»n
NOV 1 4 1980
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS
The Executive Summary for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District's Water Pollution Abatement
Program is attached. The Draft EIS and its appendices are on reserve for
your examination at the public libraries listed on the following page.
A limited number of additional copies are available from this office upon
request.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and regulations (40 CFR
Part 6, November 6, 1979) promulgated by this Agency, any comments on this
Draft EIS should be submitted by Friday, January 2, I98I. Comments or
inquiries should sent to Gene Wojclk, Chief, EIS Section, Water Division at
the above address.
We welcome your participation in the EIS process.
:erely yours,
Charles H. Sutfin
Director, Water Divisi
Attachment
-------
North Milwaukee Library
3310 West Vi!lard Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53209
Oklahoma Library
3501 West Oklahoma Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53215
Tippecanoe Library
3912 South Howe I I Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53207
Oak Creek Publ Ic Library
3620 South Howe I I Avenue
Oak Creek, Wl 53154
Shorewood Public Library
2030 East Shorewood Blvd.
Shorewood, WI 532!I
Wauwatosa Public Library
7635 West North Avenue
Wauwatosa, Wl 53213
West AlI is Pubi ic Library
1508 Sou+h 75th St.
West AlI is, Wl 53214
Whitefish Bay Library
5420 North Mar thorough Drive
Whitefish Bay, Wl 53217
MATC North CAmpus
5555 West Highland Road
Mequon, Wl 53092
Brown Deer Pub! ic Library
5600 West Bradley Rd.
Brown Deer, Wl 53233
Greendale Public Library
5666 Broad Street
Greendale, Wl 53129
Hales Corners Public Library
5335 South 107th St.
Hales Corners, Wl 53130
Milwaukee Public Library
814 West Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53233
Atkinson Library
I960 W. Atkinson Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53209
East Library
1910 E. North Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53205
Finney Library
4243 West North Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53208
Forest Home Library
1432 West Forest Home Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53204
LIewelIyn Library
907 East RusselI Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53207
{
ij
Mil I Road Library ,y
6431 North 76th St. ^'
Milwaukee, Wl 53225 ,-x/
MATC South Campus
6665 South Howe!I Avenue
Oak Creek, Wl 53154
Marquette University Library
1415 West Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wl 53233
Milwaukee School of Engineering
1025 North Milwaukee Street
Milwaukee, Wl 53201
New Berl in Publ ic Library
14750 West Cleveland Avenue
New Berlin, Wl 53150
Capital Library
7413 W. Capitol Dr.
Miwalukee, Wl 53216
Martin Luther
310 W. Locust
Milwaukee, Wl
King Library
Avenue
53212
Cudahy Memorial Library
4665 S. Packard Avenue
Cudahy, Wl 53110
South Milwaukee Public
Library
1907 Tenth Avenue
South Milwaukee, Wl 53172
Center Library ••»"
2620 W. Center St. vl it-
Milwaukee, Wl 53206
Butler Public Library
12621 W. Hampton Avenue
Butler, Wl 53007
Citizens Governmental Research Library
125 East Wei Is Street
Milwaukee, W! 53202
Legislative Reference Bureau Library
200 East Wei Is Street
Milwaukee, Wl 53202
Brookfield Public Library
1900 Calhoun Road
Brookfield, Wl 53005
Elm Grove Publ ic Library
13600 WEst Juneau Blvd.
Elm Grove, Wl 53122
Maude Shunk Public Library
P. 0. Box 347
Menomonee Falls, Wi 53051
Muskego Publ ic Library
WI82 S8200 Racine Avenue
Muskego, W! 53150
Duerrwaechter Memorial
Library
W 162 N I 1810 Park Ave,
Germantown, Wl 53022
-------
CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses
the Master Facilities Plan (MFP) proposed by the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) for the sewerage facilities
within its planning area (Figure 1.1). The MMSD must meet
the effluent limits established by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), and also must comply with two court orders.
The orders require the MMSD to implement the following:
Discharges of raw or inadequately treated sewage to
area waters must be eliminated.
Treatment Plants must be improved to meet effluent
limits so that receiving waters meet water quality
goals.
The solids removed from the wastewater must be disposed
of in an acceptable way.
These goals must be achieved within a court ordered schedule.
To reduce the local costs of correcting its water pollution
problems, the MMSD applied to the EPA for federal grant
assistance under section 201 of the Clean Water Act of 1977.
The provisions of this Act specify planning for a 20-year
period, and require that facilities must be designed to
incorporate the most economical means of meeting established
water quality goals while recognizing environmental and social
considerations. The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) requires that an EIS must be prepared for federally
funded actions which could significantly affect the natural
and man-made environments.
The DNR must also approve many aspects of the Milwaukee Water
Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP). The MMSD has requested
state grant funding for parts of the MWPAP. Because of this
involvement, the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA)
requires the preparation of an EIS.
An EIS analyzes the proposed action, its feasible alternatives,
and their anticipated effects upon the environment. To
minimize the duplication of efforts, this DEIS is a joint
EPA/DNR document.
