Environmental Impact Statement Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program Final

                                   APRIL, 1981
vvEPA
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V • 230 S. DEARBORN • CHICAGO, IL 60604 • WATER DIVISION

    WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BOX 7921 • MADISON, Wl 53707 • BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
       Environmental            Final
       Impact Statement
       Milwaukee          EiS80i72F
       Water Pollution
       Abatement Program

-------
                      EPA-5-WI-MILWAUKEE-WWTP/INT
                   FINAL 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
                              APRIL 1981
SUBMITTED BY:
HOWARD S. DRUCKENMILLER
DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                                          •ev,TTirottfiental, *pL-l6^

                                     Sfs£3s" -
                                       ~, i oa2O» ^
                                                 ^
VALDAS V. AD&MKUS
ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRA'l
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
                         ABSTRACT

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses
the Master Facilities Plan  (MFP) proposed by the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District  (MMSD) for upgrading
and expanding the sewerage facilities within its planning
area.  The MFP concluded that the planning area should
be regionalized with secondary wastewater treatment
being achieved at the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)  should also be abated
by conveying and storing it in twenty-five foot diameter
tunnels during peak flows and then treating it at either
the Jones Island or the South Shore WWTP during low flow.

Concern about water quality, secondary growth, and ground-
water impacts and public controversy led to the preparation
of this EIS.  The EPA generally concurs with the
recommendations outlined in the MFP.  Specific mitigative
measures are also recommended by EPA to reduce impacts
to water quality, secondary growth, groundwater and
historical sites.

-------
                              BEFORE THE
                    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Public Hearing to Receive Comments on  )
the Joint EPA/DNR Environmental Impact )
Statement on the Proposed Master       )
Facilities Plan for the Milwaukee      )
Metropolitan Sewerage District         )
                       NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

     NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Sections 1.11(2)(d)  and
227.022, Wis. Stats., and Section NR 150.09(4), Wis. Adm. Code, the
Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing for the
purpose of receiving the views and comments of the public on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Master Facilities Plan
for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD).  The service
area of the MMSD includes parts of Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington,
Waukesha and Racine Counties.

     Time:     A morning session starting at 9 a.m. followed by
               afternoon and evening sessions as deemed necessary,
               starting Monday, May 11, 1981 through Friday,
               May 15, 1981.

     Place:    Youth Building, State Fair Park, West Allis, Wisconsin.
               Enter the Fairgrounds from Greenfield Avenue at
               81st Street or Gate 5 on 84th Street.

Following the completion of the Final EIS hearing and the close of the
record by the hearing examiner, the Department will review the record
including all testimony, evidence and written comments received during
the hearing process and determine if it has complied with Section 1.11,
Wis. Stats., and the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act  (WEPA).  At that
time the Department will also complete its review of the proposed Master
Facilities Plan.  The EIS may also be considered for compliance with the
Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, if compliance is necessary, for the
other related permits and approvals needed for the proposed wastewater
treatment facilities.

At the first portion of the hearing all interested persons or  their
representatives will be given an opportunity to present their views or
comments concerning the proposed Master Facilities Plan and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement.  The hearing officer may limit oral
presentation if he feels that the length of the hearing will be unduly
increased by reason of repetition.  Each interested person will also be
given the opportunity to present facts, views or comments in writing.
Persons appearing during this portion of the hearing will not be under
oath or subject to cross-examination.

-------
                                  -2-

To provide the public an opportunity to more fully develop the infor-
mational record, any person may petition for an opportunity to either
cross-examine a person who has been responsible for developing a specific
portion of the EIS, or to present witnesses or evidence under oath, or
both.  No cross-examination on the proposed Master Facilities Plan shall
be permitted.  The petition shall include a statement of position on the
proposed Master Facilities Plan and specific statements and issues that
are desired to be cross-examined or presented with respect to the EIS.
Petitions must be received by the Bureau of Environmental Impact,
Department of Natural Resources, Box 7921, 101 South Webster Street,
Madison, WI  53707, on or before April 30, 1981.  Failure to submit a
petition by April 30, 1981, shall preclude the opportunity to cross-
examine and to present witnesses and evidence under oath.

In anticipation of the filing of petitions to cross-examine or to
present witnesses or evidence under oath, a prehearing conference has
been set for:

     Time:     Monday, May 4, 1981, 9:30 a.m.

     Place:    Room 027, GEF 2, 101 South Webster Street,
               Madison, WI.

Persons filing such petitions should be prepared to attend this pre-
hearing conference to identify those portions of the EIS on which they
desire to cross-examine someone and to clarify the intent of their
proposed cross-examination with regard to the issues they wish to
develop.  Persons not attending the prehearing conference may have  their
petitions denied on the basis of lack of specificity.  Petitioners  shall
bring to the prehearing conference ten  (10) copies of their petitions.
In the event that no timely petitions are filed, the prehearing conference
will be cancelled.

If the Department finds that the proposed Master Facilities Plan may
affect substantial interests of the petitioner and that  the petition  is
clear on the issues to be addressed by cross-examination or presentation
of witnesses or evidence, an order shall be issued stating what persons
will be made available for such cross-examination and what information
may be presented under oath.  Denials of petitions shall be in writing.
The opportunity to cross-examine persons responsible for developing
portions of the EIS shall be given after the first portion of the
hearing is completed.  Although not a contested case proceeding, testimony
given during this portion of the hearing will be given under oath.

Written comments on the Environmental Impact Statement will be accepted
and considered if received by the Bureau of Environmental Impact,
Department of Natural Resources, Box 7921, Madison, WI   53707, by
4:30 p.m., on Monday, May 18, 1981.

Copies of the EIS on the proposed MMSD Master Facilities Plan are
available for public review at the following Department  of Natural
Resources offices:

-------
                                   -3-

     Bureau of Environmental Impact, 101 South Webster Street,
     Third Floor, Box 7921, Madison, WI  53707

     Southeast District Headquarters, 9722 West Watertown Plank Road,
     Box 13248, Milwaukee, WI  53213

Copies are also available at the offices of:

     ESEI, EcolSciences, Inc., 735 North Water Street, Suite 715,
     Milwaukee, WI  53202

In addition, copies have been sent to the following libraries for public
review:

Milwaukee Public Libraries;

Central and the following branches:

North Milwaukee, Center, Capitol, Oklahoma, Tippecanoe, Atkinson, East,
Finney, Martin Luther King, Forest Home, Llewellyn, Mill Road.

Area Public Libraries;

Oak Creek,,Shorewood, Wauwatosa, West Allis, Whitefish Bay, Brown Deer,
Greendale, Hales Corners, Brookfield, Elm Grove, Maude Chunk, Muskego,
New Berlin, Cudahy Memorial, South Milwaukee, Butler, Duerrwaechter
Memorial, Germantown, Franklin.

Other Libraries:

MATC North and South Campuses, Marquette University, Milwaukee School of
Engineering, Citizens Government Research Bureau, Legislative Reference
Bureau.
Requests for personal copies should be directed to the Bureau of Environ-
mental Impact, DNR, Box 7921, Madison, WI  53707.
     Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this g/n^Lj day of April, 1981
                                   STATE OF WISCONSIN
                                   Department of Natural Resources
                                   By
                                        Andrew C. Damon, Hearing Examiner

-------
              TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC
                       GROUPS AND CITIZENS
The Final EIS on the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District's
(MMSD)  Water Pollution Abatement Program is attached.  Also in-
cluded in this package are the Public Comment Appendix and ad-
denda to the appendices published with the Draft EIS, in November,
1980.  These appendices are on reserve at the public libraries
listed on the following page.

-------
 North Milwaukee  Library
 3310 West  Villard  Avenue
 Milwaukee,  Wl   53209

 Oklahoma Library
 3501 West Oklahoma Avenue
 Milwaukee,  Wl   53215

 Tippecanoe  Library
 3912 South  HoweiI  Avenue
 Milwaukee,  Wl   53207

 Oak Creek Pub I ic Library
 3620 South  Bowel I  Avenue
 Oak Creek,  Wl   53154

 Shorewood Pub I ic Library
 2030 East Shorewood Blvd.
 Shorewood,  Wl   5321 I

 Wauwatosa Publ ic Library
 7635 West North  Avenue
 Wauwatosa,  Wl   53213

 West Al I is  Publ ic  Library
 1508 South  75th  St.
 West AlI is, Wl   53214

 Whitefish Bay  Library
 5420 North  Mar I borough  Drive
 Whitefish Bay, Wl   53217

 MATC North  CAmpus
 5555 West Highland Road
 Mequon, Wl  53092

 Brown Deer  Publ 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

 LlewelIyn Library
 907 East RusselI  Avenue
 Milwaukee,  Wl   53207

 Mil!  Road Library
 6431  North  76th  St.
 Mi Iwaukee,  Wl   53225

 MATC  South  Campus
 6665  South  Howe I 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   5320!
Citizens Governmental Research  Library
125 East We!Is  Street
Milwaukee, Wi   53202

Legislative  Reference Bureau  Library
200 East Wei Is  Street
Milwaukee, Wl   53202

Brookfield Public Library
1900 Calhoun Road
Brookfield,  Wl   53005
 New  Berl in  Publ ic  Library
 14750  West  Cleveland  Avenue
 New  3er! in, 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   531 10

South Mi I waukee  Publ ic
Library
1907  Tenth  Avenue
South Milwaukee, Wl   53172

Center  Library
2620  W.  Center St.
Milwaukee,  Wl  53206

Butler  Publ ic Library
1262! W.  Hampton Avenue
Sutler,  Wl   53007
Elm Grove Pub! ic Library
13600 WEst Juneau Blvd.
Elm Grove, Wl  53122

Maude Shunk Publ ic Library
P. 0. Box 347
Menomonee Falls, Wi  53051

Muskego Pub! ic Library
WI82 S8200 Racine Avenue
Muskego, Wi  53150
Duerrwaechter Memorial
Library
W I 62 N  I 1810 Park Ave .
Germantown, Wl  53022

Franklin Public Library
9229 W. Loomis Avenue
Franklin, WI  53132

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS



                                                         Page

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary

1.1     Introduction                                     1-1

         1.1.1    The Problem                            1-2
         1.1.2    Master Facilities Plan                 1-4
         1.1.3    MMSD Recommended Plan
                  and Feasible Alternatives              1-6

1.2     The Draft EIS                                    1-11

         1.2.1    EIS Alternatives                       1-11
         1.2.2    Environment Consequences               1-14
         1.2.3    Public Hearing and Comments            1-23

1.3     Additional Analyses/Issues Resolution

         1.3.1    CSO Abatement and Peak
                  Flow Attenuation                       1-25
         1.3.2    Ammonia Discharge/
                  Outfall Relocation                     1-26
         1.3.3    Lakefills                              1-26
         1.3.4    Fiscal/Economic Impacts                1-27

1.4     EPA Preferred Alternative                        1-28

         1.4.1    CSO Abatement and Peak
                  Flow Attenuation                       1-28
         1.4.2    Wastewater Treatment                   1-30
         1.4.3    Solids Handling                        1-31
         1.4.4    Wastewater Conveyance                  1-31
         1.4.5    Costs                                  1-32

1.5     Environmental Consequences                       1-32

         1.5.1    CSO Abatement and Peak
                  Flow Attenuation                       1-32
         1.5.2    Wastewater Treatment                   1-32
         1.5.3    Solids Handling                        1-33
         1.5.4    Wastewater Conveyance                  1-33

1.6     Summary                                          1-33

-------
Chapter 2 - Purpose and Need for the
            Master Facility Plan

2.1     Background                                       2-1

2.2     Legislation and Court Actions                    2-4

2.3     Water Pollution Abatement Program                2-6

2.4     Purpose and Need for the Environmental
        Impact Statement                                 2-7

2.5     Summary                                          2-10

Chapter 3 - Alternatives

3.0     Introduction                                     3-1

3.1     Available Wastewater Pollution
        Control Approaches                               3-4

         3.1.1    Source Controls                        3-5
         3.1.2    Conveyance and Storage
                  Controls                               3-6
         3.1.3    End-of-Pipe-Controls                   3-7
         3.1.4    Instream Controls                      3-9

3.2     Existing WWTPs                                   3-9

         3.2.1    Publicly Owned WWTPs                   3-9
         3.2.2    Privately Owned WWTPs                  3-21

3.3     Solids Management                                3-22

         3.3.1    Current Practices                      3-22

3.4     Infiltration and Inflow Study                    3-22

         3.4.1    Results of I/I Study                   3-24
         3.4.2    Sewer System Evaluation
                  Survey (SSES)                          3-25
         3.4.3    Rehabilitation Projects                3-25

3.5     Development of Alternatives                      3-26

         3.5.1    Local System-Level
                  Alternatives                           3-26
         3.5.2    Subregional System-Level
                  Alternatives                           3-33
         3.5.3    Regional System-Level
                  Alternatives                           3-26

-------
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
The Screening Process
3.6.1 Screening Considerations
3.6.2 The Primary Screening
Process
3.6.3 The Secondary Screening
Process
The Rehabilitation and Expansion of
The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs
3.7.1 Jones Island WWTP
3.7.2 South Shore WWTP
Solids Management
3.8.1 Feasible Solids
Management Alternative
Interceptors
3.9.1 Purposes of the Interceptors
CSO Abatement
3.10.1 Development of Alternatives
3.10.2 Screening of CSO Alternatives
3.10.3 Refinement of CSO Alternatives
Peak Flow Alternatives
3.11.1 Development of Alternatives
3.11.2 Screening the Alternatives
Joint Facilities for Peak Flow
Attenuation and CSO Storage
3 . 12 . 1 Alternatives
3.12.2 Costs
3-37
3-40
3-42
3-43
3-43
3-66
3-68
3-70

3-70
3-71
3-73
3-76
3-78
3-78
3-80
3-80
3-81
3-81

3-83
3-83
3-86
        3.12.3    EIS Alternatives for the
                  Attenuation of Flows and
                  Abatement of CSO                       3-87
        3.12.4    Alternatives to Comply with
                  Water Quality Standards                3-91

3.13    Final Alternatives                               3-98

        3.13.1    The No Action Alternative              3-98
        3.13.2    The Final Local Alternative            3-100
        3.13.3    The Final Regional Alternative         3-105
        3.13.4    The Final Mosaic Alternative           3-106
        3.13.5    The MMSD Recommended Plan              3-109

-------
        3.13.6    The EPA Preferred Alternative          3-112

3.14    Environmental Consequences                       3-120

        3.14.1    Water Quality                          3-120
        3.14.2    Groundwater Quality                    3-123
        3.14.3    Air Quality                            3-125
        3.14.4    Cost                                   3-127
        3.14.5    Fiscal Impacts                         3-127
        3.14.6    Economic Impacts                       3-131
        3.14.7    Public Health                          3-132
        3.14.8    Access and Traffic                     3-132
        3.14.9    Energy Use                             3-133
        3.14.10   Engineering Feasibility                3-133

Chapter 4 - Affected Environment

4.0     Introduction                                     4-1

4.1     Natural Environment                              4-1

         4.1.1    Waters of the Planning Area            4-1
         4.1.2    Aquatic Biota                          4-16
         4.1.3    Threatened or Endangered
                  Species                                4-20
         4.1.4    Air Quality                            4-21
         4.1.5    Odors                                  4-22
         4.1.6    Geology                                4-26
         4.1.7    Topography                             4-27
         4.1.8    Soils                                  4-27
         4.1.9    Groundwater                            4-28
         4.1.10   Floodplains                            4-31
         4.1.11   Wetlands                               4-33
         4.1.12   Wildlife Habitat                       4-33

4.2     Manmade Environment                              4-35

         4.2.1    Legal and Regulatory
                  Environment                            4-35
         4.2.2    Population                             4-52
         4.2.3    Economy                                4-54
         4.2.4    Municipal Revenues and
                  Expenditures                           4-69
         4.2.5    Sewerage System Charges                4-72
         4.2.6    Noise                                  4-77
         4.2.7    Public Health                          4-79
         4.2.8    Transportation, Traffic
                  and Access                             4-79
         4.2.9    Archaeological and Historical
                  Sites                                  4-81
         4.2.10   Recreation                             4-81
         4.2.11   Energy                                 4-83

-------
         4.2.12   Resources
                                       4-83
Chapter 5 - Environmental Consequences

5.0     Introduction

5.1     Natural Environment

         5.1.1    Water Quality
         5.1.2    Aquatic Biota
         5.1.3    Threatened and Endangered
                  Species
         5.1.4    Air Quality
         5.1.5    Groundwater
         5.1.6    Floodplains
         5.1.7    Wetlands
         5.1.8    Wildlife Habitats
         5.1.9    Prime Agricultural Land

5.2     Manmade Environment
         5.2.1

         5.2.2
         5.2.3
         5.2.4
         5.2.5
         5.2.6
         5.2.7
         5.2.8
         5.2.9
         5.2.10

         5.2.11
         5.2.12
         5.2.13
         5.2.14

Attachment A


Glossary

Bibliography

Coordination

List of Preparers

Index
Future Development and
Land Use
Indirect Fiscal Impacts
Cost
Fiscal Impacts
Economic Impacts
Noise
Public Health
Safety
Traffic and Access
Archaeological and Historical
Sites
Recreation and Aesthetics
Energy Consumption
Resource Consumption
Engineering Feasibility

Memorandum of Agreement,
Jones Island WWTP - West Plant
                                       5-1

                                       5-2

                                       5-2
                                       5-34

                                       5-37
                                       5-38
                                       5-45
                                       5-57
                                       5-59
                                       5-60
                                       5-61

                                       5-63
5-63
5-75
5-81
5-84
5-127
5-138
5-141
5-144
5-145

5-153
5-157
5-159
5-164
5-168
                                           i

                                         xii

                                        xxxi

                                       xxxiv

                                       xxxvi

-------
Addendum to Appendix II - Jones Island WWTP



Addendum to Appendix III - South Shore WWTP



Addendum to Appendix IV - Solids Management



Addendum to Appendix V - Combined Sewer Overflow



Addendum to Appendix VI - Local Alternatives



Revised Appendix VII - Water Quality



Addendum to Appendix VIII - Interceptor Alignment



Addendum to Appendix IX - Secondary Growth Impacts



Addendum to Appendix X - Fiscal/Economic Impacts



Appendix XI - Public Comments

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number                                                 Page
1.1     Facilities for CSO Abatement and               1-8
        Peak Flow Attenuation

1.2     MMSD Recommendations for Wastewater            1-9
        Treatment Plants (Local Alternatives)

1.3     Interceptors Associated with Different         1-12
        System-Level Alternatives

1.4     EIS Alternatives for CSO Abatement             1-11
        and Peak Flow Attenuation

1.5     Costs (In $ Millions) of CSO/Peak              1-13
        Flow Alternatives

1.6     Costs of System-Level Alternatives             1-22
        Assuming Different CSO Solutions
        (In $ Millions)

1.7     Equalized Average Annual (1985-2005)           1-24
        Property Tax Rates by System-Level
        Alternative (Assuming In-Line Storage)

2.1     Issues Identified in the EIS                   2-9
        Notices of Intent

-------
Table                                                  Page
Number

3.1       Components of System-Level Alternatives      3-3

3.2       Existing Conditions - Jones Island WWTP      3-10

3.3       Existing Conditions - South Shore WWTP       3-11

3.4       Existing Conditions - Locally Owned WWTPs    3-12

3.5       Preliminary Local Alternatives               3-30

3.6       Preliminary Subregional Alternatives         3-35

3.7       Preliminary Regional Alternatives            3-39

3.8       Preliminary Screening of Local Alternatives  3-44

3.9       Preliminary Screening of Subregional         3-45
          Alternatives

3.10      Preliminary Screening of Regional            3-46
          Alternatives

3.11      Secondary Screening of Local System-Level    3-47
          Alternatives

3.12      Secondary Screening of Subregional           3-54
          System-Level Alternatives

3.13      Secondary Screening of Regional System-Level 3-59
          Alternatives

3.14      EIS Analysis of Interceptors                 3-74

3.15      CSO Abatement/Peak Flow Attenuation Cost     3-86

3.16      System-Wide LOP Analysis                     3-95

3.17      Total System Cost Versus Level of            3-97
          Protection for Various I/I Removal Levels

3.18      Summary of Low Flow Stream and Lake Water    3-121
          Quality Conditions Downstream of Wastewater
          Treatment Plants

3.19      Average Annual Pollutant Emissions for       3-126
          9-Year Construction Period.  CSO/I/I
          Alternatives

-------
Table
Number                                                 Page

3.20      Debt Service by Alternative                  3-128

3.21      1985-2005 Average Annual Community           3-129
          Charges

3.22      1985-2005 Average Household Charges and      3-130
          Percentage of Average Income

3.23      Costs to Local Communities                   3-131

3.24      Range of Net Economic Impacts                3-132

3.25      Total Energy Use                             3-133

4.1       Wisconsin DNR Water Quality Standards        4-5

4.2       DNR Water Quality Classifications of         4-6
          Affected Milwaukee Area Lakes and Streams

4.3       National Primary Ambient Air Quality         4-23
          Standards and Existing Air Quality at
          Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs

4.4       Odorous Substances                           4-24

4.5       Locations in Wastewater Systems Where        4-25
          Odors May Develop

4.6       Laws and Regulations                         4-36

4.7       Summary of National Ambient Air Quality      4-41
          Standards Issued April 30, 1971, and
          Revised September 15, 1973 and
          February 8, 1979

4.8       Present and Future Land Use MMSD Planning    4-44
          Area

4.9       Local Land Use Planning                      4-47

4.10      1979 Sewer Allocations                       4-48

4.11      1980 Project Priority                        4-50

4.12      Population Trends (1900-1978)                4-53

4.13      Population Forecasts for the Milwaukee       4-55
          SMSA and for the Planning Area

-------
Table
Number                                                 Page

4.14      Number and Average Size of Households        4-56

4.15      Employment by Manufacturing Subcategories    4-58
          Nation, Wisconsin, and the SMSA

4.16      Key Export (Basicl Industries Milwaukee      4-59
          SMSA

4.17      Change in Major Employment Categories        4-60
          Nationa, State, SMSA 1960-1970

4.18      SMSA Employment                              4-63

4.19      1978 Average Household Incomes by Community  4-65

4.20      Firms Most Likely to be Affected by the      4-66
          MWPAP

4.21      Sewerage Property Taxes and User Charges     4-67
          for Three Industrial Groups (x $1000).

4.22      Value Added for Selected Industries          4-68
          (x $1000)

4.23      Employment in Selected Industries as a       4-70
          Percent of Industry Employment in Milwaukee
          County

4.24      Estimated State and Local Taxes Paid by a    4-71
          Family of Four in Selected Cities, by
          Income Level:  1977

4.25      1980 Budgets and Budget Sources              4-73

4.26      1979 Property Values and Tax Rates           4-74

4.27      1980 Tax Rates Per $1000 Equalized           4-76

4.28      1979 Capital Charges to Contract Communities 4-77

4.29      Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response     4-78

4.30      Sensitivity to Noise Near Local WWTPs        4-80

4.31      Energy Use at Public Treatment Plants        4-84

4.32      Resource Consumption in Area Wastewater      4-85
          Treatment Plants

-------
Table
Number                                                 Page

5.1       Water Quality Under Low Flow Conditions      5-4
          Immediately Downstream of the Caddy
          Vista WWTP

5.2       Water Quality Under Low Flow Conditions      5-5
          Immediately Downstream of the Germantown
          WWTP

5.3       Water Quality Under Low Flow Conditions      5-6
          Immediately Downstream of the Muskego
          Northeast WWTP

5.4       Predicted Trophic Status of Big Muskego Lake 5-8
          Under Alternative Muskego Northwest WWTP
          Conditions

5.5       Water Quality Under Low Flow Conditions      5-9
          Immediately Downstream of the Regal Manors
          WWTP

5.6       Water Quality Under Low Flow Conditions      5-11
          Immediately Downstream of the Thiensville
          WWTP

5.7       Annual Pollutant Loads from Separate Sewer   5-14
          Bypasses in the Planning Area

5.8       Annual Pollutant Loads to the Milwaukee      5-15
          Inner Harbor Under Existing Conditions
          and Alternative Combined Sewer Overflow
          Abatement Plans

5.9       Predicted Average Pollutant Concentrations   5-19
          with Inner Harbor Under Existing Conditions
          and Alternative CSO Abatement Plans

5.10      Annual Pollutant Loads to the Milwaukee Outer5-21
          Harbor Under Existing Conditions and
          Alternative Combined Sewer Overflow Abate-
          ment Plans

5.11      Predicted Average Pollutant Concentrations   5-24
          in the Outer Harbor Under Existing
          Conditions and Alternative CSO Abatement
          Plans

5.12      Annual Pollutant Loads into the Inner Harbor 5-25
          Sediments

-------
Table
Number                                                 Page
5.13      Annual Pollutant Loads into the Outer        5-27
          Harbor Sediments

5.14      Average Flows and Pollutant Concentrations   5-30
          for the Jones Island WWTP Effluent and the
          Outer Harbor

5.15      Annual Pollutant Loadings to Lake Michigan   5-33

5.16      Average Construction Emission of MMSD        5-41
          Preferred Alternatives in Tons per Year

5.17      Ranges of Average Annual Construction        5-42
          Impacts in Tons

5.18      Air Pollution Emissions  (Year 2005) Related  5-43
          to Energy Use

5.19      Effect of Grouting on Tunnel Exfiltration/   5-50
          Infiltration Case Studies

5.20      Development Effects, No Action Alternative   5-65

5.21      Annual Additional Increment of Wastewater    5-67
          Flow and Pollutant Loading Allowed in the
          MMSD if Effluent Violations Occur

5.23      Future Development:  Menomonee Falls-        5-72
          Germantown Interceptor, 1990

5.24      Future Development:  Oak Creek Interceptor   5-73
          1990

5.25      Future Development:  New Berlin, 1990        5-76

5.26      Future Development:  Muskego, 1990           5-77

5.27      Indirect Fiscal Impacts                      5-79

5.28      Costs for Local Alternative                  5-82

5.29      MMSD Treatment Plant and MIS System Costs    5-83

5.30      Summary of Local Costs, Regional and         5-85
          Mosaic Alternatives

5.31      Summary of Regional Treatment System Costs   5-86

-------
Table
Number                                                 Page

5.32      Summary of Mosaic Treatment System Costs     5-87

5.33      Costs for Repair and Rehabilitation of       5-88
          Local Sewers and for Local Relief Sewers

5.34      MMSD Annual Charges for Each Community       5-95
          No Action Alternative

5.35      Property Tax Rates for Sewer Service with    5-96
          No Action, 1980-2005

5.36      Assumption of the Fiscal Analysis, Local     5-97
          Alternative

5.37      Average Distribution of Costs, Local         5-99
          Alternative

5.38      Cash Flows for Local Alternatives            5-100
          C0% Funding)

5.39      1985-2005 Average Annual Costs to            5-101
          Communities Assuming Different Levels of
          Funding

5.40      Assumption Used in Fiscal Impacts Analysis   5-103
          for the Regional Alternative

5.41      Average Annual Community and Household       5-105
          Costs, Regional Alternative

5.42      Assumptions Used in the Fiscal Impacts       5-107
          Analysis, Mosaic Alternative

5.43      Average Annual Community and Household       5-109
          Costs, Mosaic Alternative

5.44      The Effects of Increased Interest Rates      5-110

5.45      Bond Maturity Sensitivity                    5-111

5.46      Worst Case Analyses                          5-113

5.47      Fiscal Impacts of CSO Alternatives           5-116

5.48      Individual Community Financing vs            5-118
          District-wide Financing, 1985-2005 Average
          Annual Debt Service

-------
Table
Number                                                 Page

5.49      Individual Community Financing vs.           5-119
          District-wide Financing:  1985-2005
          Average Annual Equalized Tax Rates

5.50      Individual Community Financing and           5-121
          District-wide Financing Compared to
          Net Property Taxes:  1985-2005 Average
          Annual Household Charges

5.51      Alternative Methods of Cost Apportionment    5-123

5.52      Assumptions for Alternative Funding Analysis 5-124

5.53      1985-2005 Estimated Average Annual Equalized 5-126
          Property Tax Rates to Finance the Debt
          Service for the EPA Preferred Alternative

5.54      Net Economic Impact Assuming Least Cost      5-131
          Negative

5.55      CSO Alternatives:  Economic Impacts          5-133

5.56      1979 and 1985 Sewerage Costs for 31          5-135
          Industrial Firms

5.57      Sewerage Costs as a Percentage of Value      5-136
          Added

5.58      Duration of CSO Construction Activities      5-140

5.59      Measures to Reduce Safety Hazards at         5-146
          Construction Sites

5.60      Construction Impacts on Traffic and Access   5-147

5.61      Bus Routes Affected by CSO Alternatives      5-154

5.62      Historical and Archaeological Sites in       5-155
          Interceptor Routes

5.63      No Action Alternative, Year 2005 Energy      5-160
          Use and Energy Cost

5.64      Local Alternative, Year 2005 Energy Use      5-162
          and Energy Cost Compared to No Action
          Alternative

5.65      Regional Alternative, Year 2005, Energy Use  5-163
          and Energy Cost Compared to No Action
          Alternative

-------
Table
Number                                                 Page

5.66      Mosaic Alternative, Year 2005 Energy         5-165
          Use and Energy Costs Compared to No
          Action Alternative

5.67      Annual Energy Requirement, CSO/Peak Flow     5-166
          Storage Alternatives

5.68      Treatment Plant Resource Consumption,        5-167
          No Action - Year 2005

5.69      Resource Consumption - Year 2005             5-168

5.70      Spoil Material Generated                     5-174

5.71      Concrete Requirements, CSO/Peak Flow         5-176
          Alternatives

-------
                       LIST OF FIGURES


Figure                                                 Follows
Number                                                 Page

1.1       MMSD Service Area and Planning Area          1-2

1.2       Storage Volumes Required Under the Four      1-15
          Final CSO/Peak Flow Alternatives

1.3       Percentage of Combined Sewer Service Area    1-15
          Affected by Open Cut Sewer Construction

3.1       Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the       3-12
          Planning Area

3.2       MMSD Sewerage System Service Area            3-12

3.3       Combined Sewer Service Area                  3-22

3.4       Milwaukee Interceptor Sewer Rehabilitation   3-26

3.5       Local Service Areas (A)                      3-28

3.6       Local Service Areas (B)                      3-31

3.7       Subregional Service Areas                    3-33

3.8       Regional Service Areas                       3-37

3.9       Interceptor Service Areas                    3-71

3.10      Inline Storage Alternative                   3-87

3.11      Complete Sewer Separation Alternative        3-87

3.12      Modified CST/Inline Storage Alternative      3-87

3.13      Modified Total Storage Alternative           3-91

3.14      Half-Year LOP Inline Storage                 3-93

3.15      Service Area and Facility Map of the No      3-98
          Action Alternative

3.16      Service Area and Facility Map of the         3-100
          Local Alternative

3.17      Service Area and Facility Map of the         3-106
          Regional Alternative

-------
Figure                                                 Follows
Number                                                 Page

3.18      Service Area and Facility Map of the         3-106
          Mosaic Alternative

3.19      Service Area and Facility Map of the MMSD    3-109
          Recommended Plan

3.20      Service Area and Facility Map of the EPA     3-112
          Preferred Alternative

3.21      Two-Year L.O.P. - Modified Total Storage     3-116
          Alternative

3.22      Five-Year L.O.P. - Modified Total Storage    3-116
          Alternative

4.1       Lakes and Streams in the Planning Area       4-2

4.2       Existing Conditions of Waters in the         4-6
          Planning Area

4.3       Small Lot Septic System Suitability          4-28

4.4       Aquifers of the Planning Area                4-28

4.5       100 Year Flood Plains                        4-31

4.6       Woodlands, Wetlands, and Prairie Primary     4-33
          Reference Map

4.7       Existing Land Use - 1975                     4-42

4.8       Land Use Plan 2000                           4-44

4.9       Parks and Open Space Sites                   4-81

5.1       Surface Waters Affected by Combined Sewer    5-12
          Overflows

5.2       Faults in the Milwaukee Area                 5-50

5.3       Bedrock Geology and Structure Contours       5-55
          on the Base of the Maquoketa Shale

5.4       Annual Expenditures - Local Alternative      5-97

5.5       Annual Expenditures - Regional Alternative   5-103

5.6       Annual Expenditures - Mosaic Alternative     5-107

-------
    CHAPTER 1




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-------
CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1  INTRODUCTION

This Final Environmental Impact Statement  (FEIS) 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 must
also comply with two court orders. The orders require the
MMSD to implement the following:

     Discharges of raw or inadequately treated wastewater to
     area waters must be eliminated

     Wastewater 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 established
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 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 major federal actions which could significantly
affect the natural and man-made environments.  Approval of
the MFP has been determined to be such a major federal
action.