The public is invited to comment on this DEIS. Comments
will be received from the date of its release through January 2,
1981. Because some of the actions involved in the MWPAP
are controversial, and in response to the requirements
of federal and state regulations, a public hearing on the
1-1
-------
LEGEND
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES
WATER: RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC
MAJOR HIGHWAYS
JONES ISLAND SERVICE AREA
SOUTH SHORE SERVICE AREA
SOUTH MILWAUKEE SERVICE AREA
1 AREA WHICH CAN BE SERVED BY
' EITHER SOUTH SHORE OR JONES ISLAND
i
N
0 600O 120OO
SCALE IN FEET
1.1
MMSD Service Area & Planning Area
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
DEIS will be held in December, 1980, to provide a forum
for public comment. The comments and concerns expressed
by citizens and government agencies will be used to develop
a final EIS (FEIS) which will include an EPA preferred
alternative for each element of the Master Facilities Plan
(MFP). Following the release of the FEIS, there will be
a second comment period and public hearing, after which the
EPA and DNR will act on the MFP. The EPA and DNR could
approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the MFP.
1.2 THE PROBLEM
For the most part, the sewers in the MMSD service area are
adequate for conveying domestic and industrial wastewater.
The problem is the entry of groundwater (infiltration) and
storm runoff (inflow) through cracked or broken sewer pipes,
leaking manhole covers, faulty sewer connections, illegal
connections of sumps and tile drains, and other sources.
Clear water can greatly increase the flows in the sewerage
system resulting in bypasses and overflows.
During wet weather, the volume of wastewater and its rate
of entry into the sewerage system (flows) in the MMSD service
area often exceeds the sewers' capacity to transport wastewater
to the treatment plants. As a result, in a year of average
rainfall, 6.4 billion gallons of storm water and untreated
sewage overflow into area waters annually. In addition,
wastewater flows to the area's treatment plants exceed their
capacity, resulting in violations of DNR effluent limitations.
There are two types of sewer systems conveying wastewater in
the MMSD planning area. About 6 percent of the sewers
in Milwaukee County, serving approximately 47 percent of
its population, are combined sewers. They were designed
to transport the storm runoff entering the system through
roof leaders, street drains, and other connections, as
well as industrial and sanitary waste. To prevent sewer
backups, the Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer (MIS) system
is designed to allow untreated wastewater from the combined
sewers to overflow into surface waters when the capacity of
the MIS is exceeded.
Separated sewers serve other portions of Milwaukee County.
With this type of system, storm water is collected in one set
of pipes and conveyed directly to the waterways. Sanitary
and industrial wastewater is conveyed separately to treatment
facilities. Ideally, the flows in the sanitary sewers should
not be affected by rainfall. However, some parts of the
sanitary sewer system have deteriorated, allowing storm water
to seep into the sewers and manholes. In many buildings,
drains or sumps have been illegally connected to the sanitary
sewer. As a result, clear water does enter the sanitary
1-3
-------
sewers. To prevent the backup of sewage into basements,
sanitary sewers are also equipped with flow relief devices
which discharge untreated sewage mixed with clear water into
the area waterways.
In addition to causing combined sewer overflows and bypasses from
the separated sewers, excessively high flows impair the
operation of a wastewater treatment plant. If the flow to
the Jones Island and South Shore plants exceeds their capacity,
wastewater must either be bypassed before treatment or after
partial treatment. At Jones Island, the preliminary treatment
and solids handling facilities are inadequate to handle flows
greater than 140 million gallons per day (6.1 m-^/sec.). The
preliminary and primary treatment facilities at South Shore
can handle peak capacities of 320 million gallons per day
(14 m3/sec.). Secondary facilities bypass wastewater at flows
over 240 MGD (10.5 m3/sec.).
There are other sources of pollution to the waters of the
area. Urban and rural runoff contains organic matter,
pesticides and heavy metals. Some portions of Metropolitan
Milwaukee (See Figure 1.1) do not receive municipal sewer
service, so any development must take place using septic
systems. Failing septic systems can pollute surface and
ground waters. The EPA and Wisconsin DNR have established
effluent limitations for all treatment facilities in the state.
Most WWTP's in the Milwaukee area violate these limitations
periodically and are subject to state enforcement actions.
All of these events have resulted in the introduction and
accumulation of pollutants and disease-producing organisms
(pathogens) into area waters. Water quality in the MMSD
service area is degraded by nutrients that stimulate plant
growth and substances which deplete the level of oxygen
in the water. A potential health hazard is created by
the pathogens and toxic substances including heavy metals.
1.3 THE MILWAUKEE WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (MWPAP)
The planning phase of the MWPAP has been directed by state
and federal legislation and by two court cases. The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and the Clean
Water Act of 1977 establish National Water quality goals.
Patterned after the federal legislation, chapter 147 of the
Wisconsin Statutes establishes the same goals. The Clean
Water Act and Chapter 147 target 1983 for the achievement of
fishable and swimmable levels of water quality in the waters
of the Nation and State. Chapter 144 of the Wisconsin Statutes
requires the planning and approval of wastewater treatment
facilities designed to achieve these water quality standards.