The DNR must also approve many aspects of the MFP.  The MMSD
has requested state grant funding for parts of the MFP.
Because of this state involvement, the Wisconsin Environmental
Policy Act (WEPA) requires the preparation of an EIS.

An EIS analyzes the proposed action, reasonable alternatives,
and their anticipated effects upon the environment.  To
minimize the duplication of efforts, this Final EIS was pre-
pared as a joint EPA/DNR document.
                              1-1

-------
The public is invited to comment on this Final EIS.  Comments
will be received from the date of its release through May
17, 1981.  As required by state law, a public hearing on the
Final EIS will be held in Milwaukee in May of 1981 to provide
a forum for public comment.  The comments and concerns
expressed by citizens, EPA and DNR will be used to develop a
Record of Decision for the MFP.  The Record of Decision will
set forth the EPA and DNR decision to approve, conditionally
approve, or disapprove the MFP.

1.1.1  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.
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) can greatly increase the flows
in the sewerage system resulting in bypasses and overflows
to area rivers and Lake Michigan.

During wet weather, the volume of wastewater and its rate of
entry into the sewerage system 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.  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% of the sewers in Milwaukee
County, serving approximately 47% 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
domestic wastes.  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 the MMSD service
area.  With this type of system, storm water is collected in
one set of pipes and conveyed directly to the waterways.
Domestic and industrial wastewater is conveyed separately to
treatment facilities.  Ideally, the flows in the sanitary
sewers should not be affected by rainfall and infiltration
of groundwater.  However, some parts of the sanitary sewer
system have deteriorated, allowing storm water and groundwater
to seep into the sewers and manholes.  In many buildings,
                              1-2

-------
                                                                                          LEGEND
                                                                                       STUDY AREA 90UNDARV

                                                                                       COUNT> W'N£

                                                                                       CORPO»ATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                                       WATER R'VERS,CREEKS,ETC

                                                                                       MAJOR HIGHWAYS


                                                                                       JONES ISLAND SERVICE AREA


                                                                                       SOUTH SHORE SERVICE AREA


                                                                                       SOUTH MILWAUKEE SERVICE AREA
                                                                                       AREA WHICH CAN BE SERVED BY
                                                                                    . J  EITHER SOUTH SHORE OR JONES ISLAND
FIGURE

     l-l
DATE

 APRIL  1981
MMSD   SERVICE   AREA
AND   PLANNING   AREA
                                                          SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED  BY

       EcolSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

-------
drains or sumps have been illegally connected to the sanitary
sewer.  As a result, I/I does enter the sanitary sewers.  To
prevent the backup of sewage into basements, sanitary sewers
are also equipped with flow relief devices which discharge
untreated sewage mixed with I/I 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 (WWTP).  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 (MGD)  (6.1 m-^/sec.).  The preliminary and primary
treatment facilities at South Shore can handle peak capacities
of 320 MGD (14 m^/sec.).  Secondary facilities bypass waste-
water 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.  As part of their Water Quality
Management (208) Plan, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC) has recommended that pollutant
loadings from non-point sources (urban and agricultural
runoff) be reduced by a minimum of 25%.  SEWRPC has designated
each community within the MMSD planning area responsible for
implementing the urban non-point source control measures to
achieve this reduction of runoff pollution by 25%.

Combined sewer overflows, bypasses from the separated sewers,
and non-point source loadings have resulted in the introduction
and accumulation of pollutants and disease-producing organisms
Cpathogens) into area waters.  Water quality in the MMSD
service area is degraded by nutrients that stimulate plant
growth and by organic pollutants which deplete the level of
oxygen in the water.  A potential health hazard is created
by the pathogens and toxic substances including heavy metals.

1.1.2  Master Facilities Plan

The preparation of the Master Facilities Plan, which is also
referred to in this EIS as the Milwaukee Water Pollution
Abatement Program (MWPAP), has been required 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 mandate the achievement by 1983 of fishable
                              1-4

-------
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.

In addition to federal and state guidelines, preparation of
the MFP 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 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 1, 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.  It is expected
that a decision will be rendered by the middle of 1981.

The MFP is a complex set of programs devised to comply with
federal and state legislation and the two court orders. The
requirements applicable to the plan include the following:

1.   Detailed evaluation of different approaches to wastewater
     treatment for the MMSD planning area shown in Figure
     1.1

                              1-5

-------
2.   Reduction of infiltration and inflow (I/I)  by the
     rehabilitation of the sewer system.  A sewer system
     evaluation survey (SSES)  is now being completed.
     The SSES provides detailed information about the
     sources of I/I and the costs of reducing these sources.
     The SSES is used to determine the level of I/I removal
     which will 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  (CSO) by the date
     established by the U. S.  Supreme Court.

Numerous alternatives were developed for each component
project of the MFP.  In this summary, only those alternatives
found to be the most feasible will be discussed.

1.1.3  MMSD Recommended Plan and Feasible Alternatives

As part of the preparation and adoption of the Master Facilities
Plan, the MMSD, as required by federal and state regulations,
recommended alternatives for each major planning element.
These major elements are as follows:

1.   CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

2.   Wastewater Treatment

3.   Solids Handling

4.   Wastewater conveyance.

1.1.3.1  CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

The  I/I  study estimated that a 50% reduction of I/I would
be less expensive than expanding area wastewater treatment
facilities to treat the peak volume of I/I and wastewater.
However, even with this reduction, wet weather flows to the
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) would exceed their
capacity.  Because the court orders require the elimination
                              1-6

-------
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 CSO.  Therefore, the MI1SD 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.

1.1.3.2  Wastewater Treatment

There are nine public wastewater treatment facilities in the
MMSD planning area.  Approximately 95% of the dry weather
wastewater flow in the planning area is tributary to the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs.  The remaining dry
weather flow is treated at public WWTPs in Thiensville,
Germantown, New Berlin, Muskego  (2 WWTPs), South Milwaukee,
and the Caddy Vista subdivision in Caledonia.

Three organizational strategies were used to evaluate waste-
water treatment for the MMSD planning area.  These strategies,
or system-levels, are described below:

1.    The Local System-Level;  The present localized approach
      to areawide wastewater treatment would continue.  The
      Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would serve Milwaukee
      County and some communities outside the County (contract
      communities).  Other communities would operate their
      own wastewater treatment facilities.

2.    The Subregional System-Level:  The Milwaukee area would
      be divided into three smaller subregions. Each subregion
      would be responsible for operating its own wastewater
      treatment facilities.  The Subregional System-Level
      Alternatives were eliminated from consideration because
      of cost and impacts on water quality.

3.    The Regional System-Level;  The MMSD would be responsible
      for treating all wastewater flows in the planning area.
      The flows would be treated at one or more WWTPs.

Strategies for CSO abatement were evaluated independently of
the development of wastewater treatment strategies.  The
alternative considered to be the most feasible for each
public wastewater treatment facility in the planning area is
shown in Table 1.2.
                              1-7

-------
                           TABLE 1.1
                FACILITIES FOR CSO ABATEMENT AND
                     PEAK FLOW ATTENUATION
Remote    •     Complete sewer separation in 11%  of  the
Storage        CSSA.   No work on private property.
               Partial sewer separation* in 18%  of  the
               Combined Sewer Service Area (CSSA).
               757 acre-feet of storage provided for excess
               flows  at a cavern storage site near  58th
               and State Streets.
               Complete separation in 48% of CSSA;  excess
               flows  tributary to 236 acre-feet  of
               near-surface storage.
               Excess flows from separated sewers stored
               at the storage cavern  at 58th and State
               Streets.

Jones     •     Complete separation in 11% of the CSSA.
Island         No private property work required.
Storage   •     Complete separation in 48% of the CSSA with
               necessary private property work.
               Partial sewer separation in 41% of the
               CSSA.   Excess flow stored in 437  acre-feet
               of near-surface storage.
               Excess flows from the  separated sewers
               stored in a 550 acre-feet cavern  near the
               Jones  Island treatment plant.

CST       •     Complete sewer separation in 11%  of  the  CSSA.
Extension      No private property work.
               Partial sewer separation in 21% of the CSSA.
               Excess flows tributary to 235 acre-feet  of
               near-surface storage.
               No sewer separation in 68% of the CSSA.
               Excess flows tributary to 30-foot tunnels
               in bedrock and 1,334 acre-feet of cavern
               storage near Jones Island.
          •     Excess flow from separated sewers tributary
               to 30-foot diameter tunnels and cavern storage.

Inline    •     Complete separation in 11% of the CSSA.   No
Storage        private property work.
               Partial separation in  68% of the  CSSA.  Excess
               flows  tributary to 20-foot diameter  tunnels
               in bedrock and 767 acre-feet of cavern storage
               near Milwaukee County  stadium.
               Partial separation in  21% of the  CSSA with
               235 acre-feet of near-surface storage.
               Excess flow from the separated sewers
               tributary to 20-foot diameter tunnels and
               cavern storage facility.

*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., roof  leaders)  would be combined and conveyed to  a
treatment facility.
                      1-8

-------
                          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 erfluent to the Milwaukee River.
                             1-9

-------
For the Local System-Level, all the WWTPs listed in the
table would be in operation.  For the Regional Alternative,
only the Jones Island and South Shore facilities would
continue operating.  The No Action Alternative (continuing
the present sewerage system with no improvements)  was also
considered for comparison.

The MMSD's Recommended Alternative (referred to as the
Mosaic Alternative in this EIS) combines aspects of the
Local and Regional System-Levels. With the Mosaic Alternative,
the Jones Island and South Shore treatment facilities would
serve the entire planning area, except for South Milwaukee
which would operate its own facility.  All other public
WWTPs would be abandoned.  The MMSD recommends 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
its own facilities for pretreatment of effluent before
discharge to the local sewer system.

1.1.3.3  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 MMSD 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.
                             1-10

-------
The MMSD is currently preparing a facilities plan which will
identify specific sites for solids disposal.  A supplemental
EIS on this facilities plan will be prepared by the EPA and
DNR.  The supplemental EIS will give special consideration
to the impacts of site specific alternatives on the natural
and man-made environments.  It is currently anticipated that
the Site Specific EIS supplement on agricultural spreading
and landfill will be completed in mid-1984.

1.1.3.4  Wastewater Conveyance

The MFP evaluates alternatives for conveyance of wastewater
to WWTPs from communities and areas served by MMSD.  The
particular facilities and their configurations vary under
each system-level alternative, and they are listed in Table
1.3.  The facilities are the following interceptors:  Franklin
Northeast, Underwood Creek, Root River, Hales Corners,
Franklin-Muskego, Oak Creek North, and Menomonee Falls-
German town .

1.2  THE DRAFT EIS

1.2.1  EIS Alternatives

1.2.1.1  CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

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 discharged into the lower reaches of the Milwaukee,
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic rivers, and instream 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.

                         TABLE 1.4

             EIS ALTERNATIVES FOR CSO ABATEMENT
                 AND PEAK FLOW ATTENUATION

Complete       •  All combined sewers completed separated
Sewer          •  Excess flow from the separated sewers
Separation        would be stored in 20-foot diameter tunnels
                  prior to transport to the WWTPs for treatment
                              1-11

-------
Local
Alternative
             TABLE 1.3
   INTERCEPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
DIFFERENT SYSTEM-LEVEL ALTERNATIVES

   Northeast Side Relief System
   Underwood Creek
   Root River (Short Route)
   Franklin Northeast
   Oak Creek North
   Franklin-Muskego (Franklin branch only)
Regional
Alternative
   Northeast Side Relief System
   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 System
   Underwood Creek
   'Root River
   Hales Corners
   Franklin-Muskego
   Franklin Northeast
   Oak Creek North
   Menomonee Falls-Germantown
                              1-12

-------
Modified       •  Complete sewer separation in 11% of the
GST/              CSSA.   Private property work required.
Inline         •  Partial sewer separation in 21% of the
                  CSSA.  Excess flows in the sanitary sewers
                  stored in 235 acre-feet1 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.

Modified       •  Complete separation in 11% of the CSSA.
Total             No private property work.
Storage        •  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.

•^-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.)
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
Alternative
Capital Costs
Inline Storage        $ 1658.53
Complete Separation     1688.45
Modified CST/Inline     1664.98
Modified Total Storage  1682.56
Operation
   and
Maintenance

$ 27.01
  26.83
  27.97
  28.48
Net*
Present
Worth

$ 1899.86
  1968.22
  1931.50
  1956.44
*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 in their calculation and are
therefore considered equivalent.  Thus, the decision to implement
one of the alternatives will be based on factors other than cost.
                              1-13

-------
1.2.2  Environmental Consequences

1.2.2.1  No Action Alternative

The alternatives considered in the MFP and EIS are complex
solutions for a number of problem areas which overlap to
varying degrees.  Several wastewater treatment plants in the
MMSD planning area cannot treat the flows they receive ade-
quately to meet the effluent limits imposed by their discharge
permits.  In many areas, these sewers and WWTPs are receiving
volumes of wastewater in excess of their capacities.  Deter-
iorating 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 the problem of
overloaded sewers and treatment plants.

The results of this overloading include bypassing at the WWTPs,
bypassing from separated sewers, and overflows from combined
sewers.  These bypasses and overflows discharge raw or in-
adequately treated wastewater to area waterways.  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.

In addition, sewer extensions for new development in all areas
served by the MMSD might be prohibited.  The Dane County Court
Stipulation establishes 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.

If sewer extensions are prohibited because of violations of
the Dane County Court stipulation, the demand for lots
suitable for septic tank development might increase, possibly
entailing the loss of prime agricultural land or wildlife
habitat.  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 Land Use Plan.
                               1-14

-------
With the No Action Alternative, the impacts outlined above
could occur.  The action alternatives described in Section 1.1.3
are designed to modify or eliminate the adverse impacts and
maximize the beneficial environmental impacts at the smallest
practicable monetary cost.  The environmental impacts of the
action alternatives are described below.

1.2.2.2  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 300 million gallons of wastewater
each day and the South Shore WWTP 250 million gallons each
day.  Also, CSO 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
alternatives 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 be capable of meeting effluent
limitations in the discharge permits.  As a result, all free-
flowing portions of the rivers of the area should meet the
water quality standards set for them by the DNR if SEWRPC's
nonpoint source control program is implemented.  Pollutant
loadings to the Inner and Outer Harbors would be reduced,
to varying degrees.  However, water quality standards in the
Inner Harbor might not be met because of pollutants accumulated
in the sediments  and pollution originating upstream of the
MMSD service area.

1.2.2.3  CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

The four alternatives for CSO abatement/peak flow attenuation
which are 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.  Figure 1.2 compares
the amount of storage required by these alternatives.  Figure
1.3 compares the percentage of the combined sewer service area
which would be affected by open-cut construction with the four
alternatives.  The alternatives that would treat the most
urban runoff would achieve the most improvement in water
quality because they would decrease total pollutant loads
and cause less disturbance (via scouring) of sediments in
the receiving waters.

                              1-15

-------
Any action alternative would improve sediment quality,  but
the sediments would remain highly polluted with 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
further decomposes. The Modified Total Storage Alternative
would result in treatment of the greatest percentage of
storm water and would eliminate CSO sediment scour,  which is
the mechanism whereby the highly polluted bottom sediments
are resuspended by increased velocities in the vicinities of
CSO outfalls.  The Complete Separation Alternative would
treat the least amount of storm water and increase the
frequency of sediment scour near CSO outfalls.

The percentage of the CSSA that would be affected by each
facility for CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation 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. Local construction firms are equipped to  con-
struct new sanitary and storm sewers required under the
alternatives relying on complete or partial separation.  These
approaches are more labor-intensive than the construction of
large diameter tunnels in bedrock.  As a result, the complete
separation alternative creates the most potential employment
opportunities for the local labor force.  The Modified  Total
Storage Alternative creates the least local employment
opportunities.  The use of local construction firms for
sev/er separation alternatives would introduce more money
into the local economy than a deep tunnel system that would
rely on firms from outside the local economy.

Both EPA and DNR, as well as the public, have expressed con-
cern that wastewater could seep out of large-diameter tunnels
in the bedrock and contaminate deep groundwater; that ground-
water could infiltrate the tunnels and lower local groundwater
levels; or that both events could occur.  These concerns have
received detailed analysis, which is described further  in
Section 1.3.2.

1.2.2.4  Wastewater Treatment

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.

                              1-18

-------
The MMSD Recommended Alternatives for the expansion of these
WWTPs include lakefills which 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.

Some residents of the City of South Milwaukee have raised
concerns about the expansion of the South Shore treatment
plant. They have complained about odors from the South Shore
WWTP and feel that the expansion of the facility would
aggravate the problem.  Also, they are concerned that the
expansion would be unsightly and would disrupt the view of
Lake Michigan.  There is concern that, as a result of
these factors, property values near the plant may be affected.
Partially in response to these concerns, the Draft EIS
also evaluates two new alternatives:  one requiring only six
acres of lakefill and another that would require no lakefill
(see South Shore Appendix).

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 reduced.

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.

The MMSD recommended 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, these impacts would be moderate and temporary.

The Local, Regional, and the MMSD Recommended 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.
                               1-19

-------
Under the various System-Level Alternatives, at most, 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 to be met.  Bypassing at the Caddy Vista Plant would
be eliminated.  Effluent from the South Milwaukee treatment
plant should not have a large impact on Lake Michigan because
of its presently acceptable quality and relatively small
volume.

Under the various System-Level Alternatives, 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.

1.2.2.5   Solids Handling

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.  During
most of  the year, 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 supplemental EIS to be prepared by EPA and DNR,
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.

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, if applied in amounts
greater  than can be removed by plant uptake, can contaminate
groundwater and may cause human and animal health problems.
                              1-20

-------
All farmers interested in receiving the solids from the
South Shore WWTP would have to be informed of the proper
management practices and potential hazards of solids
application.  This precaution and the adherence to DNR and
EPA regulations would reduce the potential for soil and
groundwater contamination.  Abandoning the Milorganite
process would reduce particulate emissions in Milwaukee
County by 6% and energy consumption at the WWTP by 57%.
However, abandoning the process would also cause the exist-
ing concentration of ammonia-nitrogen in the Jones Island
WWTP to approximately triple (from 6 mg/1 to 18 mg/1).
Increased levels of ammonia-nitrogen in the Outer Harbor
could be toxic to aquatic life.

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 has performed
a water quality study to determine how this increase in
ammonia would affect the Outer Harbor.  The MMSD also examined
alternatives that would reduce the ammonia in the effluent.
The results of this study are discussed further in Section
1.3.3.

1.2.2.6  Wastewater Conveyance

All the System-Level Alternatives were designed to serve the
same area.  The Local Alternative would include six inter-
ceptors, 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 to accomodate population up to the levels forecast
by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
However, if the population does not grow to planned levels,
the expanded sewer service could encourage a scattered
pattern of development in some areas.  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 could
exceed the revenues from the increased tax base.
                              1-21

-------
1.2.2.7  Cost

The costs for the Final System-Level Alternatives are shown
in Table 1.6.  These costs assume the implementation of the
MMSD's Recommended 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)
Local
Regional
Mosaic:
MMSD
Recom-
mended
         CSO
         Component
         Inline Storage
         Complete Separation
         Modified CST/Inline
         Mod. Total Storage
         Inline Storage
         Complete Separation
         Modified CST/Inline
         Mod. Total Storage
Inline Storage
Complete Separation
Modified CST/Inline
Mod. Total Storage
                     Capital   O&M
                 Net
                 Present Worth
$1692.39
1722.31
1698.84
1716.42
$28.48
28.30
29.44
29.95
$ 1950.11
2018.47
1981.75
2006.69
                      1658.84
                      1688.76
                      1665.29
                      1682.87
1658.53
1688.45
1664.98
1682.56
          26.63
          26.45
          27.59
          28.10
27.01
26.83
27.97
28.48
         1896.06
         1964.42
         1927.70
         1952.64
1899.86
1968.22
1931.50
1956.44
Current projections of the availability of Federal and State
funds for water pollution abatement projects indicate that a
maximum of approximately thirty-six percent of the MFP 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 and propor-
tionately by the User Charge System.
                              1-22

-------
Table 1.7 outlines the estimated average annual property tax
rates that would result from the implementation of the final
system-level alternatives.  These costs were determined
assuming that the MMSD would construct all elements of the
alternatives, including rehabilitation and relief work both
inside and outside the County, except that Muskego, South
Milwaukee, Germantown, New Berlin, Caddy Vista, and
Thiensville would construct their own facilities with the
Local Alternative.  For the Local Alternative, no Federal
funding is assumed for this construction.

Historically, local communities have financed their own
sewer rehabilitation and connecting sewers to the Metropolitan
Intercepting sewer system.  The MMSD plans to include these
costs and the costs for CSO abatement in the City of Milwaukee
and Village of Shorewood with other MFP costs, and to
distribute the debt service to all communities involved.
The ultimate acceptability and implementability of district-
wide financing will, in all likelihood, be resolved in the
courts.

1.2.3  Public Hearing and Comments

The Draft EIS was released to the public and to government
agencies on November 14, 1980.  This date marked the start
of the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIS.  The
agencies held a public hearing on December 18, 1980 to provide
a forum for public comment.  Due to the requests of both
federal agencies and the public, the comment period was
extended from January 2, 1981 to January 12, 1981.  Although
the December 18, 1980 public hearing did not raise any
significant new issues, it, as well as the written comments
received, did highlight the areas of the MFP that concerned
the public.  The groundwater impacts of the deep tunnels and
cavern storage facility was a major concern of both citizens
as well as professional and agency commenters.  A second
significant issue concerned the economic impact on the
Milwaukee area of the MMSD Recommended Plan.  Aside from
these two major points, the comments also focused on issues
of concern in the Draft EIS such as effluent outfall relocation,
increased ammonia discharge, effects of land application of
sludge, and lakefill alternatives for plant expansion.

1.3  ADDITIONAL ANALYSES/ISSUES RESOLUTION

Since issuance of the Draft EIS, substantial new information
has become available through further EIS analyses, further
facilities planning work by MMSD, and the receipt of research
results from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  This
new information and the conclusions reached with respect to
major issues raised on the Draft EIS are outlined below.
                              1-23

-------
H  "-
EH   0)
g
S  H

>  Cd
W   Cd
N   EH
<  W
3

H  pa
rH
0
rH

•H
S

tn
0)
•H
4-1
•H
C
3

g
0
o
tn fa
(U
e -
3 T3
tn o
tn x
<: -P
-•' CD
s

M
a)

•H
-P
id
G
SH
0)
4-1
r-H
<
X
id
EH

>
4->
!H
CD
ft
O
rH
CM




,«.
tn
(D
tn
a
rH
3
CU

G
O
tn
•H
!H
cd
ft
S
0
U









CD
r-i
,0
id
rH
•rH
id
>
<

4->
0
S
                                                              o
                                                              o
                                                              o
                                                              SH

                                                              0)
         0)

         0


        o
   '00
r~ 4J  O
r-
  • en  o
ro m  m
to-   •  to-
    to-
 il       id
     II
 0)      C
 o^r     0
 id  0)
 in  Cn co
 0)  G  co
                                                              <  OS
                                                                      to-
•n
>i O
SH X!
01 CD -P
03 > 03
SH O S
£>i
4-1
G
3
0
U

03
03
3
id
3
H
•H
S
•H O
3 0) X
CT1 OS id
01 EH
OS 03
O >i
3 -H -P
id > SH
r4 V4 03
0) ft
0) CO O
M 1 i
id -P cu
4-1 A
W 03 >i
-^ Q pa
d)
g
0


o
o
o
o -
o o
o m
iH tO-
tO-
ld
SH
01 C
ft 0

ro •
^O rH
• ro
to- to-
     0)

    1

    o
    o
    o
o    >
o  o
o  m
rH  tO-
                                                               01  G
                                                               ft  O
                                                              'S* CN
                                                              to- to-
 03
 >
•H
 -P
 id

 SH
 0)
 4J
                                          c
                                          o
                                          •H
                                          4J
                                          O
                                          rt!


                                          S
rH
 id
 o
                    13
                     Hi
                    4-1
                     O
                     0)
                     c
                     c
                     0
                    U

                     tn
                     
                     O  O
                     o  m
                     iH  to-
                     SH
                     03  G
                     ft  O

                     en   •

                      •  rH
                     "31  CN
                     to-  to-
                      id
                      C
                      o
                     •H
                      C"
                      0)
                     os
                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                       o
      in
        0)

        o
        A

        O
        O
    03  O

    \£  O
    3  m
    id  to-
                                                                                                           r-H
                                                                                                           •H
                                                                                                           2:
                                                                                                       0>  4-1   •
                                                                                                       in   3 cn
                                                                                                         •   0 CN
                                                                                                       to- c/j to-

















[^

, — 1

r-
3
03

EH
X

EH

>
EH
OS
a
CU
o

CU

^_^
in
o
o
CN
1
in
CO

rH
*— '

***
O
4-1


0)
C
•H
! 1
|
G
H

en
C

'e
3
0]
Oj

* —

[Vj
£>
H
EH
^
03 ^~.
> 03
0 0)
X O 0)
tn
0)
•H
-P
•H
G
3

g
0
O

•P
O
id
SH
-P
G
0
U
(d 03 0
EH OS ft
SH
>i -P 3
-P 0) pj
SH O
CD O C
ft 0
0 <4H 01
SH 0 -H
Cu SH
TJ rd
03 0 ft
0) .G g
g -P O
3 03 U
01 S
tn SH
rtl tn o
"" < fa

O
o
0
rH V£>
to- m
•
SH to-
OI
ft O
-P
*3*
ro ro
• rH
to- •
to-
II
II
CD
CBH
id 03
SH Cn
0) C
> id
< OS




03
g
0
S

0
o
o
^
o
m
to-

id

c
o

1
r>
iH
to-

o
o
0
rH CN
to- co
i
SH CM

ft
O
CM 4-1
co
• CM
rH l£>
to- .
to-
ll
II
03
CM
id 03
S-t Cn
0) G

ic£ 0^




O
6
0


O
0
o
«
o
in
to-

id

G
o

•
rH
cn
to-

o
o
o
1 — 1 *3*
to- in
•
SH CM
0) to-
ft
0
rH 4-1
CO
• CTi
H in
to- •
to-
ll
II
0)
DCN
id 03
SH Cn
03 C
^* (^
p£ Q^




0)
g
0
^

o
o
o
•h
o
m
to-

id

C
0

•
o
Ot
to-

o
o
o
rH r~ o)
to- m g
• 0
SH CM xl
0) to-
ft 0
0 0
ro _J O
CO
• en o
iH in in
to- • to-
to-
ll id
II
03 C
OTJO O
id o)
SH tn •
03 G rH
> id en
< OS to-

     0)

     o
    o
    o
    o
o    *
o  o
o  m
rH  tO-
tO-
     ld
 SH
 03   C
 ft  o
                                                                                                        ro  CO
                                                                                                         •  rH
                                                                                                        t
4J
G
3
O
CJ

CD
03
y
3
id
N
£


CU
rrj
•H
tn
^s,
id
m
3
id
rH
•H
X!
4-1
3
O
0
Cn
CD
03
3
C
0
3
D1
CD
03
iH
rH


^i
T3
•d
id
U

«.
03
rH
rH
•rH
£>
0!
G
03
•H
£2
EH

•»
G
•H
rH
SH
03
oa

3
03
Z

«.
C
§
o
jj
G
id
g
SH
03
O





CD
03
^
3
id
3
rH
•rH
S

^
-P
3
0
W

4-3
ft
Q)
U
X
03

03
[>
Q
Q
(d

03
03
•H
4-3
•H
£J
3
§
§
O
U

rH
rH
<
ro •;
uth Milwaukee, Thiensville
o
w

«.
G
•H
rH
rH
0)
oa

Jj
03
z

*.
o

CD
^J
03
3
S

fc
cj
§
0
4-1
G
id
e
SH
0)
O

«*
(d
-p
03
•H
>

^
t!
T3
id
U


















T!
03
-p
o
03
C
G
O
O

03
0)
•H
4-1
•rH
G
3
g
§
0
O

SH
CD
x:
4-1
o

rH
rH
-<
MWPAP components, except local plants.

rH
rH
id

t|_J
0

Cn
C
•rH
o
c
id
G
•rH
>4H

CD

•H

1
4-1
U
•H
SH

03
•H
Q

03

3
03
03
id

tn
03
4J
id
SH

X
id

r in ;o
                                                           1-24

-------
1.3.1  CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

1.3.1.1  Groundwater Impacts

A significant issue associated with the CSO and Peak Flow
Attenuation Alternatives is the impact of a deep tunnel
system on groundwater.  Converse, Ward, Davis Dixon  (CWDD),
a geotechnical consulting firm, was retained by the EIS
consultant to assess the impacts of transporting and storing
CSO and separated sewer bypasses in a tunnel and cavern
storage system in the Niagaran Dolomite Aquifer.  CWDD re-
viewed the existing data and tentatively concluded that no
significant adverse impacts would occur from either con-
struction or operation of the system provided the tunnel
alignment is carefully planned, constructed and monitored.
However, the following studies and mitigative measures
should be undertaken to ensure adequate protection of the
groundwater.