1-4
-------
In addition to federal and state guidelines, planning for
the MWPAP has been governed by two court orders. In December
1974, the MMSD challenged DNR effluent limitations for the
Jones Island and South Shore treatment plants. In response,
the DNR initiated a counter suit. These actions resulted in
a stipulation in the Dane County Circuit Court setting a
schedule of compliance for the MMSD. The following deadlines
were established:
1. Improvements to Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs
must be completed by July 1, 1982.
2. The total solids management program at the two WWTPs
must be in operation by July 1, 1982.
3. All dry weather overflows and bypasses must be eliminated
by July 1, 1982.
4. All wet weather bypasses from the separated sewers
must be eliminated by July 1, 1986.
5. The combined sewer overflow (CSO) problem must be
corrected, and applicable water quality standards must
be met by July I, 1993.
In 1971, the States of Michigan and Illinois charged that
the MMSD and the City of Milwaukee were endangering the public
health by improper wastewater disposal. The case was heard in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and that court's decision was appealed to the United
States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The result of these
proceedings was the Court's reaffirmation of the EPA and DNR
effluent limitations, and the requirements that all dry and
wet weather bypasses from separated sewers be eliminated by
July 1, 1986 and that combined sewer overflows cease by
December 31, 1989. The MMSD and the City of Milwaukee have
appealed the scope and schedule of the CSO abatement project
to the United States Supreme Court.
The MWPAP is a complex set of programs devised to comply
with federal and state legislation and the two court orders.
The requirements of the program include the following:
1. Detailed evaluation of different approaches to
wastewater treatment for the MMSD planning area
shown in Figure 1.1.
2. Reduction of infiltration and inflow (I/I) by the
rehabilitation of the sewer system. A sewer system
evaluation survey (SSES) is now underway to compile
1-5
-------
detailed information on the conditions of the sewers.
The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the
level of I/I removal which would minimize the total
cost of conveying and treating I/I.
3. Evaluation of alignments of interceptor sewer exten-
sions to serve the areas designated in the Regional
Land Use Plan.
4. Evaluation of methods to expand and rehabilitate the
Jones Island and South Shore wastewater treatment
plants.
5. Development of a total solids management program to
determine methods to process and dispose of the
solids removed from the wastewater.
6. Abatement of combined sewer overflows by the date
established by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Numerous alternatives were developed for each component
project of the MWPAP. In this summary, only those alternatives
found to be the most feasible will be discussed.
1.4 MMSD PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
1.4.1 CSO Abatement and Peak Floy/ Attenuation
The infiltration/inflow (I/I) study estimated that a reduction
of I/I by half would be less expensive than expanding area
wastewater treatment facilities to treat the peak volume
of I/I and wastev/ater. However, even with this reduction,
wet weather flows to the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
would exceed their capacity. Because the court orders
required the elimination of all separated sewer bypasses,
all flows tributary to this system would require treatment.
Since the peak flows would exceed the capacity of the WWTPs,
some storage would be needed for wastewater volumes in excess
of treatment plant capacity. The stored wastewater would be
pumped to the WWTPs when treatment capacity became available.
It was apparent that the facilities for storing excess flows
from the separated sewer service area could also be used to
abate CSOs. Therefore, the MMSD evaluated joint use facilities,
The alternatives considered to be the most feasible for this
joint purpose are described in Table 1.1. The MMSD recommends
the Inline Storage Alternative.
1-6
-------
•
as-
'
.
-------
*t& A ties ^.Tities. , tne l* '^reg-1-^
SSS* "c LdJa^^T^^M
•Local sX=ope^atrsou^ S^-- _.
S^S^^^-5^--1
^g^g^S-- .^ *--
-^e ^tred ^o£ , ,rternatr pects
-------
*fc
«<^. *(&••£><*. ^*._ Joo
•48©T-
>ec,
OVl*A .•
ie
-------
*+**&<**&* '-c C°*;V?
*»$&$%£&?>
-vvc* V^ &*^U°1 ^6Voi
fe^%^^-
,^v^ ^o^-1-: ^%\e° rt0 *
>:;^^:*^t:
^t^^t:^rf'
«-cv°- . A\.Vi -A\ P ., v
. > • .v.*% ^ v *v ^ v^
f^o *e,i ^f\^°* ^* *
fo^
^s
tot
3otves
ot
ot
t
-------
TABLE 1.2
Jones
Island
South
Shore
Caddy Vista
Subdivision
Germantown
Muskego
Northeast
Muskego
Northwest
New Berlin
Regal
Manors
South
Milwaukee
Thiensville
MMSD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS (LOCAL ALTERNATIVES)
Expand treatment capacity to 300 million
gallons per day.
Wastewater Treatment by Secondary Activated
Sludge Process.
Disinfection by chlorination.
Site expansion by filling in 9.5 acres of
Lake Michigan and using approximately 9
acres of Harbor Commission land.
Expansion of South Shore to 250 million
gallons per day.
Wastewater Treatment by Secondary Activated
Sludge Process.