     Review the available data from the Tunnel and Reservoir
     Project (TARP) in Chicago, and determine if comparisons
     are possible between the Chicago and the Milwaukee
     environments.  If so, a more accurate prediction of
     infiltration should be made using this information.

     Conduct site specific studies to determine the location
     of fault zones and cones of depression due to high
     rates of groundwater pumping before final tunnel align-
     ment is established.

     Utilize design and construction procedures such as
     tunnel lining to minimize infiltration or exfiltration
     during operation of the system.

     Establish a monitoring system which includes inspection
     and maintenance of structures to assure that any in-
     filtration or exfiltration will be detected in a timely
     manner and promptly corrected.

1.3.1.2  I/I Removal

Since the Draft EIS was issued, the MMSD has completed the
draft SSES report and the preliminary results indicate that
a cost-effective level for I/I removal may only be 13%.
This figure will not be finalized until the final SSES report
is adopted by the MMSD in May of 1981.  Because the final
SSES report was not available for incorporation into the
Final EIS, the analysis of alternatives presented in the final
EIS  assumes that 48% of I/I would be removed.  If the final
I/I removal level is less than 48%, as is suggested by the
draft SSES report, additional cavern storage will be re-
quired.

                              1-25

-------
1.3.2  Ammonia Discharge/Outfall Relocation

Since the issuance of the Draft EIS, the EPA and DNR received
the results of a study performed by the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee which evaluates the impacts on the Outer Harbor of
ammonia discharged in effluent from the Jones Island WWTP.
This report concludes that the increased ammonia discharge
would have no adverse effects on dissolved oxygen levels
in the Outer Harbor.  However, the toxic effects of the
ammonia discharges would still be a serious issue.  The dis-
charge plume containing potentially toxic concentrations of
un-ionized ammonia could extend up to 2600 feet from the Jones
Island outfall.  Therefore, EPA and DNR are recommending that
the MMSD develop and analyze alternatives to mitigate the
toxic effects of the ammonia discharge within the mixing zone.
At a minimum, the following conditions must be achieved:

(1)  The effluent mixing zone should be limited to a range
     of 900 to 1200 feet from the Jones Island outfall

(2)  The passage between the Inner and Outer Harbor should
     be free from a toxic barrier which could be harmful
     to aquatic life

(3)  The acute un-ionized ammonia nitrogen toxicity standard
     (0.4 mg/1) should be met within the limited mixing zone
     as well as at the point of discharge

(4)  The chronic un-ionized ammonia nitrogen toxicity
     standard  (0.4 mg/1) should be met at the boundary of
     the limited mixing zone.

Relocation of the Jones Island outfall from the Outer Harbor
into the open lake was also considered in order to mitigate
the ammonia impacts.  This action is not recommended because
it would merely transfer the water quality impacts to the
open waters of the Lake.  There are some estimates that
approximately 40 percent of the pollutants in the effluent
remain in the Outer Harbor and EPA and DNR believe this is
preferable to transferring these materials to the high
quality areas of the Lake.

1.3.3  Lakefills

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has raised objections to
the proposed Lake Michigan lakefills.  Their concerns focus
on the adverse impacts lakefills would have on spawning
habitats in the near-shore areas of Lake Michigan.  While
this is a legitimate concern, the value of the affected areas
must be weighed against the improved water quality resulting
from the proposed project.
                                1-26

-------
In the case of Jones Island, any lakefill recommended would
replace a relatively unproductive area of Lake Michigan.
There is, however, some concern regarding the lakefill's
impact on navigation and operability of Slip Number 1 of the
Milwaukee Harbor Commission.  A recent wave analysis prepared
by MMSD has demonstrated that the 5.7 acre lakefill could
increase the wave energy input into Slip Number 1 by 56 to
60% over that entering under the existing configuration.
However, the wave reflection and surging in Slip Number 1
could be mitigated for both the existing and proposed shore
line configuration.  The MMSD recommends, and the EPA and
DNR concur, that a sophisticated mathematical model study or
a hydraulic model study, or both, should be undertaken to
refine the results in the preliminary report.  The models
should also evaluate the efficiencies of mitigation alter-
natives .

For the South Shore facility, the EPA and DNR concern for
the aquatic habitat is greater, since the proposed fill is
in the open water of Lake Michigan.  In addition, many
residents of South Milwaukee are concerned about potential
operational impacts of the South Shore facility which has
caused odor problems in the past.  However, it is EPA's
conclusion that the loss of approximately 400 feet of Lake
Michigan shoreline is reasonable considering the potential
water quality improvements that will result from an upgraded
South Shore Facility.  Although it would be technically
feasible to expand the South Shore facility without using
lakefill area, the resulting operational and reliability
factors introduced by such an alternative make the lakefill
alternative preferable from an environmental perspective.

1.3.4  Fiscal/Economic Impacts

Another significant issue raised in comments on the Draft
EIS concerned the ability of the Milwaukee economy to finance
a program as costly as that proposed.  While the Final EIS
presents an analysis of the fiscal impacts under varying
assumptions, the actual implementability of the plan will
hinge on the ability to finance it.

One aspect of the plan which could be affected in scope and
cost through additional analyses is the CSO element.  The
water quality impact studies which are required to establish
minimally acceptable water quality standards under the pro-
visions of the Clean Water Act require an analysis considering
environmental, technical, and economic impacts of attaining
water quality standards.  This analysis should be initiated
as soon as possible.
                              1-27

-------
The limitations of State funds and decreasing Federal con-
struction grant funds will result in a financial impact on
the Milwaukee area.  The EPA will continue to assist the DNR
and MMSD in evaluating funding options to the extent possible.

1.4  EPA PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

1.4.1  CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

While considerable analyses have been completed concerning
CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation, the complexity of
the system, difficulty in quantifying water quality impacts,
and changing assumptions such as the level of I/I removal
have made this the most difficult plan element to evaluate.

Based upon information available at this time, the EPA re-
commends the Modified Total Storage system to abate CSO and
attenuate peak flows from the separated sewer area.  The
level of protection provided by the Modified Total Storage
system could range from two to five years, to meet applicable
water quality standards.  The aspects of the Modified Total
Storage System providing a 2-year level of protection are
outlined below:

     Complete Separation in 11% of the CSSA with no private
     property work.

     No sewer separation in the remaining portion of the
     CSSA.

     68% of the CSSA tributary to 20-foot diameter tunnels
     and offline cavern storage at County Stadium and'Jones
     Island.

     21% of the CSSA tributary to near surface storage.

The aspects of the Modified Total Storage system providing a
5-year level of protection are outlined below:

     Complete separation in 11% of the CSSA with no private
     property work.

     No sewer separation in the remaining portion of the
     CSSA.

     88% of the CSSA tributary to 20-foot diameter tunnels
     and offline cavern storage at County Stadium and Jones
     Island.

•    1% of the CSSA tributary to near surface storage.

                              1-28

-------
The total storage volumes necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards range from 1,400 acre-feet Cfor the two-
year level of protection) to 2,550 acre-feet (for the
five-year level of protection),  assuming a 13% I/I removal
rate by implementation of SSES recommendations.

The volume of offline cavern storage is affected by several
factors and cannot be finalized until the MMSD, EPA and DNR
resolve issues including the actual storage requirements
resulting from greater I/I flows, the specific level of
protection necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards, and the specific sequencing of flow through the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTP.

Although EPA has an estimate of the level of protection ne-
cessary to meet existing water quality standards, it is
recommended that additional water quality analysis be con-
ducted to definitively establish the minimum level of CSO
control required to meet the provisions of the Clean Water
Act.  This analysis would evaluate the environmental, technical,
and economic impacts of attaining water quality standards.  The
analysis should use dynamic modeling techniques to address the
effects of all point and non-poing pollutant loadings, as
well as sediment oxygen demand.

The Modified Total Storage Alternative with a 2 to 5 year
level of protection for CSO is assumed to meet applicable
water quality standards but will not meet the more stringent
requirements of the U.S. District Court Order to convey,
store, and treat the storm of record for the past forty
years.  Therefore, EPA's Preferred Alternative to meet
minimum water quality standards will not be implemented if
the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the U.S. District Court Order.
The U.S. District Court Order alternative for CSO Abatement
and Peak Flow Attenuation would be a more costly, larger
scale alternative than an alternative to meet water quality
standards.

The differences between the alternatives to meet the U.S.
District Court Order and applicable water quality standards
are independent of I/I removal levels.  EPA and DNR have
decided not to quantify the costs or storage volume required
for U.S. District Court decision due to uncertain reliability
of some of the more crucial estimating assumptions.

Because of the large quantities of rock and overburden that
would result from the construction of the alternative for
CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation, the EPA recommends
that the MMSD continue facilities planning to develop an
environmentally sound, cost-effective method for spoil dis-
posal .  This planning output must be submitted to the EPA
and DNR for approval prior to the start of construction.

                              1-29

-------
1.4.2  Wastewater Treatment

The EPA concurs with MMSD Recommended Plan for wastewater
treatment because the total present worth of the Local
Alternative is $50 million more than the MMSD Recommended
Plan.  In addition, the MMSD Recommended Plan would use
slightly less energy and resources and its annual operation
and maintenance costs would be lower than other alternatives
under consideration.

The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would serve the
entire planning area except for South Milwaukee which would
operate its own facility.  All other public WWTPs would be
abandoned.  The two private wastewater treatment plants,
School Sisters of Notre Dame and Wisconsin Electric Power
Company should also continue operations, and the Muskego
Rendering Company should operate its private facility for
pretreatment of effluent before discharge to the local sewer
system.

The EPA also concurs with the MMSD Recommended Plan with
respect to liquids and solids treatment processes at the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs.  However, the MMSD
recommendation for a 9.5 acre lakefill at the Jones Island
WWTP and enclosing 30 acres and filling 12 acres at the
South Shore WWTP are considered excessive by the EPA.  EPA
recommends limiting the Jones Island WWTP lakefill to 5.7
acres and the South Shore WWTP lakefill to 12 acres.  The
smaller lakefills would allow WWTP expansion to proceed
without any major construction difficulties.

The EPA agrees with the MMSD recommendation to disinfect the
final effluent from the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs
with chlorine gas.  The MMSD's discharge permits require a
chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/1 in the final effluent.  The
MMSD recommends dechlorination with sulfur dioxide to achieve
this effluent limit.  However, the EPA recommends that de-
chlorination be used to reduce residual chlorine to at least
0.05 mg/1 without causing excessive sulfur dioxide overdosing.
Adequate system controls such as feed control should be used
to minimize sulfur dioxide overdose and avoid the resultant
unnecessary oxygen demand in the final effluent.  This level
of residual chlorine would also minimize the toxic effect of
combined and free chlorine, while continuing to provide
adequate pathogen removal.
                              1-30

-------
EPA also recommends that the MMSD evaluate alternatives for
ammonia-nitrogen control at the Jones Island WWTP and im-
plement the most cost-effective alternative.  Ammonia-
nitrogen control is necessary due to the EPA's and DNR's
interpretation of the effluent mixing zone and the existing
DNR standard for un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen of 0.04 mg/1
for the Outer Harbor.

1.4.3  Solids Handling

The EPA is basically in agreement with MMSD's recommendations
to landfill Jones Island sludge and to apply sludge from
South Shore to agricultural land.  The concern about toxic
substances and heavy metals and their potential effects on
area farmland is valid, but the controls proposed by MMSD
should be sufficient to avoid any adverse effects.  It is
important that MMSD rigorously implement its pretreatment
program to minimize all toxic discharges to its system.  If
the pretreatment program is successful, reduced levels of
toxic substances and heavy metals may, in the future, allow
land application of Jones Island sludge.

1.4.4  Wastewater Conveyance

EPA is in agreement with MMSD's Recommended Plan for con-
struction of intercepting and relief sewers.  There are
several cases however that are somewhat controversial,
and one case where EPA cannot make a definite recommendation
at this time.

EPA concurs with the MMSD that the Menomonee Falls-Germantown,
Hales Corners and Oak Creek Interceptors should be constructed,
but mitigating measures of institutional controls to limit
development should be implemented through staging or with
planned development in each sewer service areas.  The South-
eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission  CSEWRPC) and
the local governments will need to work closely to prevent
scattered development not in conformance with the Regional
Land Use Plan.  EPA also concurs with the MMSD that the
Northeast Side Relief System, Underwood Creek, Root River
and Franklin-Muskego Interceptors should be constructed.

The Franklin Northeast Interceptor was also recommended in
the 208 Plan, but MMSD, at least initially, found it to be
more cost-effective to upgrade several pump stations.  They
later changed their recommendation after strong opposition
at public hearings.  EPA believes that additional information
is necessary concerning the existing on-site systems in
the area and the ability to serve additional development on
such systems.  The 208 Plan conclusion was based primarily
on the fact that the soils in the area are classified by the
Soil Conversation Service as severely limiting.  While this

                              1-31

-------
factor must be taken into consideration it alone cannot
serve as the basis for supporting an interceptor recommen-
dation.  Until further information is available, the EPA and
DNR will be precluded from approving this portion of the
facilities plan.

1.4.5  Costs

The total system costs for EPA's Preferred Alternative assum-
ing a 13% cost-effective I/I removal rate will range from
$1.47 billion for a 2-year level of protection for CSO to
$1.64 billion for a 5-year level of protection for CSO.  The
total system cost for U.S. District Court alternative would
be higher because more storage is required for a greater
level of protection.

1.5  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The environmental impacts of EPA's Preferred Alternative
are very similar to the MMSD's Recommended Alternative.
Section 1.2.2 describes the environmental impacts for all
alternatives considered by the EIS including the MMSD Re-
commended Plan.  Outlined below are the environmental impacts
of EPA's Preferred Alternative which were not addressed in
Section 1.2.2.

1.5.1  CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

The Modified Storage Alternative with a 2 to 5 year level of
protection for CSO would have the same environmental impacts
which are outlined in Section 1.2.2.3.  However, EPA's Preferred
Alternative would overflow to the receiving streams on the
average once every two to five years.  These overflows would
disturb the highly polluted sediments, re-introducing these
pollutants into the waterways.  Levels of dissolved oxygen
would be temporarily diminished as this organic matter de-
composed .

1.5.2  Wastewater Treatment

EPA's Preferred Alternative is identical to the MMSD's alter-
native except for the size of the proposed lakefills at both
WWTPs.  The South Shore WWTP lakefill preferred by EPA would
enclose and fill only 12 acres compared to the MMSD alternative
of enclosing 30 acres and filling 12 acres.  EPA's Preferred
Alternative would utilize approximately 400 ft. of Lake
Michigan shoreline rather than 1000 feet.

The loss of 400 ft. is reasonable considering the potential
water quality improvement that would result from the upgraded
South Shore WWTP.  The EPA also recommends limiting the Jones
Island lakefill to 5.7 acre rather than the 9.5 acre as re-


                               1-32

-------
commended by the MMSD.  The limited lakefill would reduce the
amount of aquatic habitat being permanently removed from the
Outer Harbor by almost 50%.

1.5.3  Solids Handling

The environmental impacts of EPA's preferred solids handling
alternative would be identical to those of the MMSD Recommended
Plan, since EPA has also recommended landfilling of all solids
from the Jones Island WWTP and agricultural application of
solids from the South Shore WWTP.  The environmental impacts
are discussed in Section 1.2.2.5.

1.5.4  Wastewater Conveyance

The construction of interceptors would directly affect the
natural environment of the MMSD planning.  In addition, these in-
terceptors  would have a minimal secondary growth impacts
in some areas.  These impacts are outlined in Section 1.2.2.6.

1.6  SUMMARY

This Executive Summary only briefly outlines the EPA and MMSD
Preferred Alternatives for water pollution abatement and the
effects of these alternatives on the environment of the
planning area. The Chapters 2 through 5 of the EIS describe
in more detail the legislation guiding the MFP, the development
of alternatives, the environment of the MMSD planning area,
and the environmental impacts of the alternatives. In addition,
the appendices to this document provide technical information
about the component projects of the MFP.
                              1-33

-------
    CHAPTER 2




PURPOSE AND NEED

-------
Chapter  2
PURPOSE  AND NEED FOR THE MASTER FACILITY PLAN
As the City of Milwaukee expanded and industrialized, the quality
of surface waters in the region declined.  Even today, untreated
sewage is discharged into these waters on occasion.  Public con-
cern about water pollution in the Milwaukee area has increased
greatly over the past three decades, and in the 1950s, the city
began to evaluate its sewage collection and disposal methods.  In
addition, recent Federal and State legislation and legal proceedings
have established timetables and standards that Milwaukee must meet
with a comprehensive sewerage program.  The Milwaukee Water Pol-
lution Abatement Program (MWPAP) was initiated for that purpose.

2.1  BACKGROUND

Milwaukee was founded as a trading post on Lake Michigan in 1795.
 From the City's beginning, the lake was its focal point, serving
as means of transportation and supply of food and water.  In the
nineteenth century, with the arrival of the railroad, the City had
a period of tremendous growth and change.  The population quadrupled
between 1850 and 1880, and industry became increasingly important
to the local economy.  The rapid growth and industrialization
brought with them pollution, health, and transportation problems
previously unknown.  At this time, there was no public system for
disposal of domestic and industrial waste and often the wastewater
was merely deposited in the nearest body of water.

By the 1860s the leaders of Milwaukee were aware of a decline in
the quality of their rivers caused by this method of sewage disposal,
A well-known engineer, E.S. Chesborough, was hired to design the
City's sewer system.  Using the best technical knowledge of his
day, Chesborough designed a system to collect domestic sewage and
storm water and direct the flows away from the smaller watercourses
to City's major rivers.  This "combined" sewer system was construct-
ed over the next fifty years.

Although these sewers alleviated pollution problems in smaller
streams, untreated sewage was still being discharged to the
Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers, and ultimately to
Lake Michigan.  As the population continued to grow, the quality
of these rivers declined.  Odor problems became severe, particularly
during warm weather.  To reduce these problems, two flushing
tunnels were built from Lake Michigan; first to the Milwaukee
River and later the Kinnickinnic River.  Water was pumped from the
Lake through the tunnels into the lower reaches of the rivers to
flush pollution out of the rivers and into the Lake. The flushing
tunnels lessened the rivers' odor and nuisance problems, but did
little to alleviate their continued pollution.
                                2-1

-------
By the end of the nineteenth century, it was recognized that the
presence of untreated sewage in surface waters posed a hazard
to public health.  In 1911, an Ad Hoc Committee report, "The
Disposal of Sewage and Protection of the Water Supply of the City
of Milwaukee," found that the flushing tunnels provided temporary
relief from offensive conditions but that the public health hazards
associated with Milwaukee's sewage disposal remained.

In 1913, the Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee was
formed to deal with the worsening problems caused by sewage dis-
posal.  This Sewerage Commission began pilot testing new sewage
treatment processes in 1918 and, after study, the first full-scale
activated sludge wastewater treatment plant in the country was
built at Jones Island.  The plant began operation in 1925 and the
facilities were expanded over the course of the next 30 years.

The Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee
was formed in 1921 to have similar responsibility for the rest of
Milwaukee County and additional areas within the County's general
drainage basin.  The County Commission redefined its ultimate
service area in 1933.  At that time, area limits were set to the
south at the Milwaukee-Racine County line, to the north at the
north line of Township 9 in Ozaukee County, and to the west close
to the subcontinental divide which separates the Fox River watershed
(which flows to the Mississippi River) from the Lake Michigan
drainage basin.  All planning after this date has been based on
this description.  The current jurisdictional boundaries are shown
in Figure 1-1.  They are similar to the limits suggested in 1933.

Over the next twenty years, these sewerage facilities were expanded.
In 1951, both Sewerage Commissions initiated a joint study to
develop a strategy for future sewerage facilities.  The "Master
Plan" (area-wide plan) was formally adopted by the Sewerage
Commissions in November, 1959.

This plan recommended that the soundest approach to providing
area-wide sewer service was to construct a new wastewater treat-
ment facility and expand the intercepting sewer system.  As a
result, the South Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant was designed,
and construction was completed in 1968.  Additional interceptors
were constructed to convey wastewater to the new facility.

In 1960, the Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee and the
Metropolitan Sewerage Commission for the County of Milwaukee
combined to form the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
which exists today.  The MMSD serves 18 of the 19 communities in
Milwaukee County:  Bayside, Brown Deer, Cudahy, Fox Point,
Franklin, Glendale, Greendale, Greenfield, Hales Corners, Milwau-
kee, Oak Creek, River Hills, St. Francis, Shorewood, Wauwatosa,
West Allis, West Milwaukee, and Whitefish Bay.  Also, the MMSD is
                                2-2

-------
empowered to deal with any city, town, village, sanitary district,
or metropolitan sewerage district within the planning area
(shown in Figure 1-1), including all or portions of the following
communities:  Brookfield, Butler, the Caddy Vista subdivision
in the town of Caledonia, Elm Grove, Germantown, Menomonee Falls,
Mequon, Muskego, New Berlin, South Milwaukee (the only community
in Milwaukee County that is not part of the MMSD), and Thiensville,

In 1974, in accordance with federal legislation, the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) requested that
the Governor of Wisconsin designate the Southeastern Wisconsin
Region as a water quality management planning area, and name their
commission as the 208 planning agency.  After a public hearing,
the Governor granted that request which gave SEWRPC the primary
responsibility for water quality planning in the Milwaukee area
and the rest of the seven county area of Southeastern Wisconsin.
 In June, 1979 SEWRPC published their Regional Water quality
Planning Report (208 Plan).  This plan has been subsequently ap-
proved by DNR, the Governor of Wisconsin, and EPA.

As part of their planning effort, SEWRPC initially published Plan-
ning Report Number 16, "A Regional Sanitary Sewerage System Plan
for Southeastern Wisconsin", in 1974.  This report and the new
Federal and State legislation prompted the MMSD to further study
Milwaukee's Sewerage Facilities.

Today, the two MMSD wastewater treatment plants have been upgraded.
Also, numerous independent facilities have been constructed.
However, the pollution problems from sewage disposal have not
disappeared.  Milwaukee's sewerage facilities have been built over
a seventy year time-span, and some of the techniques that were
innovative at the time of their construction are now outdated.

Portions of the MMSD service area are presently served by both
combined and separated sewers.  The combined sewers are located
in the older sections of Milwaukee and portions of Shorewood.
They serve twenty-three square miles (59.6 km ), about 6.5% of
the planning area.  These sewers, many of which are more than 70
years old, were built to carry both domestic wastewater and storm
runoff.  During wet weather, flows to these sewers increase
tremendously.  To prevent sewage backups, the sewers were designed
to discharge excess sewage and storm water directly to the
Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers which carry the
overflow to Lake Michigan.   These discharges are referred to as
combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

Other parts of the planning area are served by separated sewers.
These sewers were designed to convey only sanitary flow.  However,
during wet weather, excess groundwater and runoff (clear water),
known as infiltration and inflow (I/I), enter the system through
cracks, manholes and roof drains.  This I/I can increase the flow


                               2-3

-------
beyond the sewer's capacity, causing sewage to backup into base-
ments. To prevent the severe health hazards associated with
these backups, separated sanitary sewers are also equipped to
bypass excess flows to the rivers.

Overloading can also occur at the wastewater treatment plants.
There are times when the amount of wastewater carried to a treat-
ment plant exceeds the facility's capacity.  At these times, the
excess wastewater is inadequately treated or may bypass treatment
altogether and be discharged directly into the Lake, Milwaukee
Harbor, or a nearby river.

2.2 LEGISLATION AND COURT ACTIONS

The public's concern about the quality of their environment has
grown tremendously over the past decade.  With this increased con-
cern have come stricter Federal and State legislation and a new
awareness of the importance of evaluating existing techniques for
waste disposal.  In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) which recognizes each person's right to a health-
ful environment and directs the Federal Government to "promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment
and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man."  NEPA
requires that all federal agencies use a systematic, interdisci-
plinary approach for planning and decision-making.  An environ-
mental impact statement  (EIS) is required for all federally
funded actions that could significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.

The State of Wisconsin created the Wisconsin Environmental Policy
Act (WEPA) in 1972.  Patterned after NEPA, WEPA sets a policy
which encourages "productive and enjoyable harmony between man
and his environment."  It also states requirements for integrated
planning and the preparation of environmental impact statements.
The Wisconsin Administrative Code sets effluent limitations and
design specifications for waste treatment and conveyance facilities.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
 (Public Law 92-500) sets national water quality goals of restoring
and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters.  Section 201 of this Act establishes a
three step funding procedure to encourage the construction of new
wastewater treatment plants.  Step one of the program provides
funding for the planning of wastewater treatment systems, called
"facilities planning."  The second step provides funding for the
actual design of the facilities, and the third step subsidizes
their construction. Regional water quality planning is required
by Section 208 of this Act, and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System  (NPDES) is established in Section 402, requiring
a permit for the discharge of any pollutant to surface or ground-
water.  The Wisconsin DNR has been authorized to administer this
program by issuing Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System  (WPDES) permits.

                               2-4

-------
The Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) amends Public Law 92-500.
It encourages the use of energy conservation measures and provides
for more federal funding of facilities planned, designed or
constructed for water pollution control.

Other federal legislation regulations and executive orders also
have affected water quality planning in Milwaukee.  Executive
Orders 11990 and 11988 establish a federal policy of avoiding ad-
verse impacts on wetlands and floodplains.  The Endangered Species
Act of 1973; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966;
Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment"; the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; and many other
federal requirements influence planning in the Region.

At the same time, two legal events raised questions about the
adequacy of the City of Milwaukee's sewerage facilities. In
December 1974, a WPDES permit issued to the MMSD by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) required that secondary
treatment standards be met at the Jones Island Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant by January 1, 1975.  The MMSD challenged these require-
ments in the Dane County Circuit Court, arguing that the deadline
set by federal legislation for secondary treatment standards was
July 1, 1977.

The case resulted in a stipulation, between the parties that were
entered as a judgment in the Dane County Circuit Court on May 25,
1977, which sets forth a pollution abatement program which the
Sewerage Commission of the City and County of Milwaukee must under-
take to meet DNR and Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) stan-
dards.  The court stipulation (see Appendix I) set deadlines for
the completion of treatment plant improvement and rehabilitation,
relief sewer construction, interceptor construction, and the
abatement of combined sewer overflows  (CSOs).  Compliance with
secondary treatment standards for treatment plants during dry
weather and completion of a Total Solids Management Program are
required by July 1, 1982.

Secondly, in a Federal lawsuit filed in 1971, the States of Illinois
and Michigan alleged that wastewater discharged by the City of
Milwaukee and the MMSD into Lake Michigan endangered the health of
their citizens and caused accelerated eutrophication of the Lake.
An initial application for resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court
was denied in April 1972, and the case was assigned to the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
In a verbal opinion issued on July 29, 1977, Judge John F. Grady
ruled that Milwaukee must eliminate its combined sewer overflow
problem and meet wastewater treatment standards more stringent
than the secondary treatment limitations imposed by federal legis-
lation.  A stipulation between the parties that was entered as a
judgment on November 15, 1977, sets requirements and deadlines for
a program for the abatement of pollution in the Milwaukee area.
(Appendix 1) .


                               2-5

-------
On April 26, 1979, the Federal Court of Appeals in Chicago partly
reversed the District Court ruling.  The Court of Appeals rejected
the stringent effluent limitations, substituting the EPA and DNR
effluent standards, but it reaffirmed the District Court's
stipulation and that all overflows and bypasses must be eliminated.
Since that partial reversal of the U.S. District Court's decision,
the MMSD has continued to petition the Supreme Court, in appeal
of the original District Court Decision and the Federal Appeals
Court ruling. On March 17, 1980, the Supreme Court agreed to hear
the MMSD's case.  This hearing is now pending and the proceedings
could take at least one year.

2.3    WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM

The Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP) was the
result of the outlined legislation and legal actions. With grant
assistance  (provided through Section 201 of PL 92-500)  from the
United States EPA and the Wisconsin DNR, the MMSD has prepared a
"facilities plan" which is intended to determine the most cost
effective and environmentally compatible methods for the conveyance,
treatment, and disposal of sewage within their contract area.

The goal of the MWPAP is to end discharges of inadequately treated
wastewater to the waters of the planning area in accordance with
the Dane County Circuit and Federal District Court Orders.  Also,
the sewerage facilities must meet the federal and state effluent
limitations and water quality standards.  These actions, in the
context of the SEWRPC Regional Water Quality Plan, seek to bring
the Region's water quality closer to the national goal of fishable
and swimmable waters by 1983.   To achieve these goals,  the MWPAP
has the objective of maximizing water quality in the Menomonee,
Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers and Lake Michigan, while
minimizing environmental and monetary costs.

The protection and enhancement of air quality is the national
objective of the amended Clean Air Act.  Another concern of the
MWPAP project is compliance with the Clean Air Act through confor-
mance with the State Air Quality Implementation Plan.

Other objectives of this project are conformance with the SEWRPC
year 2000 recommended land use, sanitary sewerage, transportation,
water quality, and park and open space plans. The policies which
are the basis for the general SEWRPC land use plan are planned
contiguous urban development at medium density, and preservation
of prime agricultural lands and of areas designated as environmental
corridors.