Disinfection by chlorination.
Site expansion by enclosing 30 acres of
Lake Michigan. At this time, 12 acres
would be filled in. The remaining 18 acres
would be filled as needed.
Existing facility would be demolished.
An advanced wastewater treatment plant
would be constructed on the site.
Effluent would be discharged at the Root
River.
Abandon existing facilities.
A new land application facility will be
constructed on the site.
Abandon existing facility wastewater flows
would be pumped to Vernon, Wisconsin, treated
in aerated lagoons and discharged to infil-
tration-percolation ponds.
Facility would be abandoned. Wastewater
flows would be combined with flows from
Muskego Northeast and treated at the Vernon
site.
New aerated lagoon facility built at a
site at Sunny Slope and Grange Streets.
Effluent transported to infiltration-perco-
lation site in Vernon.
No expansion.
Operation and maintenance procedures would
be improved.
Expand wastewater treatment capacity.
Treatment by existing processes.
Discharge of effluent to the Milwaukee River.
1-9
-------
which would operate its own facility. All other public
WWTPs would be abandoned. The MMSD recommended that two private
wastewater treatment plants, School Sisters of Notre Dame
and Wisconsin Electric Power Company also continue operations,
and that the Muskego Rendering Company operate their private
facility for pretreatment of their effluent before discharge
to the local sewer system.
1.4.3 Solids Handling
Closely related to the issue of expanding the Jones Island
and South Shore WWTPs is the problem of disposing of the
solids removed from the wastewater during treatment. Most
of the solids from the Jones Island WWTP are now processed
into the fertilizer Milorganite (about 70,000 tons per year).
Any solids in excess of the capacity of the Milorganite process
are landfilled (approximately 3,400 tons per year).
For most of the year, the solids from the South Shore WWTP
(approximately 33,500 tons) are applied to agricultural land.
However, after the growing season, when the ground is frozen,
the sludge must be landfilled (about 10,500 tons per year).
The MMSD considered alternatives including landfill, land
application, incineration, and composting for disposal of
the solids from the two WWTPs. For the Jones Island WWTP,
the MFP proposes abandoning the production of Milorganite
because it is energy intensive and contributes to air pollution
in the Milwaukee area. (Milorganite production has been
responsible for about 6% of Milwaukee County's annual input
of particulates to the air.) Instead, landfilling of all
solids was recommended. For the South Shore WWTP, land
application was recommended. Solids from the South Shore
plant would be stored during the winter for land application
over the growing season.
The MMSD is currently preparing a Facilities Planning Study
to identify specific sites for solids disposal. A supplemental
EIS, entitled Site Specific Analysis will parallel the MMSD's
study and will give special consideration to the impacts
of site-specific alternatives on the natural and man-made
environment. The Site Specific EIS supplement on agricultural
spreading will be completed early in 1982, and the supplement
on landfill early in 1983.
1.4.4 Wastewater Conveyance
The MFP includes facilities for conveyance of wastewater to
WWTPs from the communities and areas served by the MMSD. The
particular facilities and their configurations vary under
each system-level plan, and they are listed in Table 1.3 The
facilities considered are the Northeast Side Relief System, the
1-10
-------
Local
Alternative
TABLE 1.3
INTERCEPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
DIFFERENT SYSTEM-LEVEL ALTERNATIVES
Northeast Side Relief
Underwood Creek
Root River (Short Route)
Franklin Northeast
Oak Creek North
Franklin-Muskego (Franklin branch only)
Regional
Alternative
Northeast Side Relief
Underwood Creek
Root River
Hales Corners
Franklin-Muskego
Franklin Northeast
Oak Creek North
Menomonee Falls-Germantown
Mosaic
Alternative
(MMSD' s
Preferred
Alternative)
Northeast Side Relief Sewer
Underwood Creek
Root River
Hales Corners
Franklin-Muskego
Franklin Northeast
Oak Creek North
Menomonee Falls-Germantown
1-11
-------
Franklin-Muskego, Franklin-Northeast, Oak Creek, Menomonee
Falls-Germantown, Underwood Creek, Root River and Hales Corners
Interceptors.
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.5.1 No Action
The MWPAP is a highly complex project dealing with a number
of problem areas which overlap to varying degrees. Several
wastewater treatment plants in the MMSD planning area are
inadequate to treat the flows they receive adequately to
meet the effluent limits imposed by their discharge permits.
In many areas sewers and WWTPs are receiving volumes of wastewater
in excess of their capacity. Deteriorating sewers and manholes,
illegal connections of drains and sumps, and, in the case
of combined sewers, connection with the storm drainage system
all contribute to this problem. The results of this overloading
include bypassing at the WWTPs and from storm and sanitary
sewer outfalls and CSOs which spill raw or inadequately
treated sewage into area waters. These inputs introduce
disease-causing pathogens and toxic substances into the waters
of the planning area, degrading water quality. These substances
also impair plant and animal life, endanger the public health,
and limit the potential uses of the area waters.
The failure of wastewater treatment systems to meet effluent
limitations and court-ordered clean-up deadlines in the case
of MMSD, could result in legal penalties including fines
for the responsible organizations.
Without sewer extensions, development would be encouraged
to occur in presently sewered areas. However, the Dane County
Court Stipulation established a wasteload allocation
system to remain in effect until the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs consistently comply with EPA and DNR effluent
limitations. The wasteload allocation system restricts the
increment by which annual flows and pollutant loadings
to the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs may increase.
If violations of effluent limitations continue to occur,
no new connections would be allowed after 1986, and anticipated
growth levels for the area might not be achieved.
If sewer capacity is restricted, the demand for lots suitable
for septic tank development might increase, possibly entailing
the loss of prime agricultural land or wildlife habitat.
However, development on lots with septic tanks would probably
not be extensive because the state and counties are expected
to enforce their standards for the determination of soil
suitability for septic tank development. Most (about 90%)
of the soil in the planning area is not suitable for development
1-12
-------
with septic tanks on lots less than one acre. Also, some
communities in the planning area do not allow development
with septic tanks. In most cases, the scattered type of
development that occurs when lots of one acre or more are
developed for single-family residences would not be consistent
with the Regional Use Plan.
With the No Action Alternative, the impacts outlined above
could occur. The action alternatives described in section 1.4
are designed to modify or eliminate the adverse impacts and
maximize the beneficial environmental impacts at the smallest
practicable monetary cost. The enrironmental impacts of the
action alternatives are described below.
1.5.2 Action Alternatives
All of the action alternatives would share certain components.
In all cases, the sewers in Milwaukee County would be reinforced
and expanded based on the results of the sewer system evaluation
survey. With any action alternative, the Jones Island WWTP
would be expanded to treat up to 300 million gallons of
wastewater each day and the South Shore WWTP up to 250 million
gallons each day. Also, CSOs and bypasses from the separated
sewers would be eliminated.
Because these program components would be the same for any
action alternative, some of the environmental impacts of
the alternative would be very similar. The elimination of
bypasses of untreated wastewater into area waters would reduce
the public health hazard from disease-producing organisms,
making the waters more useful for recreation.
With any action alternative, all wastewater treatment facilities
in the planning area would meet their Wisconsin effluent
discharge limitations. As a result, all free flowing portions
of the rivers of the area should meet the standards set for
them by the DNR. Pollutant loadings to the Inner and Outer
Harbors would be reduced, but water quality standards would
not be met because of pollutants accumulated in the sediments,
and pollution originating upstream of the MMSD service area.
1.5.3 CSO and Peak Flow Attenuation
1.5.3.1 EIS Alternatives
There are many controversial aspects to the Inline Storage
alternative for abating CSO and attenuating peak flows. The
partial and complete separation of sewers in the entire combined
sewer service area (CSSA) would disrupt traffic and business.
With partial and complete separation, urban runoff which
contains organic pollutants and heavy metals would still be
1-13
-------
discharged into the lower reaches of the Milwaukee, Menomonee
and Kinnickinnic rivers, and instrearo water quality standards
might not be achieved. Also, the public has expressed concern
over the potential for temporary and long-term impacts to
groundwater from cavern storage facilities. In response to
those concerns, the EIS has evaluated three other alternatives
for CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation. These alternatives
are described in Table 1.4.
The costs of the alternatives for the abatement of CSO and
the attenuation of peak flows are shown in Table 1.5.
TABLE 1.5
COSTS (IN MILLIONS) OF CSO/PEAK FLOW ALTERNATIVES
Operation Net*
and Present
Alternative Capital Costs Maintenance Worth
Inline Storage 1636.38 27.30 1899.86
Complete Separation 1686.30 26.88 1968.22
Modified CST/Inline 1662.83 28.30 1931.50
Modified Total Storage 1676.38 29.67 1952.51
*Net Present Worth includes the construction and materials
costs, financing costs and operating costs through the
year 2005.
The cost estimates for these alternatives are within the
margin of error for the methods used for their calculation.
Thus, the decision to implement one of the alternatives
will be based on factors other than cost.
1.5.3.2 Environmental Impacts
The four CSO abatement/peak flow attenuation alternatives
considered in the EIS differ in the amount of construction
that would be needed and in the amount of storm water that
would receive treatment. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 compare the
amount of storage and construction required by these alterna-
tives . The alternatives that would treat the most urban
runoff would achieve the most improvement in water quality
because they would decrease actual pollutant loads and cause
less disturbance of sediments in the receiving waters.
Any action alternative would improve sediment quality, but
the sediments would remain highly polluted by organic matter
and toxic substances. Disturbing the sediments (sediment
scour) re-introduces these pollutants into the water. Levels
of dissolved oxygen are lowered as the organic matter decomposes,
The Modified Total Storage Alternative would result in treatment
of the greatest percentage of storm water. The Complete
1-14
-------
Complete
Sewer
Separation
Modified
CST/
Inline
TABLE 1.4
EIS ALTERNATIVES FOR CSO ABATEMENT
AND PEAK FLOW ATTENUATION
All combined sewers completely separated.