The MMSD Master Facilities Plan has five components:   (1) Sewer
System Evaluation Survey,  (2)  intercepting sewers for relief and
extension of the MMSD service area,  (3) treatment plant rehabili-
tation,  (4) a solids management program and  (5) abatement of
combined sewer overflows.


                               2-6

-------
1.     Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) for the sewer systems
       owned by each of the communities in the MMSD service area
       will require approximately three years (1978-1981) because
       of the size of the collection system.  Ongoing rehabilita-
       tion of the locally owned systems to eliminate excessive
       flow will last up to five additional years  (1982-1986).
       This program is currently underway and will locate sources
       of infiltration and inflow.  Corrective action recommended
       by the SSES would result in a reduction of flow to the
       sewage treatment plants.  It has been indicated in previous
       studies that these flow reductions will ensure reserve
       capacity during the design period (1985-2005) and avoid the
       more costly alternative of major treatment plant expansion.

2.     Intercepting Sewer Program was originally conceived in 1973
       to expand the MMSD's sewer service area.   This plan, which
       recommends the construction of fourteen new interceptors,
       was used by SEWRPC in the development of their Regional
       Sanitary Sewerage System Plan.  As part of the MWPAP program,
       the MMSD has studied the need for these proposed interceptors
       at this time and the impacts of their construction on the
       natural and manmade environments.

3.     Rehabilitation and Expansion of the Two Existing
       Wastewater Treatment Plants is a program to study and
       implement methods to improve the operation of the Jones
       Island and South Shore WWTPs, including immediate measures
       to expand the facilities for the handling and disposal of
       solids removed from the wastewater.   This rehabilitation
       and expansion must produce a high quality effluent, eliminate
       effluent violations and help to make the area's waters
       suitable for their designated purposes.

4 .     Solids Management Program goes beyond the short-term solids
       disposal practices presently being implemented by the MMSD.
       A long-term solids handling approach must be developed for
       the entire service area.  This EIS addresses the solids
       handling at the treatment plant sites.  The ultimate dis-
       posal site analysis will be given in a supplement to this
       EIS.

5.     CSO Program was required by the Dane County and Federal
       District Court Orders.  The purpose  of the program is to
       determine the most effective, most environmentally compat-
       ible , and least costly method for modifying Milwaukee's
       combined sewer system to abate CSO.

2.4  PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The EPA performed a preliminary review of the MMSD facilities
planning studies, and determined that there was  a possibility


                               2-7

-------
of significant environmental impacts as a result of the MWPAP.
Notices of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
were published on February 19, 1976 and April 18, 1977.  They
were amended by supplemental Notices of Intent on October 21, 1977,
February 8, 1978, and March 23, 1978 (Appendix I).

The Notices of Intent outlined the proposed interceptors and
identified the potential significant environmental impacts associ-
ated with the project.  They include impacts related to the loca-
tion, construction, operation and maintenance of wastewater treat-
ment and conveyance facilities in the planning area, the Total
Solids Management Program, the abatement of CSOs, and certain
interceptor programs.  Table 2.1 summarizes the issues identified
in the Notices of Intent and amendments.

Some interceptors identified in the original Notices of Intent
subsequently received a Finding of No Significant Impact (formerly
Negative Declaration).  A Finding of No Significant Impact presents
the reasons why an action would not have a significant effect on
the human environment and indicates that an environmental impact
statement will not be prepared.  Table 3.14 shows the status in
terms of an EIS or negative declaration of each interceptor and
its tributary area.

On March 9, 1979, facilities planning for four of these interceptors
was halted based on the determination by the MMSD that there was
no demand for the proposed interceptors during the planning period
(1985-2005).  The analysis of the alignments and tributary areas
for the Oak Creek south of Ryan Road, Ryan Creek, Oak Creek South-
west and Caddy Vista interceptors are, therefore, not included  in
this EIS.

Although the Caddy Vista Interceptor was eliminated from the MWPAP,
the existing Caddy Vista WWTP, which serves a subdivision in the
town of Caledonia in Racine County, was included in the Master
Facilities Plan.  This facility is in poor condition and numerous
bypasses of untreated wastewater occur in the Caddy Vista sewer
system.  Because of the condition of the WWTP, and based upon the
request of the Caddy Vista Sanitary District, the EPA and DNR
evaluated the impacts of connecting the wastewater from the sub-
division to the MIS by a force main.  On September 10, 1980, based
on the Facilities Plan and on the Environmental Assessment for  the
force main project proposed by the Caddy Vista Sanitary District,
this connection was given a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Since the Caddy Vista WWTP is considered in the MWPAP, it is also
considered in this EIS.

This EIS was prepared simultaneously with the MWPAP planning pro-
cess.  It describes the alternatives considered by the MWPAP for
reaching the objectives of State and Federal legislation and
                               2-8

-------
                              TABLE 2.1

                      ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE
                        EIS NOTICES OF INTENT
 Combined Sewer Overflows Alternatives;

"•   Potential impacts on groundwater quality;
 •   The primary and secondary impacts of rock disposal;
 •   Disposal of solids that will be captured by the system;
 •   Cost-effectiveness of wastewater treatment as it may
    be affected by the implementation of the recommended
    alternatives;
 •   Impacts on the achievement of water  quality standards;
 •   Impacts from construction of the recommended alternative;
 •   Resource impacts resulting from implementation, including
    financial,  labor market and energy resources."
 Interceptors:

 •   Impacts on  hydraulic capacities of conveyance facilities,
    pollutant loads to WWTPs,  handling and disposal  of  sludge;
 •   Their effect on the ability of WWTPs in the planning  area
    to meet WPDES standards and improvement to area-wide  water
    quality;
 •   The relationship between the sizing, phasing and  alignment of
    interceptors and future population estimates;
 •   Any potential of the interceptors  construction to accelerate
    or induce growth in their tributary areas;
 •   Direct environmental impacts from  interceptor construction;
 •   Impacts on  financial,  construction and energy resources.
 Solids  Management

 Four  possible alternatives  were  developed for  solids  handling:
 incineration,  landfill,  land  application and various  combinations.
 Concerns  were identified for  each type.

 Incineration

    •  Air quality impacts;
    •  Availability of  facilities and  their capacities;
    •  Impacts of  developing a new site on land use, public
      health and  groundwater,  construction impacts, effects
      of  the operation of a new  site, and its  socio-political
      implications.
 Land Application

    •  Energy requirements;
    •  Impacts on air quality (including odor and possible
       pathogens) ,-
    •  Monitoring and controlling surface water runoff.
  Quoted from EPA, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental
  Impact Statement, 18 April, 1977.
                        2-9

-------
legal proceedings, and the effects that the most feasible of
those alternatives would have on the natural and man-made environ-
ments in the Milwaukee area.  This section of the EIS will explore
why Milwaukee's sewerage system needs upgrading and will outline
the environmental, technical, legislative and legal issues that
must be addressed by such a plan.

In addition to the EPA and DNR, other government agencies were
involved in the preparation of this EIS.  Because some of the plans
under consideration might require filling in a portion of Lake
Michigan, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be
satisfied by the analysis of environmental issues included in
this EIS.  Also, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade,
and Consumer Protection  (DATCP) is involved because the application
of treatment plant sludge to agricultural land is under considera-
tion.  The EIS Study Team has coordinated their efforts with these
agencies to assure that the EIS responds to their concerns.

2.5    SUMMARY

The existing sewerage facilities in the MMSD planning area were
constructed over the course of this century.  Some of these faci-
lities employ outdated techniques, others are too small or in need
of repair.  As a result, raw or inadequately treated sewage is
periodically discharged to surface waters in the planning area,
creating the risk of health hazards and impairing water quality.

As the public concern for environmental quality has grown, new
Federal and State legislation has been enacted to improve national
water quality.  In response to this public concern, legislation,
and recent court stipulations, the MMSD has initiated a program
to develop a strategy for the disposal of sanitary waste within
its planning area.

This EIS has been prepared concurrently with the facilities plan-
ning, conducted by MMSD.  Preparation included auditing of the
methods and results documented in the Master Facilities Plan and
conducting independent analyses when necessary. This EIS considers
the collective impacts of the complete wastewater conveyance and
treatment system.  The separate programs are integrated into one
facilities plan which should define a cost-effective, environmen-
tally sound solution to Milwaukee's wastewater treatment problem.
The proposed action must eliminate discharge of untreated waste
into the surface waters and allow adequate capacity for the in-
creasing population and economic growth of the area.  This EIS
investigates the beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed
action, the committments of resources necessary to implement the
action, and how the action will affect the short-term and long-
term use and productivity of the environment.
                                2-10

-------
  CHAPTER 3




ALTERNATIVES

-------
3.0 INTRODUCTION

The Master Facilities Plan  (MFP) includes the MMSD Recommended
Plan to abate the wastewater pollution problems experienced
in the MMSD planning area.  The MFP examines alternatives to
convey and treat wastewater flows from the planning area
through the year 2005 based on the recommendations of the
regional water quality management plan (208 Plan) prepared
by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC).  The legislation and court orders discussed in Chapter 2
and the facilities planning requirements defined in Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and the Wisconsin Admini-
strative Code were the two other major considerations in the
development of the MFP.

The MFP developed and evaluated alternatives to comply with
the two court orders:  the U.S. District Court Order and the
Dane County Court Stipulation.  Both court orders require the
MMSD to:  1)   eliminate wet and dry weather bypassing from
the separated sewer area; 2)  control combined sewer overflow
(CSO)  from the combined sewer service area; 3)  undertake a
treatment plant and sewer improvement program; and 4)  develop
a wastewater solids management plan.  The specific require-
ments and schedules are presented in Chapter 1.

This chapter describes the development and evaluation
("screening") of alternatives to meet the requirements listed
above.  The following elements were considered in the development
of these alternatives.

1.  Wastewater treatment plants and processes.  This includes
    various combinations of the nine public and eight private
    wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) currently in service
    and new configurations of treatment facilities.

2.  Relief interceptor sewers for containment of flows for
    eliminating wet weather bypassing from both the separated
    sewer area and the combined sewer service area (CSSA).
    This element includes measures for abating CSO, such as
    complete sewer separation, partial sewer separation, and
    combinations of conveyance, storage,  and treatment.

3.  Expansion of interceptor sewers for extending sewer service
    in a manner consistent with the approved 208 Plan; both
    to eliminate existing problems and to serve planned growth.


Alternative development included the analysis of several
approaches to eliminating sewage-related pollution in the MMSD
planning area, including three possible strategies for organizing
the components of wastewater treatment systems to
                              3-1

-------
provide areawide wastewater treatment.  It also involved
the evaluation of the conditions of the existing facilities
and their ability to meet the requirements cited above
through the planning period.  The strategies, referred to as
system-levels, integrate reduction of wastewater quantities
in excess of the capacity of the system, conveyance arrange-
ments, and treatment facilities.

The Local System-Level Alternatives explore the viability of
treating wastewater flows at the locally-operated WWTPs.
These alternatives emphasize the rehabilitation and use of
the 17 existing treatment facilities in the planning area,
although new WWTPs were also considered.

Another approach to area-wide wastewater treatment would be
to divide the planning area into medium-sized sewer service
areas or subregions.  Three potential subregions were de-
lineated based on the existence, in the area, of a WWTP that
could be expanded and the existence of, or proposal for, an
interceptor sewer.

The Regional System-Level is the third possible strategy for
wastewater treatment in the planning area.  The entire area
could be served by one, two, or three large WWTPs.  All
other public and private facilities would be abandoned.

Two other types of alternatives were also developed and
evaluated.  The No Action Alternative was carried through
the entire environmental impact analysis as a control against
which all other alternatives would be compared.  Also,
alternatives were considered that combined aspects of two or
more of the systems levels; these were called Mosaic Alternatives,
(The MMSD Recommended Plan is a Mosaic Alternative.)
The components of the Local, Subregional, and Regional System-
Level Alternatives are shown on Table 3.1.  The alternatives
that were considered are described in greater detail in
section 3.5.

Water quality standards have been established by the DNR and
approved by EPA.  Wastewater discharge permits are issued
and enforced to attain these standards.  Any wastewater
treatment system must be adequate to meet the enforceable
requirements of the Clean Water Act and Chapter 147 of the
Wisconsin Statutes.  The EPA and DNR facilities planning
regulations were developed to assist municipalities in
meeting these requirements.  The applicable water quality
standards for waters of the MMSD planning area are listed in
Table 4.1.
                               3-2

-------









































rH
CO

,~
LrJ
CQ
•<

















































to
0 rH
jj 0)
^
C 0)
O r4
1 01
o e
U 01
4-*
in 01
C >i
0 en
••H
4J rH
O rH
< <







01
rl
01
rH j>
id oi
o ea

iJ C
0
01 -rl
rH -P
ja o
•rl 0)
in c
in c
O O
o< u


in
M
0
4->
a
01
o
IH
01
4J
C
H

a
en
S*
§

0)
rH
,Q
•H
OJ
a
o
&










01
a,

*2
^
0)
r-l
.Q
•H
in
in
O
a,
01
0)
j

m
S
0)
4->
in
en

4J
C
1)
S
01
id
C
id
S

in
•a
•H
O rH
en o
O en








M
01
3
01 rl
en oi
3
C 0)
•ri en
rH
M o
01 Cn
a 01
s>
3 m
01 3
Z S






14H
0)
•iH
rH
01
os
y
01 01
13 01
•rt M
en u

•P -a
en o
 -P
in c
C id
41 S
•rt M
f1 gj
EHO






rH
id
O
S






^
id
r>
O

01
OS

H
\
H












^1
0)
j
01
en
c
0
3

11

rH
C
0
e
rH
y
C
id
M
£1


o

01

in
3
rl S
01 1
> c
•H -rt
OS rH
.*:
4-> C
o id
O M
as fa














c
•rH
M O
0) fcn
m 01
^
3 01
0) 3
Z S
























































4J
4-1 in
in o)
id 3
0) .C .C J3
J3 4J 4J -P
4J rl 3 3
rl 0 O O
O z en en

y y ^ t]}
C 01 01 01 0)
•rH 0) 0) 01 M
rH M >H rt CJ
X U U U
c c
nj */* y y rtj
IH id id id >
fa O O O OS









01
01

3
id id
•P 3
01 rH
•rl 'rl
> S

NJ3
*O -P Q
"O 3 en
id O IS
U en S










.j
C
01
e
0)
g1^
c id
id >
S 0
6
01 01
•a os

O rH H
en o \
U en H
M IH
01 01
3 3
01 01
en en

01 C rl
rH -H 0) M
rH IH rH SO)
•rt 01 rl 01 3
> 3 o) en ai
in oi CO M en
C en oi m
01 3 3 IH id
•rt C 0) 01 0 -P
si 3 Z en c in
EH O 1 id -rt
1 4J O O S >
C C Cn Cn
0 Id 0) 0) rH >i
3 6 .* .* id -a
CT IH 01 in CntJ
0) 0) 3 3 01 id
S O 2 S OS CJ






UH
01
•rt 4J
rH 4J 01
Oi in oi
K O id 3
X. en 0) .C JS .C
01 01 0) J3 -P 4-1 4J
rrjo) J^4J^lin33
•rtri ininOhOo
cncj sozoienen
rl 2 Z C X
^J IQ ^) 1 ^ ^ V ^ Q)
01O>CCO)OOIO)0)
id o -rt -rt -rt oi u oi 0) ri

J3rl XJ4U01UCJ
4-> 0) 4J C C 01 C
JHT3 0 Id Idr^trH^r^ Id
OCOri)Hidididid>-
c
o
4J
c
id
g
1
01 01 C
rH r-H -rt
i ^j ^
•rt -rt rl
> > 0)
in in m
c c
01 01 3
•rt -rt CO)
,e x; 3 z
EH EH 0 1
1 1 -P O
C C C C"
O O Id 0)
3 3 6.* Q
cr cr M 01 en
Oi 01 0) 3 S
ssuss

id
C
O
•rt
en
01

1
en •













0
en
u
^
0)
3
0)
en

0)
rH
rH
•rt
^
in
C
0)
•rt
J=
EH
C
0
3
CT
01







UH
01
-rt
rH
01


0)
T3
•rt
en

4J
01
id
0)
•C
4-1
rl
S



















Q
en
y
S



rH
id
c
0
•rt
01
os

4->
C
0)
e
01
Cn
Id rH
C id
id >
2 0
g
01 0)
•a os

rH M
o \
en u






IH
0)
H 3
01 01
3 en
0) IH
en 01 oi
>-i 3
c o ai
3 C en
O «
•P 2 0
C C7
Id rH 01
S id J^
rl en 01
01 01 3
U OS 2











O

01 01
01 J4
rl 01
U 3
rl 2
•a o) i
0 > C
O -rt -rt
3 OS rH
^) K/
01 -P C
TJ O ITJ
C O rl
D OS fa





























































id
4-1
in
•rt
>

>1
•o
•a
id
u














en
^4
0)
c
IH
0
u

01
01

id



















































rl
0)
3
0)
en

0)
0)
y
3
id
3
rH
•rt
2

x:
4-1
3
o
en









4J
in
id
0)
r;
4-1
M
O
Z

C
•rt
rH
^
C
id
IH
fa









































































§
O
4->
C

e

01
ej
i
en s:
rH 4J
rH 3
id o
fa en

V* f|l >^
OI 01 OI
01 C 01
MOM
u e u
o
.* ex
id a) id
O S 0















































































4J
01
01
S
j^
4J
3
0
en

.* 01
0) 01
0) M
M U
U
C
X id
id >i
O OS
































3-3

-------
Facilities plans must include an analysis of the alternative
treatment configurations which take into account the
infiltration/inflow in the existing system.  The facilities
plan must also include a cost-effectiveness analysis of the
alternatives which identifies the least expensive, most
environmentally sound alternative.  This analysis includes
determining the size of the treatment works needed to meet
projected future needs, evaluating alternative flow and
waste reduction methods, evaluating upgrading the existing
facilities to meet water quality standards over the planning
period, and determining the capability of proposed alternatives,
including treatment of CSO,to meet water quality standards
through the planning period.  Facilities plans must also
include an evaluation of the methods for ultimate disposal
of treated wastewater and sewage sludge.  The environmental
effects of proposed facilities, alternative and innovative
processes, energy requirements, and recreational opportunities
must also be considered in a facilities plan.

The 208 Plan establishes objectives for land use, sanitary
sewer service, water quality, and other considerations for
the region which includes the MMSD planning area.  The MMSD
considered the 208 recommendations when developing the MFP.

3.1  AVAILABLE WASTEWATER POLLUTION CONTROL APPROACHES

In order to better understand how the components of a waste-
water treatment system function to control wastewater
pollution problems, it is useful to consider the four basic
approaches that could be applied to manage wastewater in the
MMSD service area.  These basic approaches could be used,
either singly or in various combinations, to meet the re-
quirements outlined previously.

Wastewater can be controlled where it originates, the Source
Control approach.  Excessive wastewater flow can be managed
within the conveyance system, mainly by increasing the
conveyance capacity.  This approach is the Conveyance and
Storage Control method.  Pollution from wastewater discharges
can also be abated by End-of-Pipe Control measures, including
the various combinations of treatment plants and treatment
processes.  Another approach to water pollution control is
to increase the capacity of the receiving waters to assimilate
wastes.  This is the Instream Control approach.  All of
these approaches can be combined to restore and maintain
water quality.

The alternative systems discussed in this chapter are various
combinations of these approaches which have been assembled
to meet the requirements imposed by the court orders, the
Clean Water Act, and State legislation.


                              3-4

-------
3.1.1  Source Controls

Most of the sewage-related pollution of surface waters in
the MMSD planning area results from the periodic overloading
of sewerage facilities.  The bypassing of raw sewage from
conveyance facilities, operating difficulties and bypassing
of partially-treated sewage from WWTPs are usually related
to the quantity rather than the quality of sewage flows.
Pollution abatement projects which reduce the flow as well
as the strength of the wastes utilize the Source Control
approach.

3.1.1.1  Plow Reduction

There are both separated and combined sewers in the MMSD
planning area (see page 2-3).  Ideally, separated sewers
convey domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater only.
However, infiltration and inflow (I/I) (see page 2-4) can
enter the sanitary sewers from both intentional sources,
such as connections from roof drains and sump pumps, and
unintentional sources, such as surface runoff entering
through flooded manholes and groundwater entering through
cracked sewers.

This I/I greatly increases the flow in the sanitary sewers,
especially during wet weather periods, requiring larger
conveyance and treatment facilities.  Eliminating some
sources of I/I flows from the sewer system by repairing un-
intentional leaks and diverting intentional flows elsewhere
is  sometimes  less costly than treating the entire flow.
State and federal regulations require municipalities to
determine the cost-effective levels of I/I reduction.

In a combined sewer system, storm water runoff and wastewater
are contained in a single sewer, and drastic design changes
are required to remove runoff flows from the system.  These
changes include separating wastewater flows from surface
runoff or reducing the amount of runoff that enters the
combined sewers.

Sewer separation is one method of source control.  With this
alternative, a new sewer system would be constructed.  The
new system, in conjunction with existing combined sewers,
would be used to separate some or all of the storm water
from the sewage.  One method of sewer separation would be to
disconnect all stormwater drains from the sanitary sewers
(complete separation).  This alternative would require
modification of almost every building in the CSSA.  Another
method would involve disconnecting only those storm water
sources in the public right-of-way (partial separation).
The source control alternatives initially considered in the
MFP planning process are described below.


                               3-5

-------
1.   Complete separation, installing new sewers for conveying
     storm water.

2.   Complete separation, installing new sewers for conveying
     sanitary waste only.

3.   Partial separation, installing new sewers for conveying
     wastewater from private property, including sewage and
     water from roof and yard drains.

4.   Partial separation, connecting existing catch-basins to
     new storm sewers for conveying storm water from the
     streets.

5.   Low pressure sanitary system, installing new small-
     diameter sewers inside existing pipe for either complete
     or partial separation.

3.1.1.2  Control of Toxic Substances

Toxic substances in the wastewater orginate from both domestic
and industrial sources.  Domestic source contributions are
typically of very low concentration and difficult to regulate.
Industrial sources produce greater concentrations that are
relatively easier to regulate and treat.  Industries can
generally reduce the strength of their wastewater by changing
plant operation or by treating their wastes before discharging
them to the municipal sewer system.  Industries can also
disconnect from the municipal system and fully treat their
own wastes.  Industrial waste discharges into public sewers
are regulated by 40 CFR 403, EPA regulations on pretreatment.
The State of Wisconsin has proposed pretreatment regulations
which parallel the requirements of the federal program.

Generally, the pretreatment regulations prohibit industrial
wastes which would damage or threaten the operation of sewer
systems or WWTPs.  The regulations also require compliance
with categorical standards for particular industries by
three years from the issuance of the final rules.  Pre-
treatment standards have not yet been established for the 21
EPA industrial categories, so the MMSD's pretreatment program
has not been fully implemented'at this time.

3.1.2  Conveyance and Storage Controls

Water pollution due to bypassing from the separated sewer
area and CSO can be abated by modifying the sewer system, or
installing flow regulation devices and other components
which convey wastewater from the source to treatment plants.
This is the Conveyance and Storage Control approach.
                               3-6

-------
Bypassing occurs because the sewage flow exceeds the capacity
of wastewater conveyance and treatment systems.  If dry
weather bypassing occurs, it indicates that additional
system capacity is needed.  Wet weather bypassing occurs
sporadically and can be controlled by increasing the existing
conveyance capacity or optimizing the existing capacity by
detaining peak flows in storage facilities until capacity is
available to convey and treat the wastewater.  The two wet
weather approaches could also be combined.

The following types of storage facilities were considered by
the MMSD, either singly or in combinations:

     Existing interceptors
     Shallow pits
     Deep shafts
     Mined caverns
•    Oversized deep tunnels
•    Artificial offshore islands
     Floating concrete tanks
     Inflatable tanks
     Quarries

To convey the overflows to storage or treatment sites and to
convey normal wastewater flows to the appropriate WWTP, the
following alternatives were considered:

     Gravity pipelines
     Pressure pipelines
     Shallow softground tunnels
     Deep rock tunnels
     River conduits
    ^ Existing South Shore interceptor

3.1.3  End-of-Pipe Controls
End-of-pipe controls attempt to abate water pollution by
treating the wastewater to reduce pollutants to levels which
will not degrade the receiving waters below standards.
Wastewater can be treated in major facilities which treat
the entire quantity of the wastewater flows from the planning
area, or in smaller facilities which treat the wastewater
from a portion of the planning area.

One requirement of the MFP is to end dry and wet weather
bypassing from the wastewater conveyance systems and at
wastewater treatment facilities.  Either the WWTPs serving
the Milwaukee metropolitan area will have to be large enough
to treat the maximum year 2005 flows or the flow volumes
that exceed treatment capacity will have to be stored and


                               3-7

-------
treated later during low flow periods.  WWTPs would then be
designed to treat the average year 2005 flow.

The number, location, and treatment processes of WWTPs
needed to treat the flows from separated sewer areas and the
CSSA are addressed by the three Local, Subregional and
Regional System-Level Alternatives.

The treatment of CSO is addressed in the various out-of-basin
and in-basin alternatives.  The out-of-basin concept involves
collecting some or all CSO, conveying that wastewater to a
treatment plant, and discharging the treated wastewater to Lake
Michigan (outside the river basin).

The in-basin alternatives were developed using three strategies.
The first strategy would require the installation of treatment
facilities such as swirl concentrators or clarifiers at each
CSO outfall.  The second approach was satellite treatment;
new facilities would be constructed to treat CSO from several
outfalls.  The third type of alternative was local treatment
(which is different than Local System-Level Alternative).
New WWTPs would be constructed in the Milwaukee, Menomonee
and Kinnickinnic River basins to treat all the CSO in those
basins.  These treatment strategies and various treatment
method alternatives for controlling pollution from the CSSA
are outlined below:

                    TREATMENT FACILITIES

     Expansion of South Shore WWTP
     Expansion of Jones Island WWTP
     New WWTP to Treat CSO
     Secondary Treatment and Land Application
     Treatment Facility at Each Overflow
     Treatment Facility for Multiple Overflow Points
     Treatment Facility for Each River Basin

                    TREATMENT PROCESSES

     Screening
     Swirl Concentrator
     Disinfection
     Sedimentation without Chemicals
     Dissolved Air Flotation
     Microscreens
     Macroscreens
     Deep Bed Filters
     Activated Sludge Process
     Rotating Biological Contactors
     Physical-Chemical Treatment
                               3-8

-------
3.1.4  Instream Controls

Instreara controls provide another mechanism for meeting
water quality standards.  Generally, instream measures
increase the wasteload assimilation capacity of a lake or
stream or involve the location and design of an outfall
structure to take advantage of local variations in the
existing wasteload assimilation capacities.

To improve wasteload assimilation capacity, three alternatives
were considered:  dredging, flow augmentation, and aeration.
Dredging is the removal of bottom sediments which are rich
in oxygen-depleting matter and other pollutants.  Flow
augmentation is a method of increasing stream flow and
velocity to dilute pollutants and increase the stream's
assimilative capacity.  Aeration also increases the waste
assimilative capacity by injecting air into the water,
thereby providing adequate oxygen for the natural biological
assimilation of the waste without creating odorous anaerobic
conditions.  To take advantage of variations in local waste-
load assimilation capacities, the relocation of effluent
discharges to other drainage basins was considered as an
alternate instream measure.

The Clean Water Act does not allow instream measures to
substitute for adequate conveyance and treatment practices.
However, the restoration and maintenance of water quality in
the MMSD planning area may require the implementation of
selective instream measures in the lake influenced reaches
of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers  (the
Inner Harbor)  and in the Outer Harbor.

3.2  EXISTING WWTPS

The existing conditions of locally owned WWTPs are described
below and summarized in Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.  The
location of the WWTPs are shown in Figure 3.1.

3.2.1  Publicly Owned WWTPs

3.2.1.1  Jones Island

3.2.1.1.1  Background;  The Jones Island WWTP is located at
the north end of the Jones Island peninsula.  It is bounded
by the Kinnickinnic River on the west, the harbor entrance
on the north and Milwaukee's Outer Harbor on the east.  The
plant's location and service area are shown on Figure 3.2.
The service area of the WWTP (also shown on Figure 3.2)
contains about 98 miles (158 km)  of intercepting sewers and
443 miles (890 km) of combined sewers.  Jones Island was one
of the first activated sludge plants in the world and its


                               3-9

-------
                                 TABLE 3.2
                              EXISTING CONDITIONS
                   JONES ISLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                     ABILITY TO MEET WPDES EFFLUENT LIMITS:
    BOD
    SS
    P
    Fecal
    pH
1975

 4/8
 8/18
  2
10/16
  0
Treatment
Preliminary:
Secondary:
Number of
1976
1/1
6/12
1
2/6
0

1977
0/0
4/9
0
2/7
1
TYPE
Wastewater
WPDES Violations
1978
0/0
o/i
0
0/2
0
1979
0/0
1/1
0
0/4
0
(monthly/weekly'
(monthly/weekly!
(monthly)
(monthly/weekly'
(daily)
OF TREATMENT
Treatment

Solids Handling
          Coarse Screens
          Grit Removal
          Fine Screens

          Air Activated Sludge
          Phosphorus Removal
          Final Clarification
Landfilled
Gravity Thickened
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Filtration
Heat Drying
Ultimate Disposal of Solids:
Disinfection:
                                        Milorganite Production
                                         with Excess to Landfill

                                        Chlorine
Location of Effluent Discharge:

Existing Conditions:
                                        Milwaukee Outer Harbor

                                        Outlived Service Life
BOD:    Biochemical Oxygen Demand, WPDES monthly limit - 30 mg/1; weekly
        limit - 45 mg/1.
SS:     Suspended Solids, WPDES monthly limit - 30 mg/1; weekly limit - 45 mg/1.
P:      Phosphorus, WPDES monthly limit - 1 mg/1;  permit limitations did not
        apply in 1975, 1976.
Fecal:  Fecal Coliform, WPDES monthly limit - 200/100 ml; permit limitation
        did not apply in 1975, 1976.
pH:     6-9 range, daily.
                                      3-10

-------
                                    TABLE 3.3
                              EXISTING CONDITIONS
                    SOOTH SHORE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                     ABILITY TO MEET WPDES EFFLUENT LIMITS:
   BOD
   SS
   P
   Fecal
   pH
 5/7
11/32
Number of
1976
4/10
0/17
*
*
0
1977
1/4
2/2
8
5
0
WPDES Violations
1978
0/0
0/2
4
0
0
1979
0/0
0/0
0
0
0
   (monthly/weekly)
   (monthly/weekly)
   (monthly)
   (monthly)
   (daily)
Treatment

Preliminary:


Primary:

Secondary:
                 TYPE OF TREATMENT

           Wastewater Treatment

           Coarse Screens
           Grit Removal

           Primary Clarification

           Air Activated Sludge
           Phosphorus Removal
           Final Clarification
Solids Handling

Landfill


Anaerobic Digestion

Flotation Thickened
Anaerobic Digestion
Storage in Sludge Lagoons
Ultimate Disposal of Solids:
Disinfection:
                                         Agricultural  Application
                                          with Excess  to  Landfill

                                         Chlorine
Location of Effluent Discharge:

Existing Conditions:
                                         Milwaukee  Outer  Harbor

                                         Outlived Service Life
*       Data not available.  MMSD contested DNR limits for these dates.
BOD:    Biochemical Oxygen Demand, WPDES monthly limit - 30 mg/1; weekly
        limit - 45 mg/1.
SS:     Suspended Solids, WPDES monthly limit - 30 mg/1; weekly limit - 45 mg/1.
P:      Phosphorus, WPDES monthly limit - 1 mg/1; permit limitations did not
        apply in 1975, 1976.
Fecal:  Fecal Coliform, WPDES monthly limit - 200/100 ml; permit limitation
        did not apply in 1975, 1976.
pH:     6-9 range, daily.
                       3-11

-------
in
c
Oi o
C -H
•H -P
Exist
Condi



Location
of Discharge


K
at
0
a
01
C
01
"C
'c
tn


Type of Treatment


01
jj
-H
E
•H
1-3
4J
01 -P
0) C
S 01
Ability to
WPDES Efflu

01
04
1
Public W






SH
0
O
04



Root River

0 'O
•rt 01
.a tn
Single stage, anaerol
digestion to sludge
drying beds. Then u
as soil conditioner.