Excess flow from the separated sewers
would be stored in 20-foot diameter tunnels.
Complete sewer separation in 11% of the
CSSA private property work required.
Partial sewer separatiorf in 21% of the CSSA.
Excess flows in the sanitary sewers stored
in 235 acre-feet-^ • of near-surface storage.
No sewer separation in 68% of the CSSA.
Excess flow tributary to 30-foot diameter
tunnels in bedrock and 1291 acre-feet of
cavern storage at Milwaukee County Stadium.
174 acre foot storage cavern at the Jones
Island WWTP.
Complete separation in 11% of the CSSA.
No private property work.
No sewer separation in the remaining portions
of the CSSA. 'The flows from 68% of the
CSSA would be tributary to 30-foot tunnels
in bedrock and 1291 acre-feet of cavern
storage at Jones Island.
Flows from the remaining 21% tributary to
715 acre-feet of near surface storage.
*Partial Separation - New pipes would be constructed to convey
storm water from street drains directly to a waterway.
Sewage and storm water from drains on private property
(e.g., root leaders) would be combined and conveyed to a
treatment facility.
-Acre-foot - "The volume that would cover one acre to the
depth of 1 foot." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,
Springfield, MA; G & C Merriam Company, 1977.)
Modified
Total
Storage
1-15
-------
o
o
in
CN
O
o
o
CM
ID
in
O
O
in
gl
Oo
OS
o>
O
UJ
o
c/l
(O
LU
o
o
o
ID
_J
O
o
in
LO
o
o
o
n
CN
Ld
or
O
4J 0)
O O
!H Xi
ft to
i
o
fO
C/D
Ld
_l
GO
w
o
o
EH
CO
H
>H-
2
H
EH
CO
Q CO
W
H W
En 2
M H
Q >H-
W
1
O
EH
CO
EH
O
EH
Q
Q
O
3
o
H
EH
w
CO
EH
W
§
u
I
-------
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
oo
20
C4
O
EH
CO
W
\ W
O
EH rf
CO K
° g
Q CO
W
Q J
O Z
S H
o
EH
O
EH
Q
W
H
Q
O
g
g
W
W
EH
W
s
u
4-1
in
(U
ft
O
SH
ft
cn 0)
(D
0
oi
> o>
m ujs
Q
LU
O
UJ
Q.
O
CD
O
UJ
O
O
O
o:
(O
z
o
o
(E
UJ
10
<
D
-------
Separation Alternative would treat the least amount of storm
water and could increase the frequency of sediment scour.
The percentage of the CSSA that would be affected by each
CSO peak flow abatement/attenuation facility is shown in
Figure 1.3. The Complete Separation and Inline Storage
Alternatives would affect the greatest area, and Modified
Total Storage the least. Disruption of commercial areas
would result in a loss of business during construction. This
impact could be lessened by staging construction activities
so that only a limited number of streets are disturbed at
any one time. The use of local construction firms for sewer
separation alternatives would introduce money into the local
economy. Constructing a deep tunnel system would require
the reliance on firms outside the area, causing a loss of
income to the local economy.
1.5.3.3 Areas of Controversy
Concern has been expressed that wastewater could seep out
of the facilities and contaminate deep groundwater, that
groundwater could infiltrate the facilities, lowering local
groundwater levels, or that both could occur.
If the piezometric surface of an aquifer (the height to which
water would rise in an open well) is higher than the elevation
of wastewater stored in a cavern or tunnel, groundwater would
tend to seep into (infiltrate) the storage facility. On the
other hand, if the upper surface of the wastewater in the
storage facility is higher than the piezometric surface of
the aquifer, wastewater would tend to leak from (exfiltrate)
the facility, contaminating local groundwater. Excessive
infiltration could lower groundwater levels, possibly causing
wells to dry up. If groundwater levels are greatly lowered,
exfiltration could occur when the tunnels and caverns fill.
Figure 1.4 illustrates the relationship between the piezometric
surface of the aquifer and infiltration and exfiltration.
There are two specific groundwater characteristics which
could increase the chances of groundwater pollution. There
may be isolated areas near the proposed deep tunnel and
cavern storage facilities in which the piezometric surface
is much lower than the surface throughout the majority of the
area. If the piezometric surface is very low, exfiltration could
occur whenever the tunnels are used. In addition, there are
a number of abandoned wells near the proposed deep tunnel
routes which could transmit wastewater exfiltrating from
the facilities vertically through the three major aquifers
in the Milwaukee area, potentially contaminating even the
deep sandstone aquifer.
1-18
-------
The MMSD has undertaken a pre-design, subsurface study to
evaluate groundwater conditions. This study will attempt to
locate any areas of low piezometric surface and all abandoned
wells. If any of these areas are found near the proposed
deep tunnel conveyance routes or near the cavern facilities,
it may be necessary to move the facilities or to protect
against exfiltration by measures such as artificial groundwater
recharge. Any improperly abandoned wells would have to be
sealed. During construction, all cracks encountered in the
bedrock formation would be filled, and the tunnels and caverns
would be lined with concrete. Furthermore, a maintenance
program should be established to monitor groundwater levels,
the levels of wastewater in the tunnels and to inspect the
facilities for cracks or deterioration. With proper construction
and operating practices, the deep tunnel and storage facilities
should not adversely affect the groundwater in the area.