Primary Clarification; Low
Rate Trickling Filter; Final
Clarification
SH
3
O
O
o
01
c
o
•rl
•P
IB
rH
0 •
Isolated Vi
for BOD, SS
Jj
c
IB
IB rH
•P 04
01
1 K^ 11
iH «^1 4^
> SH O
IB -H
>i4J SH
T3 -H 4-1
•O C 01
IB 18 -H
O tn Q

in 0 II
•P O 1 O SH
C 1 <7>rH -HO)
0) C 01 rH > •
C 0) >i O 3 0 t)
O 0>rH X • IS 01
Q, H 0) 4J SH ^TS
E 0! IB C •O rH IB
O SH SH O 0) >I--H o
CJIBD-PrHXlSrH
SH
01
^
£
01
0>
O
O
01
*O
c
- 73 IS
C OI J
WAS Aerobic Digestio:
Digested sludge stor<
in tank. Hauled to
Application Site or
Sanitary Landfill
.*
^
Comminution; Phosphorus
Removal; Aerated Contact Tan
Final Clarification Liquid
Chlorine Disinfection;
Polishing Lagoon.
-a
01
T3
0)
0)
O
X
0)

>t
rH
iH
IB
C
O
•rl •
tn r~
10 r~
O
O 4i
o
U)
. I—
W
• c
W -H


MH C
0 1
 C
IB IB
rH S
rH SH
•H 0)
> u


>1
rH
rH
IB
SH
0) T3
C O
01 O
U C3
1
rj
(-i -LJ
Unnamed Tril
tary of Rool
River
ii
01
T3
3 T3
rH IB •
Aerobic Digestion; S
drying beds; Dried &
digested sludge spre
on agricultural land
c
o
Comminution; Phosphorus
Removal; Activated Sludge;
Polishing Lagoon; Chlorinati
0)
tr>
IB
SH
£
rtf

to
^H
01
01 •
rH rH
Phosphorus
above 1 mg/
o
01 4J
01 C
Ai IS
01 i-H
3 OM
S -P
CO 4^
MH IB O
0 U-H
£ SH
><4J 4J
4J SH 01
•H O -H
U Z O





1
11 >iT3
C rH O
0) rH O
U IB U
01 ^
•rH T3
03 O>
£
Tributary of
Muskego Lake
(part of Fox
River Waters

o
4-1
Removed from lagoons
agricultural land.


Aerated Lagoons; Phosphorus
Removal; Chlorination

4-1
•rH
SH
1)
Q4

04
4
W
Frequent S ,
Violations
0 -P
0i C
OI IS
Ai rH
01 04
i*
City of
Northwes






>iT)
SH O
01 O
> U
1
•H
SH
C-i X
Deer Creek,
butary of Fo
.River
0) 01 1
01 01 C
T3 T) O
3 3 O
Aerobic Digestion; si
drying beds; dried s]
used by city as soil
ditioner


Comminution; Phosphorus
Removal; Activated Sludge;
Tertiary Filtration; Chlor-
ination.

O 4->
4J C
IS
0) rH
3 O4
Q
01
IB >
4-1 -rl
IB 01 01
Q C C
m n
Inadequate
Recent Ext<
Modif icatit

01
SH
C 0
•H C
rH IB
M-I SH £
O 0)
03 rH
>. IB
•P S 01
•H 0) 01
cj z oi






>i-a
IH 0
D O
> 0


c
1
Lake Michiga
i
i
~ — - UT—
c-o
•rl 0)
C -P
•H 3
Anaerobic Digestion;
Oxidation of 90% of
digested sludge; Rema
10% dried and distrih
as fertilizer.


Comminution; Grit Removal;
Primary Clarification;
Aeration Basins; Final
Clarification; Chlorination.
0 •
*H rO
J3 01
rH S T3
rH Q)
a * i
e OrH
X rH
>t D IB
r-l C
4J 01 0
C SH-rJ
oi oi in
4-1 4J IB
01 0) O
•H E O
01 IB O
C SH
O IB tn
cj CU-H

0)
ii
>:
3
IB
5
rH
•H
MH E
O
>i4J
•P 3
•r( 0
cj tn
                                                                             I   18  r-l  1   0)
                                                                            SH  !-l  id  SH T3
                                                                            •H 13  O  0)  IB
                                                                            "1  >i-H  >  O
                                                                            &4 ffi  rH O l4
                                                                            (1)
                                                                            HI
                                                                            SH
                                                                           CJ

                                                                            C
                                                                            o
                                                                            01
                                                                            tJl
                                                                           •H
                                                                           Hi
                                                                                   I
                                                                                  • H
                                                                                  C  O
                                                                           •o  c
                                                                            co
                                                                            O -
  I
 IB  tt)
 c  e
 <  o  *
    tn  tn
 >i        01
 SH     O E
      '  4J 0
           tn
        01
        01  .
 U -P T3 rH
 0)  OI  3 rH
 W  OI rH -r)
     01  in UH
 Ui -rl     T3
   •o T3 e
 >i     0) IB
 SH  O -P rH
 IB -H  tn
 E J2  Oi >i
•rl O  BI SH
 SH SH -H is
 CU 01 T3 -P
               T3
                H)
                (1J
                SH
                a
                tn

                c
                oi

               -P
                                                                                            "O
                                                                                         CTi  C
                                                                                         C  IB
                                                                                        -H rH
                                                                                         >,
                                                                                         SH  C
                                                                                        T3  O
                                                                                  tn
     I
    •rl
 - -P
 rH  O
 IB <
 >     3
 O  -  SH
 E  C  O  C
 D  O  JS  O
 K -H  a-H
    •p  in 4-<
 -P  IB  0  IB
•H  0  Si  C
 SH -H  O4 -H
 U MH      SH
    •H  -  O
 - SH  01 rH
 C ra  cue
 O rH -O CJ
•H CJ  3
 4J    i-l  •«
 3 >,W rH
 C SH      IB
•H 10 T3 >
 i E  oi o
 E -H 4J E
 O SH  IB 01
CJ 04  > OS
                                                                          tn
                                                                          tn
                                                                          a
                                                                          o
                                                                          CQ
                                                                          
                                                                         tri in
                                                                         IB  C -P
                                                                         r-l  0) C
                                                                         r-l -H IB
                                                                         •H J3 rH
                                                                         > El 04
                   O
               rH  tn     >
                is      tn  -H
                O  T3  3  4-1
               •H  O)  SH  O
                E  -a  o  <
                01  C £
               .c  oi  a. oi rH
                o  a  tn  4J  is
                O  01  o  tn  O
               •H  3 J3  IB  01
               CD  tn &4  s tn

                i   i   i    i   i

               Q         tn
                   Stn     <
                   w 04  s h
3-12

-------

	
A
A
LEGEND
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
COUNTY LINE
WATER: RIVERS, CREEKS, ETC
MAJOR HIGHWAYS
PUBLIC WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
PRIVATE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
                                                                                     I  Thiensville
                                                                                     Z Germantown
                                                                                     3 School Sisters of Notre Dame
                                                                                     4 Chalet-on-the-Lake
                                                                                        Restaurant
                                                                                     5 Jones Island
                                                                                     6 New Berlin Memorial Hospital
                                                                                     7 New Berlin Regal Manors
                                                                                     8 Highway 24 Drive -in Theatre
                                                                                     9 Muskego Rendering Co.
                                                                                     10 Muskego Northwest
                                                                                     II Muskego Northeast
                                                                                     12 St. Martins Road Truckstop
                                                                                     13 Highway 100 Drive-In Theatre
                                                                                     14 South Milwaukee
                                                                                     15 South Shore
                                                                                     16 Caddy Vista
                                                                                     17 Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
                                                                                        Oak Creek Power Plant
FIGURE

     3-1
DATE

 APRIL 1981
                                                                SOURCE  MMSD
WASTEWATER TREATMENT   FACILITIES
          IN THE  PLANNING AREA
PREPARED BY

       EcoiSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP

-------
                                                                                    LEGEND
                                                                                  STUDY AREA BOUNDARY



                                                                                  COUNTY UNE



                                                                                  CORPORATE BOUNDARIES



                                                                                  WATER RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC



                                                                                  MAJOR HIGHWAYS




                                                                                  JONES ISLAND SERVICE AREA




                                                                                  SOUTH SHORE SERVICE AREA




                                                                                  SOUTH MILWAUKEE SERVICE AREA
                                                                           r~~~1  AREA WHICH CAN BE SERVED BY

                                                                                  EITHER SOUTH SHORE OR JONES ISLAND
                                                                                     i
                                                                                     M




                                                                                     11
                                                                                 0   6OOO  2000




                                                                                  SCAUE N FEET
                                                                           SOUTH MILWAUKEE WWTP





                                                                            SOUTH SHORE WWTP
                                                             |"UJ  "V

                                                            TCfT

FIGURE


    3-2

DATE



 APRIL 1981
MMSD SEWERAGE  SYSTEM  SERVICE AREA
                                                                SOURCE MMSD
PREPARED BY


       EC
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
                                                                   HflEcolSciences
                                                                   *^Tl ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP

-------
construction was preceded by the successful testing of a
pilot scale wastewater treatment plant.  In 1974, the
American Society of Civil Engineers recognized the importance
of the Jones Island WWTP by designating it a National Civil
Engineering Historic Landmark.  Also, in 1979 the WWTP was
determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places.

The original facility is now known as the West Plant.  It
was designed to treat 85 MGD  (3.7 nrvsec) and was placed
into operation in 1925.  The East Plant was added in 1935
and was designed for 70 MGD  (3.1 m3/sec).  In 1952, the East
Plant was expanded to accommodate an additional 45 MGD  (2.0
mVsec) •  Today the design capacity of the WWTP is 200 MGD
(8.8 m^/sec) of wastewater flow.  However, due to insufficient
capacity of the fine screens, the actual treatment capacity
is only 140 MGD (6.1 m^/sec).  Wastewater flows to the Jones
Island WWTP average 125 MGD  (5.5 m3/sec).

3.2.1.1.2  Processes:  The Jones Island WWTP treats wastewater
in a two stage process.  Incoming flows pass through coarse
screens to remove large material.  Then they proceed to grit
chambers where the velocity of the flow is controlled to
allow sand, gravel, and some organic matter to settle.
Finally, the wastewater passes through fine screens which
catch even smaller solids, but allow most of the organic
matter to continue to the secondary treatment process.

The second stage of treatment consists of the activated
sludge process which is effective in removing 95% of the
organic pollutants contained in the screened wastewater.
This process combines the wastewater with highly active
microorganisms (activated sludge) which feed on organic
matter.  This combination (mixed liquor) is then injected
with air, to encourage the decomposition of the organic
matter.  Chemicals are added at this stage to aid in the
removal of phosphorus.

After aeration, the mixed liquor flows to clarifiers.  In
these tanks, the microorganisms and any inert or non-bio-
degradable solids settle.  The settled solids, or sludge,
are removed before the wastewater is disinfected.  The
wastewater is then disinfected with chlorine and the final
effluent is discharged to Milwaukee's Outer Harbor.

Some of the sludge is recycled and serves as the medium for
introducing the activated microorganisms into the wastewater
at the start of secondary treatment.  The rest is either
landfilled or dried and processed into Milorganite, a fertilizer
and soil conditioner.  The debris from the primary screening
is collected and taken to a landfill.


                              3-15

-------
3.2.1.1.3  Problems;  Much of the equipment in the Jones
Island WWTP is over 50 years old and has outlived its useful
life.  The coarse and fine screens are in poor condition and
frequently become overloaded since there is no backup equip-
ment available.  Failure of this equipment leads to bypasses
of partially screened, untreated wastewater into the final
effluent channel, where it is mixed with treated effluent,
chlorinated, and discharged.

The control of flows to the aeration tanks is not adjusted
regularly.  Uneven distribution of flows often occurs,
reducing the system's efficiency.  During periods of high
flows, some tanks are not fully loaded, while others are
overloaded and are unable to properly aerate the mixed
liquor.

The Milorganite production facility is well operated but
does not have adequate capacity to treat all solids from the
WWTP.  This process is energy intensive since the sludge
must be heated to 1200°F (650°C) for drying.  The volume of
sludge entering the driers is controlled manually, and
explosions have occurred due to rapid rises in temperature.
Excess dewatered sludge is transported to a landfill site.

In the past, when flows to the Jones Island facility were
larger, effluent violations frequently occurred.  There were
three causes of the violations:  emphasis on Milorganite
production rather than optimal process operation, lack of
solids handling ability, and overloading.

Since 1978, careful operation of the facility has resulted
in few effluent violations, but this has been due, in part,
to the bypassing of untreated sewage into the Inner Harbor.
The facility is equipped with several bypassing mechanisms
and if the coarse screens clog, untreated influent can be
bypassed directly into the Inner Harbor.  At several other
locations, partially treated effluent can be bypasssed to
the effluent channel if equipment is overloaded or if the
staff determines that bypassing is necessary.  In-system bypasses
receive disinfection before discharge and are sampled with
the effluent for the WPDES permit.  Unless the plant is
rehabilitated and expanded, these bypasses will continue.

3.2.1.2  South Shore

3.2.1.2.1  Background;  The South Shore WWTP plant is located
on Lake Michigan in the City of Oak Creek.  The treatment
facilities were built on 40 acres (12 ha) of land reclaimed
from the lake and the rest of the plant is located on top of
a bluff on the 108-acre (44 ha) site.  The reclaimed land is
enclosed by a double wall steel breakwater.


                               3-16

-------
The WWTP was designed to treat wastewater by solids removal
only.  It began operation in 1968 with a design capacity of
60 MGD (2.6 m3/sec).  However, in 1974, its capacity was
expanded to 120 MGD  (5.3 m3/sec), and the plant was upgraded
to include activated sludge treatment.

The South Shore WWTP serves approximately 113 square miles
(293 km2) in the southern and western portions of the MMSD
service area.  Included in this  area are 82 square miles
(212 km2) of diversion area with wastewater flows that can
be directed to Jones Island for  treatment.  The location of
the South Shore WWTP and its service area, including the
diversion area, is shown in Figure 3.2.

3.2.1.2.2  Processes;  The South Shore WWTP presently utilizes
the air activated sludge process which is similar to that
used at the Jones Island WWTP.   Secondary treatment can be
bypassed at South Shore (while the entire treatment process
can be bypassed at Jones Island).

Preliminary treatment at South Shore also consists of coarse
screening and grit chambers.  After the grit chambers, the
wastewater passes to primary settling basins.  These basins
allow further settling of solids, and they are equipped to
skim floating scum from the wastewater.  After primary
treatment, the wastewater continues to secondary treatment
which consists of the same type  of activated sludge process
that is used at Jones Island.  Highly active microorganisms
are added to the wastewater to break down organic material.
Then the sludge is thickened and removed, and the effluent
is disinfected and discharged to Lake Michigan.

The sludge thickening process at the South Shore WWTP is
slightly different from the Jones Island processes.  Chemicals
and air are added to the mixed liquor, which causes the
solids to float to the surface,  where they can be skimmed
off.

Milorganite is not produced at the South Shore WWTP.
Instead,  the sludge is placed in an anaerobic (oxygen free)
environment where, if the system is properly operated, the
sludge decomposes to a stable form.  A new heating system is
being installed for these digesters to improve their per-
formance.  Methane gas, a by-product of this process, is
used to power much of the facility's equipment.  After
digestion, the sludge is taken to lagoons where it is stored
and thickened prior to land application.

3.2.1.2.3  Problems:  Although the South Shore WWTP is a
relatively new facility, a number of problems have affected
its operation.  Occasionally, during high flow conditions,
the coarse screens and grit chambers malfunction and do not


                               3-17

-------
remove solids adequately.  The removal of scum and grease in
the primary process is also inadequate.  The wastewater can
contain large amounts of solids when it reaches the secondary
stage of treatment.

Under normal flow conditions, loadings to the secondary
treatment system are below design capacity.  However, when
the flow from the primary treatment processes contains large
amounts of scum, excessive amounts of sludge accumulate in
the secondary clarifiers.  As a result, the effluent leaving
the WWTP is occasionally high in suspended solids.

Inefficient feeding, inadequate mixing, and poor temperature
control of the anaerobic digesters have led to incompletely
processed sludge reaching storage lagoons.  Severe odor
problems have resulted.  The new heating system currently
being installed should improve digester performance and
alleviate the odor problems.

The South Shore WWTP has had numerous effluent violations
since its expansion in 1974.  However, as a result of modi-
fications, improved operations, and increased solids handling,
effluent quality has improved.  There have been fewer WPDES
violations since 1977.  Appendix III, South Shore, lists
effluent violations for this WWTP.

The operation of the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs is
the responsibility of the MMSD, which must ensure that the
plants are able to meet future effluent limits.  Thus, the
expansion of these facilities is one of the major components
of the MFP.

3.2.1.3  Muskego Northeast

The City of Muskego has two wastewater treatment plants;
Northeast District and Woods Road (Muskego Northwest).  The
Muskego Northeast District plant is located in the northeast
section of the city, and it serves a 2.1 square mile (5.4
km2) area.  The plant was built in 1971 and expanded in 1974
to include phosphorus removal equipment.  It has an average
design capacity of 0.39 MGD with peak capacity of 1.3 MGD
(0.06 m3/sec)•  The average daily flow to the plant is 0.6
to 0.7 MGD (0.03 m3/sec).

The WWTP processes include secondary treatment with the
activated sludge process, phosphorus removal, and chlorination.
The plant and equipment are in good condition and can be
expected to last until the end of the planning period.  The
effluent is discharged to Tess Corners Creek, a tributary of
the Root River.  The WWTP cannot presently meet the effluent
limits necessary to achieve the water quality standards for
Tess Corners Creek.

                               3-18

-------
3.2.1.4  Muskego Northwest

The Woods Road Plant is located in the northwest portion of
Muskego.  It was built in 1966, expanded in 1971 and 1977,
and serves approximately 2.4 square miles  06.2 km2).  The
WWTP uses aerated lagoons for secondary treatment of waste-
water.  After removing some debris, wastewater is placed in
a pond and injected with air, allowing organic matter to
decompose.  Effluent is disinfected by chlorination prior to
discharge to Big Muskego Lake.

The facility is in generally good condition; however, much
of the mechanical equipment will need replacement during the
planning period.  Its average design capacity is 0.7 MGD
(0.03 mVsec) / and tne peak design capacity is 1.08 MGD
(0.04 m3/sec).  Flows to the plant average 0.54 MGD
(0.02 m^/sec).  Effluent from the Woods Road WWTP is discharged
to Little Muskego Creek, a tributary of Big Muskego Lake.
The effluent does not consistently meet WPDES limitations
for suspended solids, phosphorus, and BOD, based on records
from 1975-1980.

3.2.1.5  New Berlin Regal Manors

The Regal Manors Subdivision WWTP is the only public wastewater
treatment plant in the City of New Berlin.  The WWTP was
built in 1969 and expanded in 1978.  Processes used for
wastewater treatment include the activated sludge process,
tertiary filtration, phosphorus control, and chlorination.

The facility is generally in very good condition.  It serves
an area of one square mile (2.6 km2) with a tributary population
of 3,230.  The peak design capacity is 0.65 MGD  (0.03 m^/sec),
and the flows to the plant average 0.18 MGD (.007 m3/sec).
Effluent from this WWTP is discharged to Deer Creek, a
tributary of the Fox River.  The plant cannot meet effluent
limits necessary to achieve the water quality standards for
Deer Creek.

3.2.1.6  South Milwaukee

South Milwaukee is the only city in Milwaukee County to
operate a WWTP independent of the MMSD.  The South Milwaukee
Plant is located in the southern part of the City.  It
serves an area of about 4.9 square miles (12.69 km2) which
includes almost the entire city.  The plant was built in
1937 and expanded in 1952, 1962, and 1972.

Wastewater flows to the South Milwaukee WWTP receive secondary
treatment by the activated sludge process, including phosphorus
removal and disinfection.  The plant and equipment are in


                              3-19

-------
excellent condition and should last through the planning
period.  The South Milwaukee plant's peak design capacity is
12.0 MGD (0.53 m3/sec) and average design capacity is 6.0
MGD (0.26 m^/sec).   Based on measurements taken from 1975-
1977,  the plant received average flows of 3.7 MGD (0.12
m^/sec).  Effluent from the South Milwaukee wastewater
treatment plant is discharged to Lake Michigan.  It generally
meets all WPDES permit limitations, although standards for
phosphorus are not met on occasion.

3.2.1.7  Germantown

The Village of Germantown maintains one public treatment
facility which is located in the northern part of the Village.
The WWTP was constructed in 1970, and it has not been expanded.
The wastewater influent to the facility receives secondary
treatment by the activated sludge process, with phosphorus
control and chlorination.

The plant and equipment are generally in good to excellent
condition, although some mechanical equipment will probably
require replacement before the end of the planning period.
The plant has an average capacity of 1.0 MGD (0.04 m^/sec)
with peak capacity of 2.0 MGD (0.09 m3/sec).  Effluent from
the Germantown WWTP is discharged to the Menomonee River.
The plant cannot meet effluent limits necessary to achieve
the water quality standards for the Menomonee River.

3.2.1.8  Caddy Vista Subdivision

The Caddy Vista Sanitary District WWTP serves the Caddy
Vista subdivision in the northern portion of the Town of
Caledonia.  The plant is located on the north side of the
subdivision along the Root River and its service area consists
of approximately 100 acres (40.5 ha).  The Caddy Vista WWTP
was built in 1955 and has not been extensively upgraded.
Its average design capacity is 0.25 MGD  (0.01 m^/sec) with a
peak capacity of 0.40 MGD (0.02 m3/sec).  The average flow
to the plant is 0.084 MGD (0.004 m^/sec), but its hydraulic
capacity is sometimes exceeded during wet weather.  Wastewater
treatment includes a trickling filter, and the  effluent receives
disinfection by chlorination prior to discharge.

The WWTP is in very poor condition.  Much of the mechanical
equipment is corroded or inoperative.  Effluent from this
WWTP is discharged to the Root River.  The effluent does not
consistently meet WPDES permit limitations.  Numerous bypasses
of untreated sewage occur in this sewer  system.
                              3-20

-------
3.2.1.9  Thiensville

The Village of Thiensville has a single WWTP located in the
northwestern portion of the Village.  The plant was built in
1951 and extensively remodeled in 1963.  New equipment was
also added in 1970 and 1973.  The average design capacity of
the Thiensville plant is 0.24 MGD  (0.01 m^/sec) with a peak
capacity of 0.36 MGD  (0.02 m3/sec).  The average flow,
measured during the period between 1975 and 1977, was 0.59
MGD (0.03 mVsec) which is substantially above the plant's
design capacity.  Wastewater is treated in an aeration
chamber and clarifier.  Phosphorus control and chlorination
are also included.

The plant is in fair condition and some mechanical equipment
will need replacement during the planning period.  Effluent
from the Thiensville WWTP is discharged to the Milwaukee
River at the mouth of Pigeon Creek.  The effluent generally
meets WPDES permit limitations although BOD, suspended
solids, and phosphorus limits have occasionally been exceeded.
In addition, the Thiensville sewer system and WWTP bypass
extensively during both dry and wet weather conditions.

3.2.2  Privately Owned WWTPs

In addition to the publicly-owned and operated WWTPs, there
are eight small privately-owned facilities, shown in Figure
3.1.  These WWTPs are described in Appendix VI, Local Alternatives,
of this EIS.

In Planning Report 30, SEWRPC recommended abandoning all the
private WWTPs in the planning area and connecting their
flows to the nearest public sewer system.  However, the
report also suggested that a cost-effectiveness analysis be
prepared for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company  (WEPCO)
WWTP in Oak Creek as part of the facilities planning process.

The MMSD analyzed all the private WWTPs in the planning area
and determined that it would be very expensive to connect
the flows from WEPCO to a local facility.  Since the facility
meets its WPDES permit limitations, the MMSD recommends that
the facility continue to operate.

The MFP analysis further recommended that it would be environ-
mentally acceptable and less costly to continue the operations
of the wastewater treatment facility at the School Sisters
of Notre Dame in Mequon.  Also, it was recommended that the
Muskego Rendering Company WWTP continue operations to pretreat
the plant wastewater before discharge to the public sewer
system.
                              3-21

-------
The EIS examines the impacts of implementing the MFP, continuing
the operations of the WEPCO and School Sisters of Notre Dame
WWTPs, and using the Muskego Rendering Company facilities
for pretreatment.

3.3 SOLIDS MANAGEMENT

In addition to the wastewater treatment studies being carried
out for the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs, the method
of solids handling for these two WWTPs was also studied in
the Solids Management Facility Plan Element (SMFPE) to
evaluate solids handling for the two WWTPs.  Appendix IV,
Solids Management, to this EIS discusses the environmental
impact analyses for the solids management alternatives.

3.3.1  Current Practices

Presently the solids handling method at the Jones Island WWTP
is chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration, sludge drying,
and processing into Milorganite.  Approximately 200 tons
(182 metric tons) of Milorganite are generated per day.
Since 1977, the Jones Island WWTP has experienced problems
with high wastewater flows and the operation of the Milorganite
production equipment that have necessitated trucking excess
sludge to a landfill.  Approximately 3,400 tons per year
(3,086 metric tons) of Jones Island sludge are landfilled.

The South Shore WWTP's current method of solids handling is
dissolved air flotation thickening of waste activated sludge,
mixing with primary sludge, anaerobic digestion, and storage
in sludge lagoons prior to agricultural application of the
sludge.  In 1979, approximately 33,500 dry tons (30,500 dry
metric tons) of solids were applied to agricultural land
during the growing season and 10,500 dry tons  (9,500 dry
metric tons) of solids were landfilled during the winter
months.

3.4  INFILTRATION AND INFLOW STUDY

In 1977, the MMSD initiated a program to study the effects
of infiltration and inflow on the conveyance and treatment
processes in the planning area.  For the purposes of the
study, the CSSA, shown on Figure 3.3,was evaluated independently
of the separated sewer area.  In compliance with the court
orders, a separate analysis was performed to determine the
least costly and most environmentally sound way to abate
CSO.  The I/I study of the combined sewers used a flow
monitoring program to determine the average daily flows and
assess the effects of dry weather infiltration on the system.
                              3-22

-------
LE6ENO

ip??^!
ir , *•'

COMBINED SEWER
AREA
SERVICE
FIGURE

    3-3

DATE


 APRIL 1981
COMBINED SEWER SERVICE AREA
                                              SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY


     EcolSciences
      ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP

-------
More detailed data was required for the separated sewer area
because both inflow and infiltration had to be measured.
Also, the separated sewer service area is much larger than
the combined sewer area.  For this portion of the I/I study,
the separated sewer area was divided into 363 sub-basins,
and each sub-basin was analyzed individually.  The purpose
of the evaluation was to determine the average flows in the
sewers, the capacity of the Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer
(MIS) system, and the amount of bypassing occurring during
wet weather.  By collecting these data, the effect of I/I on
the operation of the MIS system and the WWTPs could be
calculated.

To determine the maximum wastewater flow, WWTP records and
flow gauging records were evaluated.  Also inventories of
existing and projected population growth and development
were conducted to enable the MMSD staff to estimate the year
2005 maximum wastewater flow.  The flow gauging records and
previous I/I studies also indicated the capacity of the MIS
system and approximate levels of bypassing.  A flow monitoring
study was performed for ten weeks in 1978.  This analysis
indicated that the flow in the sewer system was greatly
affected by I/I.  During one rainfall of 1.3 inches (3.3cm),
ninety bypasses were recorded discharging over 100 million
gallons (378.5 m^) of sewage into the area's surface waters.

3.4.1  Results of I/I Study

From the data collected by this study, the MMSD determined
that if there were no limits to the capacity of the MIS
system and if no bypassing took place, a maximum of 840
million gallons per day (MGD) (36.8 m^/sec) of wastewater
would reach the treatment facilities from the MMSD service
area.  This figure includes the maximum sanitary sewage flow
of 106 MGD  (4.6 m3/sec) from the separated sewer area, an
estimated 114 MGD (5.0 m3/sec) of combined sewage flow from
the combined sewer area (not including CSO volume), and 620
MGD  (27.2 m^/sec) of I/I from the separated sewer area.
With forecast levels of population and commercial growth,
the peak daily flow would increase to 900 MGD (39.4 m-^/sec)
by the year 2005.

Once the current and projected maximum flows had been determined,
further information was required about the ability of the
MIS system to convey those flows and the ability of the area
WWTPs to treat those flows adequately.  A computer model was
used by the MMSD to determine which portions of the MIS
would need expansion to convey current flows of wastewater
and I/I.  The computer simulated several levels of I/I
reduction  (27, 45, 52, and 81 percent) to identify future
maximum flows without I/I, and those portions of the MIS and
WWTPs that would not be large enough to handle the reduced
                              3-24

-------
maximum flows.  The costs of expanding sewerage facilities
to enable them to operate successfully without bypassing
were estimated and compared with the costs of rehabilitating
the sewers to attain each level of I/I reduction.  The
analysis concluded that the cost-effective reduction of I/I
would be 300 MGD  (13.1 m^/sec), which is approximately one-
half of the estimated 620 MGD of I/I.

The study also determined that 328 of the 363 study areas in
the separated sewer area required detailed sewer system
evaluation surveys (SSES) to identify the improvements
necessary to attain the cost-effective reduction in I/I.

The detailed alternative analysis presented in the Final EIS
assumes that the cost-effective level of I/I removal would
be 48%, based on the findings of the I/I study.

3.4.2  Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES)

The purpose of the SSES was to determine the specific sources
of I/I in the 328 study areas contributing excessive I/I,
determine the flow rate from each source, estimate the
rehabilitation cost for each source, and reevaluate the
cost-effectiveness analysis of removing each source of I/I.
The program to determine the specific sources of I/I included
inspection of thousands of manholes, millions of feet of
sewer, and thousands of buildings in the planning area.
Flow monitoring, smoke testing, and sewer cleaning were also
undertaken.  The results of these field investigations were
used to determine the amount of I/I in the system and the
cost to remove that I/I.  A new cost-effectiveness analysis
was undertaken with the new I/I and cost data.

The preliminary results of the SSES indicate that the cost-
effective level for I/I removal may only be 13%.  This
figure is only preliminary at this time and will not be
finalized until the Final SSES report is adopted by the MMSD
and reviewed and approved by the EPA and the DNR.  This
report is expected to be adopted by the MMSD in May, 1981.

Because the Final SSES was not available for incorporation
into the Final EIS, the analysis of alternatives presented
in the Final EIS assumes 48% of I/I would be removed.  If
the final I/I removal level is less than 48%, as is suggested
by the Draft SSES, additional cavern storage will be required
in order to eliminate wet weather bypassing from the separated
sewer system.

3.4.3  Rehabilitation Projects

Based on the results of the I/I study, the following portions


                              3-25

-------
of the MIS would have to be expanded or constructed to
enable the system to convey future maximum flows without
bypassing.

     South 81st Street and West Grant Branch
     South 84th Street and West Becher Street Diversion
     Hampton Avenue Branch
     Kinnickinnic River Branch
     South 6th Street Branch
     Menomonee River - Burleigh Overflow
     Menomonee River - Keefe Diversion
     Milwaukee River Branch with Upper and Lower
       Lincoln Creek Segments
     Crosstown Branch
     West Bluemound and Honey Creek Branch

These sewers are shown on Figure 3.4.  The rehabilitation,
expansion, or replacement of these portions of the MIS is
required regardless of any other actions in the MFP.

With a 48% reduction in I/I, maximum flows in the MIS system
from the planning area could reach 600 MGD (26.3 m^/sec) by
the year 2005.  One objective of the MFP is to end dry and
wet weather bypassing from the wastewater conveyance systems
and at sewage treatment facilities.  Either the WWTPs serving
the Milwaukee metropolitan area will have to be large enough
to treat the maximum year 2005 flows, or the flow volumes
that exceed treatment capacity will have to be stored and
treated later during low flow periods.  These issues were
considered in formulating alternatives for area-wide waste-
water treatment.

3.5  DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

When evaluating alternatives for this EIS, only the specific
MMSD actions identified in the Notices of Intent were analyzed
in detail.  Detailed analyses were conducted on alternatives
for the abatement of CSO, the construction of interceptors
within Milwaukee County, interceptor service areas outside
the county, and the upgrading and expansion of the Jones
Island and South Shore WWTPs.  The other components, including
alternatives for treatment plants in the planning area, but
outside Milwaukee County, local connector sewers, and certain
alternatives for CSO abatement were evaluated on a conceptual
level only.  This EIS identifies only the major impacts of
these components.  Further facilities planning and environmental
review would be required for these components if it is
determined that their construction is feasible.

3.5.1  Local System-Level Alternatives
                             3-26

-------
                                                                                              LEGEND	



                                                                                           STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                                           COUNTY LINE

                                                                                           CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                                        •  MIS SEGMENT TO 8E
                                                                                           EXPANDED AND REHABILITATED

                                                                                         MILWAUKEE RIVER BRANCH WITH
                                                                                         UPPER a LOWER LINCOLN CREEK
                                                                                         SEGMENTS
                                                                                         HAMPTON AVENUE BRANCH
                                                                                         MENOMONEE RIVER-
                                                                                         KEEFE DIVERSION
                                                                                         MENOMONEE RIVER -
                                                                                         BURLEIGH OVERFLOW
                                                                                         HONEY CREEK BRANCH
                                                                                         SOUTH 84th STREET AND
                                                                                         WESTBECHERSTREET BRANCH
                                                                                         SOUTH 81 «t STREET AND
                                                                                         WEST GRANT STREET BRANCH
                                                                                         KINNICKINNIC RIVER BRANCH
                                                                                         SOUTH 6th STREET BRANCH
                                                                                         CROSSTOWN DIVERSION
FIGURE

     3-4

DATE


 APRIL  1981
MILWAUKEE  INTERCEPTOR
SEWER REHABILITATION
                                                           SOURCE MMSD
PREPARED  BY

        EC
        ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
HfjEcolSciences
'"•"  ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP

-------
Local System-Level Alternatives CLocal A Alternatives) were
developed with the assumption that the existing WWTPs in the
planning area would continue to operate through the planning
period.  Communities not presently served, or only partially
served, by the MMSD would continue to operate their own
wastewater treatment facilities (see Figure 3.5).  Alternatives
were developed to upgrade or replace each public and private
WWTP in the planning area.  The alternatives considered for
each WWTP are described below and summarized in Table 3.5.

1.   No Action - The EIS has assessed each public and private
     WWTP in the planning area to determine its ability,
     using existing processes and equipment, to adequately
     treat wastewater flows through the planning period
     without bypassing.  This alternative served as the
     system-wide No Action Alternative, and it was carried
     through the entire screening process as basis for
     comparison.

2.   Upgrade Operations and Maintenance - Each WWTP was
     evaluated to determine whether it could meet WPDES
     standards  (without bypassing) through the year 2005,
     assuming that operation and maintenance procedures were
     optimized.  No new procedures or equipment would be
     added with this alternative.

3.   Expansion - The EIS determined the costs and environmental
     impacts of adding new equipment to the facility, without
     changing its processes, to enable it to operate ade-
     quately to meet permit levels without bypassing through
     the planning period.  This alternative assumes the
     optimization of operation and maintenance procedures.

In addition to assessing treatment processes, the effluent
discharge location of each WWTP was evaluated.  The alternative
discharge locations that were considered are described
below.

4.   Upgrade treatment and discharge to the Fox River Basin -
     This alternative was considered for all WWTPs that
     discharge to the Lake Michigan Basin.  Consideration
     was given to the possibility of improving the level of
     treatment to that required for discharge of the effluent
     to the Fox River watershed.

5.   Upgrade treatment and discharge to the Lake Michigan
     Basin - For those WWTPs that do discharge effluent to
     the Fox River Basin, the alternative of upgrading
     treatment to the level required for discharge into the
     nearest water body in the Lake Michigan Basin was
     considered.


                              3-28

-------
                                                                                           LEGEND
                                                                                         STUDY ME* BOUNDARY
                                                                                         LOCAL BOUNDARY
                                                                                         EXISTIN8 PUBLIC WWTPt
                                                                                         EXISTINO PRIVATE WWTPl
                                                                                         JONES ISLAND
                                                                                         SERVICE AREA
                                                                                         SOUTH SHORE
                                                                                         SERVICE AREA
                                                                                         LOCAL SERVICE AREA
                                                                                   Soul* Mll««k*« WWTP

                                                                                   [South Sftorl WWTP
                                                                                      tEPCO WWTP
FIGURE
     3-5
DATE
  APRIL 1981
                                                         SOURCE  MMSD
LOCAL SERVICE  AREAS (A)
PREPARED BY
       EcoiSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP

-------










































m

>
t^
<
;z
ALTEI-

J
<
U
2


>«

jj o;
C
0) X

id o
QJ 4J
Ul
EH Q)
Upgrade
Discharg
[tfi nhigan
a
^
it



Q)
rH
U 01
>i «
U 13 3
QJ C 0
OS 10 B5



*
4C i
C ^
o
• f4
4J
10 •
U m
•H
rH
Q*
a, •
< ts

c
10 •
J rH









0) >
tJl-H
Ul
10
S. X
o o
Ul k.
•H
a
i!
OJ
OJ O
x ui cr
n 3J u ti
QJ QJ ^
> ui O 01
•H U 0) Oi 3
OS rH (1) 2
Ul
o o
Cn •*
Ul OJ 01
0) ^ QJ

•H 3 0
.* * s -.
u 4J .K QJ u _ "i i;
x o) 4J 01 01 oj * £?•* ?
O QJ -H 3 -H H r rn 3 a
b Q r3 2 ffl


Ul Ul
JJ OJ
> >
-H -H 01 Ul
OS OS Ul Ul
Ul OJ 41
01 QJ OJ C C
Q) 0) r> Ul Ul
.* C -H o 0
g 0 OS O O
(B £ •*
2 0 4J 01 OJ 01
rH C 0 01 OJ Ul
H 0) 0 OJ Ul OJ
2 2 OS E- U EH






xxxx x




xxxx x


xxxx x



xxxx x


xxxx x





Ut
^ OJ
0) C
OJ Ul
Ui O
U CJ
Ul Ul QJ
OJ Ul 0)
0) OJ Ui
D H U




•a
c

x
c
•H
C
13 IB
C er
IB rl
O.SS
X U
U H
S
QJ
,*
it
j



2
ia
O

OJ
>
0
U
0
E
r-

C
C

4-
C.
<
C
z













rH






M Ul
3,3;
•H -H
BS as
OJ OJ
OJ QJ
.* c
3 0
(0 E
* o
rH C
££










xxxx







xxxx











01
Ul
o
c
TJ * 2
CO) 01
,B Ul rH C rH S
rH O rH 3 IB Z
oj jr, -H o 01
ol c OS en
01 £ C IB O
01 4J 0 S • X
C 3 -H Ul 03 U)
O O -C 0) • 3
I-J U) EH O Z 2




t- f f C
C C C )-:
id fl io x 2.
O1 Cn ep 0) ™
U, .H -H -H Ul 01 Ul -H
01 .c .n £ oi ui 01 .c
> o o o > u > o
os a s a os n as 2
15 4J Q) 01 01 4J rH 4J 0
1) O J^ .X Jtf O G* O •*
l-i O <0 'Q ft O O O *«
tj as .J J -3 « R< os J






XXXXXXX XXX




x xxxxx xxx


x xxxxx xxx



x xxxxx xxx


X XXXXX XXX




.*£ Ui
oi o c
QJ en X
Ul Ul OJ 0)
U 01 X QJ
> 01 Ul
V4 -rl 3 O
(0 CK 2
rH QJ C
a x cnj^ 10
O 0 -H 10 >i
o, fc, a J a






Jfc
U
CD
}H
° = = c S
01 IB IB id fl
ui en en en en
3 H -H -H -H Ul Ul -H
C QJJ3J3J30J OJJ3
ul>oou> >o
O -H -H -H -H -H -H -H
UBS2S20S OS 2
mjjmo)Oi4J -"2
mOidididO Old
SBSJ-JJOS BSJ










X XXXXXXX XXX







X XXXXXXX XXX






4-* rH

C rH O
id IB O O<
1H 4J X O
3 -H U >i -W
id aw c cfl
4J 01 rd
01 O 0) Q. X
01 0) X T3 S O
i a id o 3 c
Id H Ul CJ Ul rH
Q5.2°o- Ho"
O as Ui • C 'O > Ui
OUlJOOl-rf IB-H4J
OJ4JIE4JUI OUlU
J4OO)01>C01 OSOOJ
3 Z £ 2 Oi"3 -^
BIO 4J sc uiou
H 4J3HHIC 0) CO
Z tOrHOG-rl'OCS -HrHC
-H -H O rH C 4J -H
O ^2W'rllBO U|>4,£ ojojiniijoj 230
i! TJ4J4JrH > Jf XO
01 ro301id30J01 •aim
3 IB O -H £ (11 rH 3 *'••*•.£
2 uuiuiuzu2 tnss
o
zc. m en
OJ 01 OJ
OJ 0) X
Ul Ul Ul
O U 3

01 01 en.*
SQJ -H 10
a o J





Ul Ul
Ul U
Ul QJ OJ
OJ C C
> Ul Ul
•HO 0
OS O U
X Jtf
4J 0] OJ 01 QJ
O 01 QJ Ul 0)
O OJ Ul 01 Ul
OS EH U EH U






XX X




XX X


XX X



XX X


XX X



















































01
Q>
>
-H
4J
IB
c
Ul
O U U
4J Z 01
Sec u
'H *H Z
CM rH rH
a ui ui o
QJ 01 O"
rH O (Q OJ
IB X
033 "l
Q QJ 0) 3
i4 Z Z 2











c
0
4J
IT
c

c
a
rc
.c
L
U
It
2

T

•c
c
it:

c
c
4^
ra
,_•
c
o
i-
QJ
a
1
c
c
-p
fC
V-
JJ

•H
M-
c
r-
n
c
o
•H
JJ
(C
•H
r-l
.< M
tfi r-t
n
<=-. a
2 -u
3. "3
DC
a>
tn r
a) en
rC -H
4-J —
i-t —
O  -u
•H n
jj CC
iTj
C rH
'** n3
'U S
4J Ul
'H O
« z

Ul ^~
0 rH
IM ^^

X
•H ••
Ul Ul
O 01
Id >
£ -H
4J
01 Id
> c
H Ul
4J OJ
id 4J
C rH
Ul <
QJ
4J C
rH O
< -H
4J
rH 10
10 O
C -H
O -H
•H a
en a
QJ <
OS
T3
QJ C
0) 10
M -3
•K *
*


















!
x:
4J |
Ul £
O *J
Z Ui
0
o z
C"
Q) C
V -n
01 rH
3 Ui
2 01
CD
4J
C- 3
QJ a
U Z
X
Oi QJ
s:
Ul 4->
c-
EH T-J
S (0
S QJ •
4J -a
U Ul OJ
•H C rl
rH H QJ
J2 rj
3 -H
a. • ui
•o c
rH 0) O
rH C U
fd 0
•O 01
Ul C Ul
O id aj
«J J3 3
10
•a —
0) 0) -U
ui ja x
01 O
TJ -a 4J
•H rH
01 3 C
C O -H
0 3
O 13
01 01
ning area
atives were
These WWTP
Ps (describ
c c E-
fO 1H • S
rH  -O rH i
•H Q) Ul (C
Ui C QJ 3
Q O 03 S
T3
•a c 3 T3
c n oi c
10 J3 Z fl
10
U T3 -
•H 0) C 4J
rH J3 10 Ul
.a io
3 T3 4J 0)
CL rH Ul X
3 10 4J
rH O QJ 3
rH 3 C. O
IB 4J CO
Ul Ul
ui o. o c
O IH Z -H
"" S o ui
ui en QJ
QJ 0) QJ 02
> 4J J4
•r4 IB Ul 3
4J > 3 0)
10 -H 2 Z
C Ul
Ui CL - »
OJ 4J 4-1
4J rH Ul Ul
rH rH Q) Id
< < 3 01
1 1
< CO
rH rH
id id
CJ D
0 O
IJ ij
rH (N





















13
C
(0

rr]
01
U|
QJ
U
01
c
o
U

01
id
i?

>
•H
4J
(0
c
H
1
TJ
n
Js

(C
4-1
M *
4-1
c
• 0)
ft 3
S <4H
3 u-i
0)
n
•H ID
JC £
J-> J->
tH OJ
o >
U-4 -H
0)
T3 U
0) (1)
S-4 U
d)
•a -o
•rH (— (
01 3
C O
0 ?
O
QJ
ui cn
a )H
tive w
tercou
sn
Ul
0) tn
4J -H
rH X
•< JJ
X

-------
Finally for all WWTPs, consideration was given to changing
the type of treatment process or abandoning the facility.
Two processes were considered:

6.   Land Application of Effluent - This method consists of
     two steps.  First of all, the effluent receives pre-
     treatment by a secondary type treatment process.  Then
     the effluent is spread or sprayed on agricultural land,
     or discharged to percolation ponds or to wetlands.  The
     MMSD proposed eight wetlands as possible effluent
     application locations:  Wayne Marsh, Jackson Marsh,
     Cedarburg Bog, Germantown Marsh, Menomonee Falls
     Tamarack Marsh, Vernon Marsh, Wind Lake Marsh, and
     Forrest Hill Marsh.

7.   Recycle and Reuse of Effluent - Very highly treated
     effluent can be used for a variety of industrial and
     recreational purposes or for groundwater recharge.
     Consideration was given to the possibility of upgrading
     the treatment processes to such an extent that the
     effluent would be suitable for these purposes.  In most
     cases, this alternative would include the addition of
     treatment processes beyond the secondary level, such as
     further chemical treatment, filtration, or carbon
     absorption.

8.   Connect to MIS - The facility could be abandoned and
     flows connected to the MIS or to a local system tributary
     to the MIS.

These eight possible Local Alternatives were considered for
each WWTP in the planning area.  The MMSD, EPA, DNR, and EIS
consultant independently analyzed the feasibility of each of
these alternatives.  A detailed discussion of this EIS
analysis is included in Appendix VI,  Local Alternatives.

Preliminary analysis of the private WWTPs in the planning
area indicated that many of the facilities are poorly operated
and maintained.  Therefore, another group of Local Alternatives
(Local B Alternatives) were developed assuming the abandonment
of all the private wastewater treatment facilities  (see
Figure 3.6).  The local private WWTPs treat a relatively
very small volume of wastewater.  Abandoning the private
facilities would not greatly affect the flows to 'the local
public facilities.

For New Berlin, two new Local Alternative WWTP sites were
developed at the request of the City.  Both alternatives
would include abandoning the Regal Manors WWTP and constructing
a new facility.  The first alternative would locate a new
WWTP near the New Berlin-West Allis border.  The other


                              3-31

-------
                                                                        STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                        LOCAL BOUNDARY
                                                                        EXISTIN9 PUBLIC WWTPi
FIGURE
    3-6
DATE
 APRIL 1981
                                               SOURCE  MMSD
LOCAL SERVICE  AREAS (B)
PREPARED BY
      EcolSciences
      ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

-------
alternative WWTP would be constructed in southeast New
Berlin.

For Muskego, an additional configuration was included in the
study at the request of the City's consulting engineers.
The alternative would include abandoning the Muskego Woods
Road WWTP and possibly the Muskego Rendering Company's
treatment processes.  All the wastewater flows in the area
would be conveyed to the Muskego Northeast WWTP, which would
be expanded or upgraded.

3.5.2  Subregional System-Level Alternatives

For an analysis of the Subregional System-Level, the planning
area was divided into three subareas based on the location
of existing treatment plants and conveyance systems, the
availability of land for the construction of new facilities,
and the political boundaries in the planning area.  Three
subregions were identified:  the Northern Subregion consisting
of Germantown, Thiensville, and Mequon; the Southwestern
Subregion consisting of New Berlin, Muskego, Franklin,
Greendale, Hales Corners, and portions of West Allis and
Greenfield; and the Central Subregion consisting of the
remainder of the planning area.  The subregions are shown in
Figure 3.7.  The Subregional alternatives are outlined in
Table 3.6.

3.5.2.1  Northern Subregion

For the Northern Subregion, both one and two WWTP configurations
were considered.  The one WWTP configuration would include a
treatment facility located either in Mequon on the Milwaukee
River south of Donges Bay Road or in Germantown near Highways
41-45 and Division Road.  Either WWTP would serve the entire
subregion.

For the two WWTP approach, one wastewater treatment facility
would be built at the same Milwaukee River site to serve
Mequon and Thiensville and the second facility would be
built at the same Germantown site to serve only Germantown.
The School Sisters of Notre Dame and Chalet-on-the-Lake
treatment plants would be abandoned and connected to the
local sewers tributary to these proposed WWTPs.

The following alternatives were considered for each WWTP in
the Northern Subregion:

1.   Secondary treatment and land application of effluent

2.   Advanced treatment and recycling or reuse of effluent
                              3-33

-------
                                                                             NORTHERN SUBREGION
                                                                              On* Plant Alternative -
                                                                               I • Germantown
                                                                                     or
                                                                               2- Mequon /Thiensville
                                                                              Two Plant Alternative -
                                                                               I • Germantown
                                                                                    and
                                                                               2 • Mequon/Thiensville

                                                                             SOUTHWESTERN SUBREGION
                                                                              One Plant Alternative -
                                                                               3 -MusKeqo
                                                                                     or
                                                                               4-Franklin
                                                                              Two Plant Alternative -
                                                                               3 -Muskego
                                                                                    and
                                                                               4-Franklin

                                                                             CENTRAL 3UBREG10N
                                                                          ^   5 • Jones Island
                                                                                 South Shore
                                                                                 South Milwaukee
                                                                                     	LEGEND	

                                                                                     	 Study Area Boundary
                                                                                     •'    Subregional Boundary
                                                                                     •••• Service Area Boundary
                                                                                      A  Existing Public WWTP's
                                                                                      •  New Public WWTP's
                                                                                LAKE

                                                                               MICHIGAN
                                                                                               i
                                                                                               PN


                                                                                               I
                                                                                   4 South Milwaukee WWTP

                                                                                     South Shore WWTP
FIGURE
     3-7
DATE

 APRIL 1981
SUBREGIONAL SERVICE  AREAS
                                                              SOURCE MMSD
PREPARED BY

       EcolSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

-------































CO
w
^
H
EH
rtj
2
W
H-l
(<


* "^
m z
O
W H
iJ O
CQ [d
"^ S
E-I n
D
W

^
K
rtj
2
H
S
H
l^J
W
K
»)





























C
•H
01
! 01
0-03
(V C 0)







•
*
*
c
o
•H 01
JJ 01
ID >
O-rl
•rl 4J
rH Ifl
a c
a M
eC 0)
jJ
•O rH
c <
rfl
rJ
*r



•
fO




•
CM




•
rH















n
04
i





















01

• H
££

01
0)

3
10
rH
-H
J£













X







X




X





X





X






JJ
* c
•O * ifl
CO) rH
id i-i a
rH O 1
0!J= rH
IH CD
C
to J3 O
01 4J 3
C 3 O1
O O 01
>-} U S






^
01

>pj
OS

X
o
&L4












01
01
c
o
o
c
01
s













X







X




X





X





X


JJ
c
Ifl

a

rH

c
^
Q
JJ
e
10
E
M
0)
O






















I-l
01

•H
K

01
01

3

rH
.^
S













X







X




X





X





X






4J
c
10
r-l
a

CM

C
o
D1
01






M
0)

>rj
a

X
o
Cu







V4
01

•H
a.

0)
01
c

o
c
01
s













X







X




X





X





X


4J
c
10

"a

CM



O
JJ
C

i
0)
o






01

10


•0
c
•H
s











M
01

•H
K
JJ
0
O
£













X







X




X





X





X




4J
c
at
rH
a.

•H

c
•H
rH
\s
Ifl
M


























^4
0)

•H
Cti
JJ
0
o
a













X







X




X





X





X




4-1
c
10
rH
a
i
(N

C
•H
rH
\s
c
10
1-4
0)
y
10
,j

0
0)

01
3
£

01
•H
n




v
01
0)
CJ

01
^4
01
c

o
U
01
ca
01
EH













X







X




X





X





X





4J
c
ifl
r-l
a

(N

o
01
0)
0)
3












c
o
"••H
C J->
O rt3
•H U
.p -H
n
, ^ Cii
W**^ 5*
^"* tl
&H x:
S Ul
* (D JM
QJ "J": y
03 ,-S
QJ
J~ r* q.*
^J "5.^,
s^
S«-g
<4_t !^
r-vT
•a— .
01 c
0) "°
^ 0 JJ
01 JJ r-l
S* o
O en o

I-i 01

0) H t1
> C
•H 0) O
4J JJ .f-4
Ifl Ifl JJ
C K n]

0) r-l JJ
JJ 10 r-H
rH E -H
id IH u-i
O c
M 2 H
O
HH — .-~
rH ro
X — —
-H
M ••
JJ n
id ai
£ >
•H
01 JJ
0) id
> C
•rl I-l
JJ (U
Id 4J
C rH
IH <
01
4-1 C
rH O

JJ
i-H Ifl
id u
C -H
O rH
-H- a
0i a
Sff

T3
0) C
0) 10
CO h3
* *
*
1
(0
c
14
01
JJ
Ifl

01

JJ

01
c
10
01 •
e 4J

4J 0)
•H 3
rH
- X-l
ID MH
01 01
4-1
10 01
O JS
•H JJ
•a
C 01
•H >
•H
0] 0)
•H O
01
M IH
01
4-> -a
10 rH
S 3
o
o
01
>, 01
t3 IH
O 3
J3 O
O
10 IH
01
MH JJ
H Ifl
S

• JJ
CU (0
E-i J=
§ ^

T3
01 C
•H Ifl

4J O

M 2
O S

0)
•0 J=
01 4J
SH
0) M
•a o

tn
e -a
82
0)
n TJ
18 -H
? CO
c
01 O
> 0
-rH
4-> 01
10 ifl
C S
M
0) 01

r-l -H
«i; 4J

X
3-35

-------
3.   Advanced treatment and discharge to the Lake Michigan
     Basin.

In addition, for the WWTP located in Germantown, an alternative
for advanced treatment and discharge to the Fox River Basin
was considered.  The WWTP in Mequon was evaluated for secondary
treatment and discharge directly to Lake Michigan.

3.5.2.2  Southwestern Subregion

In the Southwestern Subregion, both one and two WWTP configurations
were evaluated.  The single plant alternative was developed
to serve the entire subregion.  A facility would be built on
the Root River north of Ryan Road.  The two plant system
would include the construction of a smaller plant at the
Root River site serving only the Milwaukee County portion of
the subregion and a second plant located at the existing
Muskego Northeast site to serve those portions of New Berlin
and Muskego in the planning area.

The following alternatives were considered for each WWTP in
the Southwestern subregion :

1.   Secondary treatment and land application of effluent

2.   Advanced treatment and recycling or reuse of effluent

3.   Advanced treatment with discharge to the Fox River
     Basin

4.   Advanced treatment with discharge to the Lake Michigan
     Basin.

In addition, the existing Muskego Northeast WWTP was evaluated
for upgrading.

3.5.2.3  Central Subregion

The central subregion would be served by the Jones Island,
South Shore, and South Milwaukee WWTPs.  For each of these
WWTPs, all the alternatives identified for the Local and
Regional System-Levels were studied.

3.5.3  Regional System-Level Alternatives

Regional Alternatives were developed using the strategy of
treating all wastewater flows in the planning area at one,
two, or three large WWTPs.  The development of this type of
alternative took place in conjunction with the creation of
possible means for storing and treating peak flows to avoid
bypassing and overflows.


                              3-36

-------
In order to consider the feasibility of a one WWTP Regional
Alternative, the initial study was conducted using the South
Shore WWTP as an example of a single regional WWTP.  All the
facility alternatives identified for Local Alternatives
(except abandonment) were considered for expanding South
Shore to treat all the wastewater flows from the planning
area.

The two facility alternative evaluated the feasibility of
using Jones Island and South Shore for regional wastewater
treatment.  Again, all possible methods for expanding or
upgrading the facilities were considered.

The three facility alternative included operation of the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs and the construction of a
new WWTP.  The MFP analysis of the area's sewers indicated
that a likely location for the new facility would be at Ryan
Road and the Root River in Franklin  (see Figure 3.8).  The
alternatives studied for the new facility are listed below
and summarized in Table 3.7:

1.   Advanced wastewater treatment with discharge of effluent
     to Lake Michigan Basin

2.   Advanced wastewater treatment with discharge of effluent
     to the Fox River Basin

3.   Secondary treatment and land application of effluent

4.   Advanced wastewater treatment and recycle or reuse of
     effluent.

All the alternatives described in section 3.5.1 were considered
for the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs.

Unlike the MMSD staff, the EPA, DNR, and EIS consultant did
not include the South Milwaukee facility as a regional WWTP,
since its service area would not be expanded.  Also, the
EPA, DNR, and EIS consultant evaluated the system-levels
separately from the other components of the MFP.

3.6  THE SCREENING PROCESS

After the development of a comprehensive list of alternatives
for water pollution abatement, the EPA, DNR and EIS consultant
determined the environmental consequences, cost, and engineer-
ing feasibility of each alternative.

These alternatives were then evaluated in two phases.  In
the first phase obviously unacceptable alternatives were
eliminated.  In the second phase the remaining alternatives

                              3-37

-------
                                                                                        LEGEND
                                                                                WWTP  COMBINATIONS
                                                                             ONE PLANT ALTERNATIVE
                                                                               South Shore serving areas((2
                                                                             TWO PLANT ALTERNATIVE
                                                                               Jones Island serving area
                                                                               South Shore serving ar
                                                                             THREE PLANT ALTERNATIVE
                                                                               Jones Island serving areaM
                                                                               South Shore serving area
                                                                               Franklin serving areaQO
                                                                                     STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                                     LOCAL BOUNDARY
                                                                                     EXISTING PUBLIC WWTPs

                                                                                     NEW PUBLIC WWTP
                                                                                     JONES ISLAND
                                                                                     SERVICE AREA
                                                                                      SOUTH SHORE
                                                                                      SERVICE AREA
                                                                                     FRANKLIN
                                                                                     SERVICE AREA
FIGURE
    3-8
DATE

 APRIL 1981
                                                       •SOURCE  MMSD
REGIONAL SERVICE  AREAS
PREPARED BY
       EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

-------
































in
H
M
EH
g

1
ij
r-
<~i <
32
CQ O
rij M
H 2
Jx
o:

z
H
H
tJ
§
04

























01
D
id
0 r4
*> C
D *
•o u in
c s
a 01
in 3
X (N i-l
U rH 04





X




0
Jj
Q S
•BUS

U4 O X
X O it
a r- £




X





c
o
•H

id
u

II







*


D
i-l
U 01
>i • in
O T3 3
11 C D
K id OS



*




•8 2

Id Hi H
cn 0)
1} Lj &
*o id -i-t
IB x: os
cn in x
04 -H O
O O &4


01
a
73
c
•H
[5



c
o id
13 4-1 cn
C -H
id u x:
Cn O
01 U -H
•a a s
(4. O U
Cn in ^
£44 -H id.
3 Q J
c
id
-H
o
•H
£
U
!