1.5.4 Wastewater Treatment
1.5.4.1 Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs
With all action alternatives, the South Shore and Jones Island
WWTPs would be expanded as described in Table 1.1. The
improvements to the WWTPs would require about three years of
construction. The construction would increase turbidity and
resuspend sediments in Lake Michigan due to material washed
from construction sites. However, the implementation of
modern construction techniques would minimize construction-
related turbidity.
The MMSD preferred alternatives for the expansion of these
WWTPs would remove small portions of Lake Michigan habitat.
This habitat is used for spawning and feeding by some species
of fish. The construction would also increase air pollution
in Milwaukee County. The yearly increases in emissions are
expected to be less than one percent of the annual county-wide
totals.
1.5.4.2 Areas of Controversy
There is some question of the legality of the proposed lakefill
in the Outer Harbor for the Jones Island WWTP because it could
interfere with navigation. The MFP and the EIS include another
alternative which would avoid the lakefill in the Outer Harbor.
With this alternative, facilities would be constructed on
land now occupied by General Cargo Terminal Number 1. The
MFP found this alternative to be about $6 million less expensive
than lakefill. The land would be used jointly by the MMSD
and the Milwaukee Harbor Commission. This alternative is
described in more detail in the Jones Island Appendix to this
document.
1-19
-------
Piezometric Surface
wastewater Elevation
INFILTRATION
Wastewater Elevation
Piezometric Surface
EXFILTRATION
FIGURE
DATE
1.4
November
1980
Infiltration and Exfiltration Possibilities
for Deep Storage Facilities Based on the
Relationship of Piezometric Surface to
Wastewater Elevation
SOURCE
EIS
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Also, some residents of the City of South Milwaukee have raised
concerns about the expansion of the South Shore treatment plant.
They have complained about foul odors from the South Shore WWTP
and feel that the expansion of the facility would aggravate the
problem. They are concerned that the expansion would be unsightly
and would disrupt the view of Lake Michigan. There is also
concern that, as a result of these factors, property values near
the plant may be affected. In response to these concerns,
the EIS has also evaluated two new alternatives: one requiring
only six acres of lakefill and another that would require no
lakef ill 4gee==8tygLlt-^lt«c>ga--^tTgrtl3-i^) .
The South Shore WWTP might be more visible after its expansion
and would slightly affect the view of Lake Michigan. Odors,
however, should be less of a problem than at present. The
odors are created by inadequately processed solids reaching
the exposed sludge lagoons. With the rehabilitation and
expansion of the facilities, the solids should be properly
treated and all solids handling processes would be enclosed.
As a result, odor problems should be minimized.
The issue of property value is more difficult to assess.
Records show that, historically, property values near the
WWTP have not been depressed in comparison to other property
in South Milwaukee. Therefore, there is no evidence to
indicate that property values would be affected by the expansion
of South Shore.
1.5.4.3 Other WWTPs
The preferred alternatives for the other public treatment
plants are listed in Table 1.2. Implementation of these
alternatives could require the disruption of traffic and
access and could cause a slight increase in air pollution.
However, if these impacts should occur, they would be moderate
and temporary.
The Local, Regional, and the MMSD preferred System-level
alternatives would result in the abandonment of some or all
of the local WWTPs. The cessation of effluent discharges
would change the character of some streams from permanent
to intermittent. As a result, the biological communities
present in the affected rivers could change.
At most, only three local treatment plants would discharge
effluent to waterways in the MMSD planning area: Thiensville
to the Milwaukee River, Caddy Vista to the Root River and
South Milwaukee to Lake Michigan. Improved effluent from
the Thiensville plant should allow quality standards for
that part of the Milwaukee River co be met, and bypassing
at the Caddy Vista Plant would be eliminated. Effluent
1-21
-------
from the South Milwaukee treatment plant should not have a
large impact on Lake Michigan because of its quality and
relatively small volume.
Up to four of the existing local WWTPs would be converted to
treatment of wastewater by some form of land application.
With this type of treatment, there would be some chance of
groundwater pollution. This potential would be minimized
by the careful selection of sites with soils acceptable for
wastewater application and by the monitoring of sites.
Hand 1 ing
The MMSD recommends abandoning Milorganite production at
the Jones Island treatment plant because the Milorganite
process is energy intensive and contributes to local air
pollution. Instead, solids from Jones Island would be landfilled
The solids from the South Shore WWTP would be applied to
agricultural land. (During the winter months, the solids
would be stored for later agricultural application.)
Both of these alternatives would require large amounts of
land. In a future supplement to the EIS, (Site Specific
Analysis) , the availability of sites and the environmental
impacts of these solids alternatives will be studied in detail.
If the necessary land is not available, the solids management
alternatives may require further study.