111
O

to



x



c
o
'H
4J
X






g
H
S
u
r^

§
U
0
a
3
11
M
5
in
x:
4J
3
&


41
« 01

0 4J
'in c
C H
all
4J
X rH
H < <"1




X X



* 0)
* >
C -H
0 4J
•H Id
01 C
id 01
CH 4J
X rH
Cd < IN





X X





01

E* 'iH
0 4J
•H id
in c

a 01
4-1
X rH
U < rH







X X


11
rH
U D
>i 01
O T3 3
U C 01
OS id OS



X X




0

id 01 n
en 01
01 r4 >
T3 Id 'H
id x: os c
HU -4.
Sin x in
•H O «
D Q &4 0)


U D
•O "8
C C
•H — 1
S 3



c
o id
"c ** -H1
id u x:
Cn U
01 14 -H
U O 11 -H
Sin .* 10
•r4 Id Id
D Q J «
C C
id id
Cn en
•H -H
0 0
•r4 .r4
£ S
D 01
33


0)
o

B**
H O



X X



1
4J
X X





•1-
§
M
£
!

i
o
g
II

ul
>4 id
573
cn w
x: in
4J 0

O O
cn h)








4J
2
4J
1
id

•8
u
01
T3
•H
tn
C
O
u
0)
id
3

01
>
•r4
, 01
O "8 3
01 C 01
OS Id OS
4J
§
kl
01
U
X rH
id

01
x;
4J
01
C
id
"So
id 4-1
4-1 01 V4
C Cn 01
U 1J >
SO -H
o) X m
>j -i O id
fcH u b CQ
01
e.
T
4J
11 -H

3 TJ
01
•O 4J
e «
•H O
S -H
T1
c
•r4
in
•H

•o c
c o id
id 4J Cn
-H
4J 01 XI
C Cn U
1) M -H
Bid £
x:
So u
01 X
r4
11
4J
S £1
•H 1*4 4J
OS O C
•H
0 -8* 81
O 0
OS XI 1)
en
id -4
H4X.
H U
in
•iH
"a c
c o id
id 4J cn
•H
4J 01 x:
c cn o
11 -4 -H
B5S
So u
in .*
o! '°
ki 3 c
01 s U
> 3

BS -H IU
O r4 01
£ ox:
1*4 4-1
•8 0)
+ 0) 
> at
•H 3
C 4J
•H Id 1*4
rH CO
^ ^
C  >t

£ < fi
1
X
























•
tn
r- I
0)
rH
1
tn
8
4J
tn
CO
r-l
rO
C
O
tF
0)

&
 a
a o


o
0 0
O n
3 S
-3 x
x id
"3 6
6
1
a ?
IH fl
X.-5
cn M
South ;
Jones



4t



















































U
01 cn
Cn ffl
Id r4
IH 0
0 4J
4J cn

o

- a"
Q O


O
§0
in
§
•5 x
x id
id e
s
i
i
^4 id
in M
South ,
Jones


tM


















































01
0) Cn
en id
(d M
•4 O
0 4-1
•P W
M
x;
x; «
4J -rt
•H 3


Q U
s
0
o o
o n
IN 1
1 0
in o
CN (N
S
.§ 'd
X id
-------
were examined in greater detail to determine the most
environmentally sound and least costly alternatives.  This
two phase process is called "screening".

3.6.1  Screening Considerations

In order to screen the possible alternatives, it was necessary
for the EPA, DNR and EIS consultant to develop a list of
sensitive aspects of the natural and man-made environments
which might be affected by the alternatives.  These considerations
are outlined below.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

1.   Water Quality:  Would the alternative allow the waters
     of the planning area to meet existing DNR standards and
     208 recommended water quality standards?

2.   Aquatic Biota:  Would the aquatic biota in the region
     benefit or be degraded?

3.   Threatened or Endangered Species:  Would the alternative
     threaten or harm any species on the State or Federal
     Endangered or Threatened Species lists or would it
     remove the habitat of any such species?

4.   Air Quality:  Would the construction or operation of
     the alternative increase the annual loadings of any air
     pollutants for which the Milwaukee area is a non-
     attainment area?  Would air quality be affected?

5.   Odors:  Would the alternative increase the perceived
     odors from sewerage facilities?  Would construction
     or operation of the alternative create odors?

6.   Groundwater:  Would the construction or operation of
     the alternative greatly reduce groundwater supplies or
     degrade groundwater quality?

7.   Floodplains:  Does the alternative include the construction
     of facilities in areas where there is a 1% or greater
     chance of flooding each year?  Would there be unavoidable
     alteration of the upstream or downstream flooding and
     channel patterns?

8.   Wetlands:  Would the alternative require construction
     on or disruption of any wetlands?

9.   Prime Agricultural Land:  Would the alternative require
     the use of any lands identified by the Soil Conservation
     Service as having special importance for farming?

                               3-40
-------
10.  Scientific Study Areas:  Would any lands reserved for
     educational use or research be severely affected?

11.  Wildlife Habitat:  Would the alternative damage or
     require construction on land that supports populations
     of wild animals?

MANMADE ENVIRONMENT

12.  Future Growth:  Would the alternative cause population
     growth to deviate from the 208 Plan or would it divert
     construction to areas not designated for development?

13.  Land Use:  Would the alternative encourage development
     in conflict with local zoning regulations or area-wide
     land use planning?

14.  Cost:  Is the alternative greater than 15% more costly
     in comparison with other alternatives without offering
     compensating improvements in environmental quality? For
     example, land application of effluent was considered
     for local plants, in spite of the fact that it would be
     more expensive than other alternatives, because it
     offered improvement of water quality.

15.  Fiscal Impacts:  What would be the fiscal burden to
     communities and households to implement the alternative?
     Would its implementation affect growth in such a way to
     alter community costs or revenues?

16.  Economic Impacts:  How would the implementation or
     operation of the alternative affect regional employment,
     income, and production?

17.  Recreation:  As a result of the implementation of the
     alternative, would beach closings increase or decrease?
     Would parks and recreational facilities be otherwise
     impaired or improved?

18.  Aesthetics:  Does the alternative require the construction
     of unsightly facilities?  Would it reduce or increase
     the attractiveness of surface waters?

19.  Noise:  How would the alternative affect the ambient
     noise levels in the vicinity of sewerage facilities?
     Would the construction cause an extreme amount of
     noise?

20.  Public Health:  Would the alternative pose a hazard to
     the public health?  Would it relieve existing health
     hazards?


                               3-41
-------
21.  Safety:  Would the implementation or operation of the
     alternative endanger workers or the public?

22.  Access to Businesses, Residences, Industry, Police and
     Fire Services:  Would the construction or operation of
     the alternative severely disrupt traffic and access?

23.  Archaeological and Historic Sites:  Would the alternative
     unavoidably effect any archaeological site or any
     property, eligible for inclusion on the National Register
     of Historic Places by introducing "visual, audible or
     atmospheric elements that are out of character with or
     alter its setting?"  (36 CFR Part 800.3b)

24.  Energy:  Would the implementation or operation require
     the purchasing and consumption of excessively more
     energy than other alternatives, without offering other
     compensating benefits to the environment?

25.  Resources:  Would the construction or operation of the
     alternative require a disproportionately greater committment
     of resources  (materials, labor, chemicals) than other
     alternatives under consideration?  Would it require the
     committment of any non-renewable resources?

26.  Engineering Feasibility:  Would the alternative be
     infeasible or much less feasible than other alternatives
     under consideration?  The judgment of feasibility was
     based on many factors:  the use of proven construction
     and operation techniques (not excluding "innovative and
     alternative" technologies,  but requiring that these
     techniques have been used successfully in conditions
     similar to those in the MMSD planning area); appropriate
     sizing of the facilities for proposed use; and the
     practicality of the alternative, whether it would
     present functional or operational problems.

27.  Legality:  Would the alternative meet all the legal
     requirements of the Court Orders, Clean Water Act,
     and Wisconsin Statutes outlined in Section 4.2.1? If an
     alternative did not meet all these requirements, it was
     eliminated from consideration.

3.6.2  The Primary Screening Process

The purpose of primary screening was to eliminate the least
acceptable alternatives from the list of possible alternatives.
An alternative was eliminated if it would result in the
violation of effluent limits, if it would be obviously
infeasible, or if its cost was much higher than other alter-
natives, without environmental advantages.

                              3-42
-------
The primary screening results are shown in Tables 3.8, 3.9,
and 3.10.

3.6.3  The Secondary Screening Process

The alternatives that survived primary screening were then
analyzed in greater detail.  As part of this process, the
MMSD identified specific routes for interceptors and sites
for wastewater storage and treatment.  Pipe sizes and process
equipment requirements were also determined.  Based on this
information and using EPA guidelines, the MMSD estimated
costs for all alternatives.

The EPA, DNR and EIS consultant reviewed the MMSD data
including an analysis of the reliability of alternatives.
Independent EIS analyses were also performed using EPA cost-
effectiveness guidelines to estimate water quality impacts,
and energy and resource use.  To mitigate severe environmental
impacts, the EIS also identified and evaluated new alternatives,
and these are described throughout the document.

Because obviously infeasible alternatives had been eliminated
in primary screening, secondary screening was a comparison
process.  For each alternative, impacts were assessed using
the twenty-seven considerations described above.  Each
alternative's adverse and beneficial impacts to the natural
environment were evaluated in relation to its cost, potential
disruption to the community, and ability to support the
goals of the 208 Plan.

Alternatives were not eliminated on the basis of a single
criterion, unless the detailed analysis showed that it would
not meet water quality standards or legal requirements, or
that it would be excessively more costly than other alternatives
without offering compensating environmental benefits.
Rather, an alternative was eliminated as it became apparent
to the EPA, DNR and EIS consultant that other alternatives
better met Federal, State, regional and local regulations
and requirements.

The purpose of secondary screening was to compare alternatives
for each system-level and to select the alternative for that
system-level that would be the most environmentally sound
and the least costly.  These became the final alternatives.
The screening process is summarized in Tables 3.J.1, 3.12,
and 3.13, and the final alternatives are described in section
3.13.

3.7  THE REHABILITATION AND EXPANSION OF THE JONES
     ISLAND AND SOUTH SHORE WWTPS

The alternatives for the rehabilitation and expansion of the

                               3-43
-------






















































00
,
m
w
ij
CQ
f^
EH




























































































CO
U
^
H
EH
<;
2
os
u
E-t
£J

J
^C
B


b
O

O
2
H
2
U
U
os
u
en

>H
OS
<;
2
H
S
rH
J
W
OS
O,































0)

•H
4J OS
c
0) X
E 0
•M .. b
id c
0) 4-

EH 0 C

01 r- t7>
•O ic i-l
id s. &
M t 0
en tf -H
a-r -z.
3 C
01

id




01
rH
U 01
>i tn
0 -0 3
01 C 01
OS id or



,
c •

•H
4J
id
u
•H •
rH n
D
Q


13 •
C N
5


a
r-l


^j
01

•r-l
•• OS

C X
•H O
!£ b

C
-H
c
•O 
id 1-1

X O
W >H
•£,

0)
J.J

-]



0)

o

as

H O



c
Q

ij
0 C
2 <





01
0
« 4.
C
i-l U
id o
O 4-






J b U
-222, ,. -













3
-2222 22
UH UHHHU U U U U U U UHH







U U
h. fc
bb UUUUU U U U UUUUU UUU





UU U U U U k* b b b Cu U b b b UUU




222 2 22
UH w H U U * b b b bHbbb UHH





UU U U U U k b b b b U b b b UUU




UU UUUUb \u ft, pu bUbbb JOCJ









bb i^»Jbbb b bb J *4 b b b bbb














J2
H t-3 UbjjU u r-3 J bbjju bbJ








22 2










C
•H
0) . • 1
0) 4J rH CO (V W W
m n rn id 4-i rH • > 201
ti 3 fli ^ cr* o ^3 (ft "^ ®
CD OSWidid  OS -r4JM oo>sn iidusid ovior-i mid nuo
CO C 01 rH Cn Cn V-i 01 4-> i-4 4) rH 01 Cn 03 rH W C 01 01 C
C id CQ id 0) 0) rXJ5 CUr^CUICQ'CU'OCUiE! t-IV4 CQCQO
0) E D^^t X *O -*J 4-> 4J i— 10) £>idr^! •• idO) X
-H££o>o]0)n330)Oid.C£o>0>MO] . >, tn o-U 3 ? co
-CO!a!OS33idO-H2.C4Ja)2rHe>34J3-H O,_|  O Z SSUU1CO u 2 U SC/IXS iJ < 222
1
4J c tn
M >r4 ^
O r-l Id
2 M 2


oT se •»
X 01
in 2
3 C
2 01 0
x: -H
4J 4J 4J
o, id
(U "O • H
o id tj o
x oi o o
0) 4-1 t-l ^
en (ii 01
01 c T3 a
d. -H -rH 1

S -a c o
SCO -H
Id 0 4J
rH 10
rH t3 3) S-l
10 0) tl 4J
C 0) rH
r-l O S -1-1
O t3 i"

4) oi "
T3 ja c
-H T4
en -a c
C rH 'O O
0 3 0) -H
o o a 4-i
• S -H 10
id o) u en
o) n tn o -H
u 01 CM in '^
Id ? EH 01 VH
S T3 H
en in S
CO) *• 0)
•H > 01 in 4->
C -r-i en pa id
C 4-1 01 EH OS
id id £ S

(i M en
0) -M i-l
0) 4J • tn s
£ rH en ra
4J Id M 01 •
0 £ tN
C= C 4J
-H < Id >H
a o c
CO rH 2 O C
ftl « rH -r-l 0
EH O Id O 4J -H
S o C71 en id 4J
S r4 0) 0) CT* 01
= o; x -H y
0) W 1-1 r-l
4-1 C 3 M HI
id • -H s M >
> T3 rH 01
-H 4) r4 T) 0)
H C 01 K 4J r4
& O CQ id id (V
•0 « X
T3 C ? 4J 4J
C ffl 01 W rH ,4
id A 2 id id 3
id oi g >w
O -O J3 VJ
•H 01 C 4-> O k
rH & US 3 2 rH 0
Q 0 • *W
3 T3 4J 01' • in
O
S O 01 id 4-1 in cc
in tr>2 c O cm
0)0)0) H 0)0)03
> 4J x -• o> cnoi-H
-H 10 CO 4J 4J C04JO
4J>3enrH (u cj>
(Q °H 5"* (0 rf O Q) "r*
C U ' 0) CO • CO 4-
rH Q< -£ C >1 m
(1) 4J 4-1 0 4J CD C
^J f~4 tfi M -H • -»^ Q) V
rH r-l l» O 4J >,i-l U3 0,
-------
         EH
         Z
         Id
     05 Z
     ss
     •  co
         H
         £ a

         H«
         H <
         a x
         «c u
         05 W
H
>
M
EH
                u
                H
              sg
I
ffl
3
cn
  3
  u   w

  sil
                     U    CJ   U    U   U   U    O
O
z
05
O
cn
Z
M
S
H
r]
gg
ys
ij <
a. z
CU (X
                     U    U   O    U   U   O    U
                     U    U   Z    Z   U   U    Z
            CJ   U    U   U   U    U   U
                          u   u    u   u   a    u
                     4J
                     S
                     (TJ
                          JJ

                          K)
                          C

                          rH
                          Q.
                   4J   JJ
                   C   C

                   rH   rH
                   P)   n.
              §
              rH
              a
                                        •  IH
                                       rH  0
                                        •  IJH
                                       in
                                        •  
     >, id  o id
   0) JJ C -H 05 rH
 .  0) -H M rH   Id
>1  Ul rH 01  ft J2 S
jj    -H jj  a. w IH
     J2 rH  Id -H O
rH  . -rl Id    I Z
Id  4J W   T3
CT>  01 Id (U  C
                                              -H
                                                              SS
                          4J
                     C    C
o*
I    3
                              C    C   iH
                          id   O    -------
Ul
Ed
a
[d
01
id
0 H
JJ 0
a jj
TJ O Ol
B S
(0 01
a in 3
X CN rH
W rH B,





u
b

o"
*
* 0)

S -rl
O JJ
•H id
0! B
B M
' id 01
a jj
Cd rt m
        0
        JJ
            .
        a o

        a r»
        OS  BJ OS



O
rH

3
c
E-


















j
g

h-t
O
§
b
O

Z
Z

§
u
Ul

S4
a:

z
H
S
J
§
Oi




•d
id

01
13
id
1
D




•s
id

01
13
id

tn
3







0
01 ^4
tji (U

It) -H
x: 2
o
01 X
•H o
Q b


B
0 id
JJ cp
01 x:
en o
tl -H

X;
U <11

S3


01
>
0
a s
£ <4
H 0
w

b
B
tH
401

JJ
                         *  >
                         C -H
                         o JJ
                         •H  id
                         01  c
                         c  n
                         O    01
                         >,   01
                         U 13  3
                         n

                         id
                                  [d Id


                                  b" fc
                            0  id
                         •o +J  01
                         C   -H
                         id  0) J3
                            pi o
                         01  M -H
                         •O  id S
                         id x;

                         &S^

                         SfSS
                            Is
                            H O
Recycle

and

Reuse
                           e o
                           id JJ

                           JJ 01  rl

                           S S1^

                           11  2C
                           id u    -H
                           01 01  X 01
                           H -ri  o id
                           EH Q  ft, to
                                            «aa
                           E  0
                           id -u
                                            •u  01 x:
                                            ss1^

                                            B5S
                                            id  u 01
                                            01  01 M
                                            >H -H Id i
                                            EH Q J ••
                                                        2
                                                        b
ed as part of the Local and Subregional Systems-levels.
the Franklin WWTP was not viable, no further analysis of the South Shore and Jones Island
1.

0)
•o
•rt
01
s
o
o
01
01

•pf
JJ
n


3
id
01
01
01

**


•4-
JJ
JJ

T3
0
C
1
01
JJ
01 •

M -J
a u
*•§
JJ C
•H 0
u
B
01 n

S *

^
+

in

B
O
•H
JJ
0
01
01

01
01
Ul


£
JJ
•rt
rH
id
en

S


h3
T-t
in

B
•H
JJ
U
0
m
01
c
ID

.
^
jj
•H
rH
-H
•H
01
Id
01
b


b


__J

in

r*>
C
O
•H
jj
O
01
01

0)
01
Ol

.
JJ
in
o
u


u
r further analysis

T3
01
TJ
3

U
B
•H

to
id

01

-H
JJ
id
E
0)
JJ

<

z
M
8.
id
M
O
jj
tn
£
Q"

I


e
3
1

g

i
0)

o
in
x:
jj
3
O
tn

,_4
*
MGD, No Storaqe

0
o

S
3
S
•H
id


I
•O


01
H
01
01
B
O
rj



ft
id
O
jj
tn
o
z
Q"

o
o
CN



•H
X

Q

'
V

1
Ol
x:


o
01

id
o
jj
01
i
Q
(J

8

e
3
E
10


1
13
e
-------
  J
  Cd
  s
  a

  01
  >1
  cn

  J
  <
<




















D

-H
4J



0)
-U




H3
C

^

1^4
0

£
c

^J
0
OJ

0
01



















JJ
0
Cj
s
I-H














01
$>
H
4J
2



4_l
i — |


D

.a
H
to
T3

S

JJ
•H
C
3


C
O

-J
c

2



































I

c
•H
^

c
HH

Ti
C

a
X
w













03
JJ
a

S
H
C
0
•H

U
3

JJ
cn
c
o
o
£
0)


JJ
^4
0
-C
cn




i
TJ
C
•H


C
H

TJ
C

a
X
w




4)
rH

H

cn

OJ
H
g






c
o
•rl
4J
fl

•rl
rH
a
a
fl
TJ
c

rH

rl rH
CU rH
> fl
•rl
os c

CU -C


3 Ll

3 3
rH 0
rl rH
S
01
O -H
4H

CU 01
Cn 0
W O
fl
Si rH
CJ fl
01 4J

OEH




o



c

,_,)

c
a
o

0
C
•H
TJ
O)
TJ
C
fl
X
CU

CU
a

•a
3

j

4J .C
C 4-1
fl 14
rH 0
04 Z




Li
CU

0 rl
- OS

CU CU
CP CU
>H a

-C fl
j 3
01 rH
-r4 -H
Q 2




















































01
CU

-rH
4J
fl
C
14
O)
4J
rH
fl







01
•u
rl
£

^|
4J
C
CU
3
U-l
UH
01
01
id
a
a,
3

4J
0)

£

TJ
3
0
3

^j
r-;
fl
04



































01
TJ
14
fl
T!
C
fl
4J
cn

>,
4J
•rt
rH
fl
3
tr


CU
4-1
fl
3

TJ
CU
TJ
C


£
O
U
0)
14

CO
o


14
0

OS
z
Q

0
z
TJ
rH
3
0
3

0]
TJ
14

TJ
C
fl
4-1
01

4J
H
fl
3
tr
14
CU
4J
fl
3

as
z
a

cn
c
•U
01

X
a

rH
•













































.
0)
cn
14
fl
£
o
01
-H
TJ

01

4-1

O
4J

CU
3
TJ

TJ
CU
4J
fl
rH
O
• H


CU
XI

TJ
rH
3
O
3


CO
TJ
Ll
fl
TJ

fl
-U
0!

-^
4J
rt
• rH
14 fl
0) 3
•H
as LI
CU
0 -P
O fl
^ 3
3
fl TJ
3 01
rH Ti
•rt G
s 01

01 E
.C O
a o
CU
C Ll
•H
CO
4J O
OJ 00
e
rH
01 rH

























































































0
01 4J
3
U 01
0 3

*-;,
en TJ
O 01
Si 4H
a fl
rH
OJ 0
Si -rl
4J >
14 CU
0 A
<4H
TJ
4J rH
a 3
CU 0
0 3
X
CU .C
o
4J -rl
Si

j2 i-t
n3

i— I C
3 fl
0 4J
3 cn


































































































tn
&4
S
s^
c
fl
01

JJ
10
a-
D

E
0

M-I
0)
CP
S4
(U

o
cn
•H
TJ





































































































i)
o
r- 1
X
r— 1
in
o>

II

-C
4J
IM
O
3

jj
C
a
CO
0)
lH
CU
































































































CO
JJ
o
fl
t
•rl
c
0
•H
4J
o
3
14
4J
01
C
0
o
£
Ll
a
XJ

4-1
14
0
S3

i
4-1
c

E
4J
fl
OJ
14
EH

01
T!
fl
Ll
cn
a







3
0
4J
C

£
14
CU

























































01
4-1
H
£
rH
,_,
4-1
C
CU
3
4J
UH
cn
01
Q
04
3

4J
0)

£

TJ
3

5

4J
C
fl








o
4-1

CU
cn
14
fl

"o
01

Q






































































TJ
C
01

g
0
u
01
Li

CO
o
OJ
TJ
C
fl
OS
Z
Q
cn

H
4J
01

X
01
01

4-1

j— ;
.4
0
ffl




«
01

r^


01
CU

0
s
0
c
01




































































T!
rH
3
0
3

CU
c

^
o
rH

O

O

01
TJ
14
fl
C
fl

01

£>,
4-1
H
fl
3
cr

14
01

fl
3























































































4J

£

CU
14
fl

0]
TJ
14
fl
TJ
C
fl •
01 O
r-t
Ll X
CU f"!
f O
4J •
0 r-
rH
rH t/>

< II

£
• 4H
TJ 1-
0) 0
fl
rH 4J
o c
r4 O)
> 01
11
01 Ll
a o.











































c
0

4J
fl
rH
8
U
(U .
CU D
**N. >
C H
0 4J
-H fl
4J C
fl !-.
:M a.
4J 4J
— * i— 1
•H fl
4-4
C 0)
(-4 r- 1
1 -Q
C -H
0 cn
H fl
4J O
fl 4H
U
H jj
rH cn
0_i 0
Q4 U
*£
-U
TJ cn
c fl

**







01
4J
01
r-1
X
o
01 rH
4J fl
O H
fl 4J
1 s

c a
o
H G
4J 0
O H
3 4J
14 3
4J rH
01 rH
C 0
o a
CJ
E 0)
14 -U
CU fl
4-1 3

4J C
Li 3
0 O
£ Ll
01 O



C
0
H
4-1
fl
O
H
^
a
a


TJ
C

^














in
TJ
U
fl
TJ
C
fl
4J
in

>,
4J
•H
rH
fl
3
cr
LI
01
4J
fl
3

TJ
0)

C
CU

£
O
u
O)
Lt

CO
O
oo

T)

fl

OS
z
a

rH
r^
<



r-|
•
JJ
•H
i— i
fl
3
a1


































-H
r- 4
0)


j5

TJ
1— ,
3
0
3
E
(D
4J
cn

01



D1
O

o
c
-d
u
CU
4J

o
>
• H
JJ
fl
g
r-l
0)
Jj
r— 1
fl

CO
<

























,H

^
•r-1
Qi
(U
O
c

s
0
c
0
s




































































a>
c

TJ
c
3
4-1

<*>
l/l
CO

,M
0

4-i
cn
o


a


TJ
i— *
3
0
3
TJ
C
TJ
i— (
i— 1
fl
r-(
Jj
3
U
^

fl
OJ
tw Iji
O fl
r- 1
CO r-(
OJ >
!M
O 01
fl J3
jj
O
r^ C
r-» -H




















































































r-1
(Q
-^
jj
g
OJ
TI
-H
CO
O
!H

C
•H

JJ
C
rH
a,
CP
c
H
jj
cn
•1-4
X
a.


o

jj
c

c
o
TI
G
fl
a




































































































u


CP
0
i-H
0


U
0)
JJ

a
Jj
fl

• !-«
fl dJ
OJ -U
-H rH
fl <




































































































D
o
rH
X
1

n
i-H
v>

II

£
Jj
^
o
3

xj

CU
en
cu
14
























































































0)
A

T3

3
0
3
01
4J
D
a
s
• r4
C
0
4J
O
3
14
4J
01
C
o
o
s
14
CU
4-1
1
4J
14
0
Si
cn

i
4J
C
CU

4J
fl
0)
14
EH

01
TJ
fl
14
cn
a
D





C
rl
rH
Ll
0)
03

3
CU
z




















































4J
C
fl
rH
a

UH
0


4J
•H
E
•H
X
0
a

CU
01
0
0 •
fl
O CU
4J Lt
fl
01
3 rH
TJ fl
rl
4J 4J
C C
fl cu
0 TJ

UH 01
•r-1 CU
C Ll
Cn
H 0
0] 4J


Li

CU
~>

0
4-1

01
Cn
U
fl

tj 01
CO 01
H 14
C U
4J
fl
04

01
01 Ll
> 0
—I C


--

01 fl

rH 01
< OS


























































JJ

E

r_l
4J
C

3
u^
UH
0)
a
Q
0.
3

4H
cn

S

TJ
rH
3
0
3

4J
^
fl
rH
0,






















































































•

0)
>. 01
•P 14
rl CJ
rH
O 14
3 0)
cr o
Q
14
(!) C
4J -H
fl
a
0) 4J
C fl
rl rH
Ll 0
0 -H
rH >
£
O
as
Z TJ
Q rH
3
cn O
C 3
•rl
4J in
en TJ
•H 14
X fl
cu TJ
c
01 fl
X 4H
£H 01




























































































4J
01


O

TJ
i— 1
0
3
01
TJ
14
fl
TJ
C
fl
4J
cn

as
Z
a
Lt
CU
Si
4J
0


rH
<





















































































01
T!
Ll
fl
TJ

fl
•U
01

>-
4J
•H
rH
fl
3

14
CU
4-1
fl
3

TJ
CU
TJ
C


£
0
o
CU
14

X
o


CU
-C
EH
























































































TJ
0)

•H
C
0
H
I
3

TJ
C

•.
0)
c
14
0
rH
si
O

*
01
3
Ll
0
'a
01
O
Si


14
0
UH




























































































C
rl

4J
i

01
a
4J
0
c
TJ
3
0
3

C
0)

0
14
4J
C

fl
rH
C
Q

fl
























































































rH
fl
cn
01
OS


4J
O

>,
a
TJ
0)
>
14
Si

-Q

TJ

3
O
3
51 -H
01 r-t
14 14
o o)
CO
Li
01 3
CU 01






































































































c
01
1

CU
J=
4J

TJ

fl

04
EH


01
14
0

fl
s


























































































0
A

TJ

3
§

01
£
4-1
cn
01
o
rH
4J
a
CU
01

CT
C
•H
C
0

u

3
UH
r-t
fl
S




































































































u3
O
X
CO

o
oo


II

Si
4J
> Ll
TJ 0
CU 3
4J
fl 4J
C C
'= i"


rH 14
CU 04

































                                            3-47
-------
3 I
= S
—i a
4J EH
S 01
o >
O 01
H -H
J O
X

gi
0)
-H
4J
rd
c
i-t
0)
Jj
rH
2
H
4-4
o
0
4J
CJ
0
o














01
4J
u

£












>
4J
fl

W
•J
^




_Q

in
fl
o

4J
H
C
3
c
i
0

AJ
H
,__!