Abandoning the Milorganite process would reduce particulate
emissions in Milwaukee County by 6 percent and energy consump-
tion at the WWTP by 57 percent. However, another consequence
of abandoning the process would be an increase of the annual
input of ammonia from the Jones Island WWTP from 1.6 million
pounds (.7 million kg) to 6 million pounds (2.7 million kg).
Increased levels of ammonia in the Outer Harbor would lower
the level of dissolved oxygen in the water and could be
toxic to fish.
Construction of an effluent outfall that would discharge
treated effluent directly into Lake Michigan could alleviate
this problem. However, pollutant loading to Lake Michigan
would be increased by this action. The MMSD is currently
performing a water quality study to determine how this
increase in ammonia would affect the Outer Harbor. The
MMSD is also examining alternatives that would reduce the
ammonia in the effluent. The EPA and DNR are awaiting the
results of these analyses and will include in the FEIS measures
to minimize the ammonia discharges to Lake Michigan.
1-22
-------
1.5.5.1 Areas of Controversy
Agricultural land would benefit from the organic matter and
nutrients contained in WWTP solids. However, the solids also
contain small quantities of toxic substances such as heavy
metals and nitrate and some public concern has been voiced
about the environmental impacts of these toxic substances.
The soils at solids application sites could retain the heavy
metals in WWTP solids, possibly threatening their future use
for agriculture. In addition, nitrate could seep into groundwater,
potentially endangering the health of local well-users.
All farmers interested in receiving the solids from the South
Shore WWTP would have to be informed of the potential hazards
of its use. This precaution and the adherence to DNR and EPA
regulations would reduce the potential for soil and groundwater
contamination.
1.5.6 Wastewater Conveyance
All the system-level alternatives were designed to serve
the same area. The Local Alternative would include six
interceptors, and the Regional and Mosaic Alternatives would
include eight interceptors. The direct environmental impacts
of these interceptors would be related to their construction.
Traffic and access to businesses and residences might be
disrupted. Air quality would be affected by vehicle fumes
and dust. Also groundwater levels could be lowered. The
elimination of septic tanks and overloaded sewer systems
should in the long-term, reduce groundwater pollution.
All the action alternatives would provide enough sewer service
for population to reach the levels designated by the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. However, if the
population does not grow to planned levels, the expanded
sewer service would encourage a scattered pattern of development.
With a scattered pattern of development, the costs of municipal
services (schools, general administration, and public safety,
for example) in Germantown, New Berlin and Oak Creek would
exceed the revenues from the increased tax base.
1.5.7 Other Issues
1.5.7.1 Political Systems
If either the MMSD's recommended plan or the Regional Alternative,
is adopted, the MMSD would be responsible for treating most
or all wastewater flows in the planning area. The communities
in the planning area that now manage wastewater treatment
facilities would no longer control the conveyance and treatment
of their wastewater.
1-23
-------
1.5.7.2 Cost
The costs for the final system-level alternatives is shown
in Table 1.6. These costs assume the implementation of the
MMSD's preferred alternatives for the rehabilitation and
expansion of the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs, and for
solids handling.
TABLE 1.6
COSTS OF SYSTEM-LEVEL ALTERNATIVES
ASSUMING DIFFERENT CSO SOLUTIONS
(IN $ MILLIONS)
CSO
Component
Capital
Local
Inline Storage 1696.21
Complete Separation 1726.13
Modified CST/Inline 1702.66
Mod. Total Storage 1716.21
Regional
Mosaic-
MMSD
Recom-
mended
Inline Storage 1656.25
Complete Separation 1686.17
Modified CST/Inline 1662.70
Mod. Total Storage 1676.25
Inline Storage 1636.25
Complete Separation 1686.17
Modified CST/Inline 1662.70
Mod. Total Storage 1676.25
Net
O&M Present Worth
28.94 1955.12
28.47 2023.48
30.64 1986.76
31.32 2007.77
26.90 1894.84
26.43 1963.23
28.60 1926.51
29.27 1947.52
26.90 1894.87
26.43 1963.23
28.60 1926.51
29.27 1947.52
Current projections of the availability of Federal and State
funds for water pollution abatement projects indicate that
approximately thirty-six percent of the MWPAP costs would be
funded by either the federal or state government. The remaining
portion of the costs would have to be financed locally,
probably by the issuance of municipal bonds. To finance
the debt service on the bonds, Milwaukee County is empowered
to increase taxes on property within its boundaries. Communities
outside Milwaukee County would be charged annually according
to the existing Contract Formula. Operation and maintenance
costs would be distributed separately by the User Charge System.
Table 1.7 outlines the average annual property tax rates
that would result from the implementation of the final system-level
alternatives. These costs were determined assuming that Milwaukee
would construct all elements of the alternatives, including
1-24
'U.S. Envlror.montil Protection
Region V, Lil;t?ry
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
<>> -o o
CO (D i£
§3 2;
0) g
a) > m c
(D
Q) 01
D
o
o'
£
o
(D
(D
m > TJ m -n
•DCQ 3 D a i
01
3 a
CD
O
0)
M
(n
------- |