-^ • 4-1
0) 4J O T3
-•* o en c
 c/1 tn
fl 4J U £ C C rQ £J £

£a^O)rH J2 >t (H
c a O TI fl 0 01 i-i 4-> en X
0 CN r-l SM 0 CO ^
HC 3 3 U) -H rt T3 O fv)
o r-t c 3 •— ' 
4J rH a t: -H G a; T3 c tn
en I— t Z ^ --* JJ rH fl II
c o a fl cr< 14-1 3 rH en
O a T3flQJ 0 O a C -C
U CT C > 3 -H 4-1
r-4 C fl *4H fl jj C C ' )-l
£ a; H JJ C .c CCOOT30
>-( *j *j yj a —t -- 1 -H a [S
oflen x 'U £ i—* — i --» 4-1
4J3rJ->-CJrH -CMflOfl^J
iT3X*Jraacoajjccc
4J GOJ-HUOOTJCCHS-^a)
i-43 ^-*fl?CC rHM-lEtt
QOrHfl ^flSirH'HOJ
JT ijrH 3O4-> D^O) -llITjrH^
C/3O< CTCOi-t><-Z flS OJCU

0
1 O

O 0
H CU
fl C
U 0

—1 -U


< -p

TO -H 3
C ^w O
fl C H
>_; rH 4J




































01
4J
o
fl
a
1-t

c
0
H
0
3
IH
en
§

g
4J

4J

0
en
•


1
4-1
c
rH
04

4J
o
3

4-1
01
c
0
u


m

0>

rl

fl
g
~
r^
4



















en
Jj
•H
£
H
rH

4-1
c
OJ
3

MH
Ol

M
B
0.
3
4J

1
•o
3
0
3

4-1
c
fl
rH
04
*

ij



o
4J

01

rl
fl

~u
01
•- 4
a
4-1
c
fl



4J
C/l
fl
01
4J
3
0
tn













t3
IH
fl

c
fl
4J
01

•H
•-4
fl
3
a1

rl
0)
4J

3
01
H
O
_g
u
z
Q
CP
c
r-t
4->
tn
•H
H
*













3J
01
O



























rl
0)

4J
o
rH
3


OJ

IH
U
rl

01
Q
-5
T3
OJ
4J
fl
rH
O
H
>
.3

T3

3
i

























































4J


rJ
•O
rH
3
5
J]
•O

fl
C
fl

01

E.
Q












































01
T3
rl
fl
•a
c
fl
4J
01
^v,
4H
•H
rH
fl

0*
IH
01
4-1
§
TJ
C

0
u
JH
CO
c


0)
EH
*










































T3
OJ t3
4J rH
fl 3
rH O
0 = 3
H 3
> 0 T3 • OJ
C T3 -Q
a> 4-j tn fl a
XI OJ -P rH C *O
£ H O rH
T3 T3 T3 3
rH a aj a) GO
3 rfl 4J C fl 3
0 to O -Q
3 TD M N (d tn

en 3 a >i jj a) > rH
.ccoc T-fr-XrHtn x
CU 'O TJ JJ 3 rH
M H C 3 0 0 O
J3 T3 3 TJ C 4J O
a G o H 4J a T
fl en cu c OJ v>
t3 -JJ T3 OJ £ fl en
C U. rH U JJ rH 1|
fl 3 di C71
CO O **-* ^4 C rC
0)O3 OOtO-H JJ
C fN ^ SM C • V4
-H c en o o 13 o
Mr4«H •D'CC-neUS
OeiJrH MCUfl-t-JJ-J
rHrCi-l OrOSOfl4J
rC-^-oj • ns a; ccc
OOCQ4J qj r-t 3 -H a;
G in c fl MH E a.
r4rHjfl . C1fHH(U
Qr-J DrHrHCU Q O3 i— 1 i-l
4-istrSdirHrQCtiS eucii












































en
r4 T3
0) -4
-G fl
til 4J TI
X! 0 C
fl
73 rH JJ
-i rH en
3 <
o >
3 JJ
• -iH
T3 X rH
!H OJ (d
fl 0) 3
T! i-i • eT1
C U 4-1
4J 01 S OJ
01 H 4-1
Oi 01 fl
Oi C J3 3
r- rj
r4 0 ^ T!
rl tj rH 01
O 3 T3
r-l X O C
__ 7) 3 OJ
U Oi S
EH 01 S
os -a o
Z C ^4 O
Q rl fl 0-
C 5 13 X
•rl 4J 4J O
4J fl 03 CN
C/l rH
rl 0 K Ol
rj > Q £H


Ol
I Ol
4J o)
- ^
-I O 0!
CH -P OJ
r.
4J Ol O
O Ol
3 U 01
rl fl VH
— J3 01
VI O C
r: 01 IH
OHO
u a o



























01


•o

3
o
03
T3 13
rH SH
3 fl
0 -0
3 C
fl
01 4J
3 01
IH
O CO
S O
01
0 SH
J3 Oi
a js
4J
•0 0

rH
0) <

H
0 T3
-1 0)
x: 4J
U fl
rH
IH 0
0 -rl
MH >











































.
Oi
IH a
01 ^4 ^
4J U CJ
fl 01
3 14 IH
O U
T3 01
Ol Q IH
13 0)
C C 01
a -H a
1 4J O
O 0) 4-1
U S
OJ rH •
^4 0) fl ^fl
-3 O O
CO -H r- 1
O T3 4J X
CN rH c • f*1
3 0) OJ u")
C 3 'H -H 00
01 03 fl u>
C- T3 4J C
Z rl O rl II
Q f3 fl 01
TJ a 4-1 _:
Ol C g rH U
C fl -H fl rl
-1 4J 0
4-1 01 IH 01 3
01 O1 Ol
X 4-1 4J fl C
01 -rl 0 .C 01
rH U 01
-J rH fl rH 01 01
£ < CT i< T3 -U






























                                           3-48
-------

    rj

    U
    S
    H
    EH
    en
 0
CJ
CO  'J
<  z
    3
    u



















01
0)

•H
JJ

C
r-l
O
rH
l^

rH
fl
C
•H


4-1
o

C
o

JJ
o

r-l
0)
CO



















Jl
4J
U
fl
a
e













CJ
H
4J
fl
C
!H
O
4J

t^



Q
H
Jl
0)


£

3
§

S
jj
C
fl
r-H























































01
JJ
0)
•H
X
OJ

cn i— 1

CJ H
fl 4-1
a- c
•H 4J
c a
0
-1 C
JJ 0
O -H
3 JJ
k4 3
JJ rJ
01 rH
§ a
o
kj
S CD
ki jj
11 fl
JJ 3
1 T)
JJ C
k4 3
0 0
cn o
fl
0
1 CJ

0 0
H 0.
jj — ^
fl C
o o
•H -H
rH JJ
0, fl
a. kj
< jj

TJ H
fl C
rH r-t




























































.x
11
k4 11
0) M
JJ Q
fl
3 k4
01
TJ 01
S) Q
T3
C C
CU -H
g
g JJ
O CU
O c
01
k4 0)
jq
CO
0 TJ
CN rH
3
TJ 0
C 3
fl
01
OS T)
§kt
fl
TJ
cp c
H JJ
JJ 71
UJ
•H >,
X JJ
CU -H
rH 03
< 5*















C
O
•H
JJ































































O
CP
0)
,*
01
3
S

11

2

UH
.H

0)
0)
k4
u

01

0)
C
0
CJ
01
i/
t-1


•H
,j
fl














































































Ul
SM
o
c
M
o
0

cn
cn
0
E-t

o
jj

G
Cn
fl
u
cn
•^
T3

JJ
0
C
TJ
H
13
0
cn
—i
fl

tn _*:
Ou i)
E-t o
3 iH
3 U













































































TJ
0)
C C
O -H
N
T3
>. 0) C C
rH i-| QJ fl 3
rH U ,Q .— 1 i TJ rH
U3 C C 0 "4H T! cn • C X
0) -« 0 -H 0 rH >, fl m
-H 0- 4J 3 U T rr
U TJ fl tfl O-H OC
fl (U d) rH QJ 3 -P i—*? CTi
T) cn 0 IH a OO m
rH CJ fl (J U JJ d) C (/>
rH 01 !-4 rH fl C01 .C TJ
(NCOD fl CJrH ||
-4-1 a* o -H en a 3
>iOJO)\rn CUC 4-) O rC
rH J3 C CN -H 3 +J
0) O 0 in C • 0> l-i
4J TJ !H H c OOTI>C 0
fl rH U JJ 0 _-, H -H IJH o l-i tTirH-H-U 3 rg (U
<,_(,< HrH>ce;s ojH
-U
3
rH
a
o
JJ
fl
3
TJ

o






01
< n
0
11 C

H E


C fl
k4 ep
11 a
w QZ

*
03
o

c
c o
H 01
rj H
rS 5
CQ Cu
g
3 0
01 U
z —
3-49




















































o
JJ
fl
3

T3
CD

c

g

0
o
11
CD
o


TJ

fl

a;
2

c
-I-l
aj
en

X
CD

rH
<
1
c
0
rH
^J
fl
u
r-(

O4



TJ

fl




01

>

4J
fl
c
CJ
Jj
rH

















































^
(U 14H • •
 W
•H JJ
0) C II II
*J rJ fl
0) >n rH rH rH
£3 • a >, £ >. .C
CT1 C rH JJ r-H 4-i
rflflCflflO^O
IH U 0) 3 O 3
TJ - oj o >• ;*
rH JJ > rH -U 4-J
3 C cn C M C

3rH-H.Q O cn tr>cn
Q, C OJ IH O
cn TJ TJ (0 ^ fl -H
rH C fl > CJ
(T3 tH rH iH rH
TJ -U . C rH i-t O 0
JJ 0 3 U
•r4 TJ O CQ rH rH
rH C r4 fO fl
3 JD CT> CD O 0
cr <3 fl z e- &^

^
3 J3
01
V Z TJ
C 11

•H O 0 H

fl JJ C OJ
k4 fl O
jJ rH -H C
rH 0 JJ -H ^~
•H O k< rH Q
'jj k* o kj en
a 01 a. i> s
M fl. — 03 ig







































jj
01
fl
01

jj
3
0
en

c
H
rH

CU
CO

3
OJ
z


0




o
r-4
X
r-t


CN

C/>

II rH
fl
rH H
-C JJ
JJ C
rH O JJ
k4 3 0
IB di
01 JJ
x c c
oi o
CO] H
HO JJ
rH k4 3
kt 04 ~t
01 rH
m o
a
3
01 kt
Z a
jj
UJ fl
0 3

rH C
fl 3
JJ 0
gk4
ejj

-C
JJ
3
O
05
04
C
QJ r-(
> rH
•rH !-t
JJ 0)
fl -0 ••

rH 3 Jj
i) CJ fl
jJ Z ?
rH
<





































2
0
H
JJ
fl
X rH
XI 0
o
C kJ
o o
-H Q-
JJ \
fl C
0 0
-H -H
rH JJ
04 fl
a kt
< JJ

TJ -H
C U-l
35

**
0)
k4 01
11 u
-J CJ
fl

01
TJ 01
cu a
TJ
c c:
CU 'H
c
g Jj
O 0)
ej g
cu
CO
0 TJ
CN rj
3
TJ O
C 3
fl
M
S rH
Q fl
CP C
C fl
-H 4J
4J tfl
Jl
H >,
X *
2 rH
rH fl
fl -H
OJ C
a, o)

C H
0 01
TJ CU
C kt
fl
< 'o






c
0
• H
^J
fl
rH
0
u
kt
01
04



















01
•H

JJ
•r4

CU
01
3
fl
U
3

0)

•H
JJ
fl
C

a
rH >,
fl CP
0
01 rH
> O
•H C
JJ &
o o
CJ 01

JJ -H
01 JJ
0 fl
0 C

Jj 11
01 JJ
is




.
z c
0 3
C 0

a) cn
> 4J
• rt
c
H 0)
Jj
TT fl
C !H
fl OJ
rH Q4
0
fl TJ
kt C
3 fl
JJ
-H C
3 3
0 0
•H
CP rH
fl 3
- i
0
01 -H
1) rH
i-l kt
U 0)
fl 03
O 3
m 01
CN Z





























H) 01
•H TJ
XI kj
•H fl
tjl TJ
•H C
rH fl
11 JJ
01
01
XI >-
JJ
T3 -H
rH rH
3 fl
O 3
3 cr
g kt
a 01

en fl
>i 3
01
TJ
CU
>i TJ
CP C
0 OJ
rH g
o e
c o
.c u
O 01
O) k.
JJ
CP CO
01 C O
> H CN
•H TJ
J- C TJ
fl 3 =
C *J fl

0) 00 Oi
-JJ u"l "2.
r-1 X Q

kj rH
01 O rH
< UJ <


II

rH
f
JJ

O
3


C
CU
U]

i^
O4

rH
fl
0)



.H

CU
3
CU
o

O X
CN
JJ r-l rH
C fl •
fl *J O
rH 0 <"l
a EH V>r






























01
01
11
r-J
C
3

01
kj
CU
c

o
CJ

01
03 J4
01 0)
EH n

TJ CJ
c
fl kj
01

0) JJ
11 -H
kt 01
u
o
kt J-l
0)
SOI
0)
CP
C k4
-H fl
.c
JJ O

g H
TJ
11
-Q O
CP
TJ a

3 01
i i

1
c —
11 fl
a H
X CJ
0) C
fl

rH -H
k4 [14
fl
CU 04

a,

0 S

j3 i;
kt JJ
i >,
J3
JJ
C T3
O O
c/1 JJ
CU 3
^ a
a e
0
a u
j-j cn
fl
UH
O CO
CD
rH )H
fl 3
C •-•
£-» TJ
-1





























-------
  >
  M

  t-
*i cn
c x
o OQ
u
3°
03 O
< Z
E- «
  Z
  as
  U
%
-H
i ^
C
.— 1
-i
0
1
1
r— t
M
t
E*
M

H

T3
C

-U
'—1


f~t
-Q



,P
11

jj
-H
3
K
0
u

-U
c
fl

a.






Short-term construction impacts .
Plant would meet WPDES effluent limits.
The existing DNR water quality standard for
chlorine would be violated in Tess Corners
• •
i
J-3 Ul
C Ul
E &*

'd 0 CJ
cj iJ a;

EH CJ U
D i^ en
73 2 ^

M "t3 C

i -i-i O
3 Q 0

C
< IB
QJ A*
-H -P
4J 01
0 '^ ft
en c O

4^ QJ 4J
01 4J Ll
3 -H O
S < Z






Creek. All other DNR standards would be met. |




































The 208 recommended water quality standards |




































for chlorine, phosphorus, and un-ionized |




































ammonia nitrogen would not be met. All other |




































208 standards would be met. |




































i Long-term eutrophication of WhltnaLl Park Pond |




































would continue.
i Plant would be expanded on city-owned land




































currently zoned residential and in sight of |




































new residential development. |




































' Present Worth - $11.00x10°.




































i Short-term construction impacts.
•
i
4J
C
S
JJ
IB
0
Ll
&
ID
T3
TJ
Li

i-4
D



















i Plant would meet WPDES permit.
i All existing DNR and 208 recommended water
• 9


tP
CO

o a

IB
ii J
>j o
ft 01

O ^
03 ui
•H 3
Q S












3-






quality standards would be met in Tess





























5






Corners Creek. |





























Q






i Increased loads of phosphorus and nitrogen 1




































would aid in the accelerated eutrophication 1




































of Big Muskego Lake.
i Plant would be expanded on city-owned land
•



































currently zoned residential.




































i Present Worth - $11.13x10°.
V



































i Short-term construction impacts.
> Plant would meet WPDES effluent limits.
V V
1

C 01
S E*
AJ
fl 0
ID 4^

fr" 0)
O M
*U 13
IB -C
Ll U
01 01
Q, -^
3 Q
4J
C
iH
0*
4J
03

3
.C
4J
Ll
O







i The existing UNK water quality t>lamlard for
chlorine would be violated in Tess Corners
V





1)
0)
LI
O
01
Ll

C
Ll
O
0



















Creek. All other DNR standards would be met.




































> Long-term eutrophication of Whitnall Park Pond j




































would continue, |




































• The 208 recommended standards for chlorine, ]




































phosphorus, and un-ionized ammonia nitrogen
would not be met.




































> Long-term eutrophication of Whitnall Park Pond




































would continue.
> Existing plant in area zoned wetland/f loodnl ain




































would be partially abandoned. Plant expansion
would occur in area zoned suburban residential.]




































i Nutrient loads to Big Muskego Lake would be •




































decreased, slowing the eutrophication process.
t Present Worth = $13.10xl06.






























-------
     E-t
     rt
     a


     <
 i    i
 3   S
4J   CO
 C   >-
 0   ui
<   z
E-   w
     Q!
     U
1
•H
JJ
(Q
C
r-|
CJ
o!
H
U-4
0
c
o
JJ
CJ
OJ
o
cn










cn
Impact












H
±j
OJ

i_,
OJ
J_!



O

-Q
r-|
C/l






>
•H
C
3
£
0
U

jj
C
03
rH
t-U








cn
jj
u
03
CU
£
-H
c
0
•H
JJ
u
3
rH
JJ
cn
c
0
CJ
£

OJ
Jj
1
Jj
rH
0
cn
i
jj
c

£
4J
03
OJ

C-t

CD
TJ
03























cn
jj
• rH
s



c
01
3
UH
UH
01
cn
1
3
4J
OJ
CJ
g
73
rH

i

^j

OJ
0.


cn

m

0


CJ
Ol
Ll
2




Q

















rQ
0
0
"in
73
C
OJ
^J
CJ
3
7
c
Q
area z<

c
jj
c
OJ
04

c
H
JJ
01

X
a






0)

IB
a

O

01

•Jl
3



















JJ
C
Oi

73
^
O
73
C
03
.Q
IB
>i
rH
rH
OJ
•H
JJ
Lf
03
CJ
a
73
3


C

(B
^



































03
0.
L!
3
a
3
01
73

0
N
IB
11
Li
OS
C
•H
3
0
O
0
73
rH
3
3
C
0
• H
cn

OJ
34
X
CO


















































rH
OJ
-•H
JJ
3
73
rl
Jl
a
Li


































73
rH
3
i
01
73
OJ
0
rH
C
0

0
Ll
.U
C
73
C
(B
01
3
Ll
O
0.
01
0
•C

73
OJ
03
03
01

CJ



































01
-^
O1 Lt Ll
H CO O
CO JJ U
03
UH 3 01
0 01
73 CJ
C 01 EH
O 73
•rl C C
JJ CO -rl
(B £
o e jj
•H 0 CO
s: o £
a o)
O Ll 0) VJ3
L4 .Q O
JJ CO rH
3 O 73 X
CO IN rH C31
3 C~4
73 73 0
O C 3 O
3 IB rH
G 01 0>
•H 0, 73
JJ Z Ll ||
C Q 0]
0 • 73 .C
O 00 01 C JJ
X C 03 Ll
CO IB -1 JJ O
22. rJ JJ 01 3
JJ 01
0 -H >, JJ
C 31 X JJ • C
• H CO 01 —1 X 0)
x rH aj cn
73 03 rH 03 0) CO
r4 3 rH 3 L4 Ll
03 S a; a- (J 04





































JJ
01
• H
X

01 rH
JJ (B
0 -I
OJ JJ
Oi C
e co
rl JJ
O
c a.
o
•rl C
JJ O
O H

JJ rH
01 rH
C 0
0 CJ-
o
6 CO

0) 03
JJ 3
1 73

Ll 3
0 0
03 C

1

0

-u \
03 G
U 0

rH JJ
a, 03
a LI
< jj
rH
73 H

03 C
J I-H
















01
G 01
0) 0 C
X — 1 H Ll
03 JJ CO O
.4 OS JJ U
U 03
OH 3 01
01 x: •
H 01 X JJ
JJ 73 C 00 H
01 -H U —1
•H 3 0 rH 03
X 0 Ll rH 3
a 3 a < cr







c
0


(B

"p


0)
0.















3-51
73
0)
4J
CJ
o
3 '~l
00 OJ
= CJ Z
0 CJ 73
JJ 03 rH
3
73 in 0
0) • 3
-u tr
iH 0]
0 r- 73
> c
C 73 0
o c a.
U 03
C
0 73 0
0 JJ
73 04 (B
rH rH
3 00 0
o cn o
3 • 03 Ll
01 Li 00
JJ C O 0,
c o jj \
OS 0 01 C
-H 01 O
Qj tr$ (]} .,_)
rH rH JJ
cr> u 03
• H CJ JJ
J4 JJ JJ rj ,_4
CD cn 03 • -rt
0) H iH CN M_
r-4 X OJ -
CJ M 03 < H



































.
C
0
c
CD
_
H
T3
c

rH
SH O
rH >f i-O
3 Q"1 CN
u o .
H rH O
rH O rH
tr c v>
03 -C
O II
U-l CU
o -u -c
tn D ^
G > 0
i- -H 3
u -u
fl fl) -U
c c
'T IH QJ
r- a co
JJ CD
C rH SH
o < eu









































cn
CJ
05
a
£
•H
ction
3
rH
Jj
cn
c
0
u
£

o

Jj

0

1



£
Jj
03
cu

EH

O

01


a





a

^
rH
JJ
c
CD
r-|
O
T3
C
03
rH
T3
O
C
JJ
• n
a

0
jj
rH
3

a
^

'O
rH
3
i




































3
CO
c
UH
0
•U
•C
Ol
H
cn
.5
c.
jj
73
(B

— *
OJ
JJ
C
00
73

Li

73
0)
C
0
N













































JJ
a,
0
00
CJ
73
03

4J
C

73

cn
00
Li


































73
C
O
04
rl
OJ
O.
rH
rH
03
^1

3
UH
O
cation
H
.C
P
JJ
3
0)
e
D
JJ
1

C
3












































y



01
3
C
• H
JJ

o
CJ

73
rH
3
3











































.
D
O
X
CN
r-
rH

ll
£
JJ
C
3
JJ

-U
cn
cu
Cu


































-------
    a


f 1
 3   I
 3  £
--<  a
JJ  SH
 C  Ul
 0  JM
CJ  Ul

    J
-H <
01
-rl
JJ
fl
q
M
O
JJ
rH
rH
fl
q
-rt
UH
0
C
O
JJ
o
CO
CJ
01














Impacts








>
-H
4J
fl

£

^

CJ
_Q

Jl
CJ
a


J
—

c

Q


JJ
C
13

0*


























01
JJ
o

a
c
•H
O
O
3
w
jj


p
S
LI
0)
» Short-t
V



1

o
u
13
O
•H

QJ
ff

"C
c






































01

01
X
0

fl

JJ
lution poten
r-l
o

OJ
JJ

t Groundvi
w






^
c
O
H
jj

jj
rH
•H
c

































rrj
0
c

—

i
13
CJ

t3
rH

i
-U
C
&»
JJ
'Jl
a

-jj
0
cr
> Kxistn
V








C
o
,-t

13
r— t
o
Q
0)
a.































.
QJ
0)
U
U
01
'w
aj
c
Q
U
01
01
p
0
4-1
Ul
T3
-C
o
01
H
T3
C
H
JJ
el i mi tic


^


ji

O
o

3

—
a
jj

CJ



































t^
o
J-J
3

-^
OJ
(~
QJ
C
i2
o
O
O
^
GO
O
(N
C
13
OS


^
H
jj
01
X
OJ
T— t












c
o

D
>































01
CD
c
M
o
U
Jl

0
£"
c

_lJ

p
JS
T3
rH
3
o
3
01
s^
fl
-a
q
fl
JJ
01

quality
Creek.

















































rrj
OJ
c
o
T:
c

Q
fl
CD
Jj
TJ

3
0
3
C
rH
a.
jj
01
u

4J
1
cr
1 Existir
w
















































• H
03

0
jj

Ul

fl
O
rH
c


0
rt
C
"2
fl
IH
0

°f
O

JJ
c
fl


























































CJ
Jj

q
•rt
s
CJ
0)
3
0

CJ
fl

Muskeqc




















































CJ
w
0

^

c*
p*

rQ
C
ra
0
o
T
fl
rH
T!
0)


0)

r-l
O
*



















































CJ
j2

rrj
rH
3

3
01

C
rcolation po
o

c
0
-rt
Jj
fl
rrt
•rt
-rt

















































%

•a
q
fl
rH

^
fl
^1
3
jj
3
U
•rl
V4
tJI
fl
MH
O
01
CJ
M
O
fl

in
rH
rH
C
O

locatec






























































hnoloqy.
'j
CJ
jj
I
jj
Vernon.
> Altern£






























































3
O
X
II

s
JJ
i

> Present
w

























































0)
JJ
0
13
truction imp
01
c
o
u
E
OJ
ft Short-t




i
c
0
JJ

o
H

~
<

c
fl
rJ































4J
c

r— t
CU
JJ
OJ

3
JJ
rJ
S


fl
r elevation
CJ

fl
3
C
3
O
•rl







-^

Q
Jj

j_j

u-t
JJ
1— i



































0
JJ

3
T3
q
3
2
CP

1^
fi
•H
td
-T-t
JJ
3
JU
a


in
fl
(D
Vi
0
site ir









=

4J
fl

0
H
CJ















3-


































c
0
po 1 1 U t j


JJ


en
c
0
0
3-
fl

T3
0
jj

^4
CJ
<















-C




















01
rH -H
3 fl
§rrt
•§"
CJ O
JJ 0
•rt rH
01 MH

JJ T3
rthwest Plan
wetlands an
0 JJ
Z 0,
3
JJ >H
fl 01
rt
C T3
0
ft Expanse
furthei

jj
0


CJ

"O rt
JJ JJ

Cfl G
H
JJ CJ
01 JJ
CJ rH
3 fl

JJ C/l
rt M
0 W
Z —














2
















0
01


3
£

IT
• rl
CO
•rJ
C
fl


0
Corners Cre
01
01
S
0

ft Impac t e




cu

£
c
H
T3
i)

CJ
t3

'Jl
0




































C
rt

Ul
c
8
tr
fl


0
01
fl
01
o
.c
JJ

o
•a
rH
3
i
CJ






























































CJ
•rl
JJ

g
0)
JJ
fl
Vernon

















































0
J3

T3
2
o cu
3 r*
o
c
r-j —i
a> oi
rH T3
us r^ c
14 O
3 cj a, *c
JJ £ O
rH JJ C rH
3 O • X
O U rt >, CV
rt O JJ & f
L, UH fl 0 •
CP rH rH LO
fl C 0 O rH
O O C (/>
!JH C ^1 .C
O >H CJ O II
CJ 2i CJ
01 > \ jj s:
CJ C JJ
>H C 0 CJ iH
CJ rt rt > 0
fl A- rt 2
T3 fl JJ
03 rl JJ C C
CJ rl -H W CJ
rH 3 -rt CJ 0]
CJ1 U-* JJ CJ
r- oj c rH «
-rt >H rt < a.

















































CJ
j2 Vi
CJ
•O J3
rH JJ
3 O
0
3 rH
7^ rfl
^1
fl
T3 •
q *^
fl OJ
JJ CJ
U chlorine s
s Corners Cr
Z 01
Q CJ
EH
O1
C C
rt rt
"Jl -3
X JJ
CJ fl
rH
CJ O
EH >

1
JJ

*J CJ
C g
fl JJ
-4 fl
< a. a

01 JJ EH
> 01
rt fl 0
jj o -a
fl js fl
C JJ IH

CJ 0 ~
JJ Z D
rH

CQ
•JJ
LM
0 ~
en
c cu
0 >
01 H
•rt JJ
O H 13
01 fl q
ci a. IH
Ji S CJ
01 O 4J
3 CJ rH
2 *-* rtl






























JJ
n
rH
3
O
3

01
T!
•C
C
Jj
01
Z
a


01
01
CJ


0
jj

~
rl
a
o
01
a


































M
CJ
c
•£
o

sz
'J
^4
o
1JH

01
•o
nded standar
3J

0
CJ
O
'„

o
CJ
EH






^
CJ
OJ

CJ
01
H
CJ
c

0
o


































c
0)

n
JJ

c
fl
• rn
c
p

fl
un-ionized
•o
c
fl
01
3
rt
Q
"Q4
01
0




















































jj
CJ
CJ
u
o
01
OJ
c

0
CJ
•Jl
01
q
•c
CJ
JJ
fl
o
•rt
>
CJ
o
would I




jj
q
fl
^

^
a
3
jC
jj

C
Z


































C3
^
jj
£
0
u
^IH
CJ
V*
fl
J

o
CT1
CJ
01
3
•rl
CQ
O
jj

en
fl
0
jj
» Nutrler


i

0
rt
JJ
fl
O

rH

<
T3
q
fl

































TJ
o
JJ
fl
™
c

rrt
D
'J
•^
""3

"Z
0
3
_j
^
rH
A*
3

— '
0
•z.
r?
exist ii






X
c
0

JJ
(Q

Jj
H
H

-5



































T3
rH
3
0
3

•3
G

^
i-4
(13
a
to Whltnall

01
"0
03
0
jj
ft Nutriui







c
0
j~!
fl
rH
O
U

OJ






































s
u
i)
JJ
t
"Jl
g
rH

'Jl
-rJ
O
JJ
JJ
3
-Q
•-^

C
0
CJ
contini

































































o
H
i*3
U
^
8
jj
3
CD
















































•D
0)
3


•°
0
AJ

CJ
C
J-J
c
0
o
'O
3
0
3
D
•H
n
jj

i— i
t
y/
• Northwi

















































•c
C
•a
r—
— •
ts
L*
-rJ
r^
3
rH

cn
4 acres of a
in Vernon.
P-" "Q

— ' 5
f 2
S i)
x
o -c
i-t r—
2. 3
































O  r-
c  >
-------
  en
  w
  1
  a.
  Cd

  3
3 I
= S
-< a
JJ 6*
c en
o x
O en
  z
  M
  Z
  •J
  /I
  Q
  Z
  O
  u
  u


















OJ

•H
4J
(fl
C
i-i

^j



rH

M
H
A
M-l
O

C
0


0
u
rH
o
en


















01
JJ
o

2,
s
M

















O
H
JJ
ftJ
C


4J



aj


,H

ro



4J
•H
C
a
s

o
u
4J
c
fT3
rH
Cu

































JJ
C
m nj

ai a.

•H 4J
u cn
nj n3
C H

(U 4J
jj M
r-, 0
< Z


l_i

jj
HI
3

T3
0)
T3
C


g
o
u
CJ


GO
O
CN

T3
C
(TJ
OS
Z
Q

C.P

H
JJ
Ul
•H
X


rH
i— t

*


Jj

U
t— *


OJ JJ
> 01
-H ro
4J D
rrj £
C JJ
i_i j_i
,
JJ
•H X
rH CD
03 OJ
3 r4
O1 O



r-
0
•H
JJ \
03 C
0 0
ri -H
rH JJ
a IB
a -t
< jj
-H
TJ H

03 C
>4 H

































OJ

•iH
JJ

e" c
0 -t
C 0)
rt JJ
0) rH
> OJ

C U
•rt rH

01 -rt
C 01
O 0!
0 D
O> itH
IB
r-l JJ
01
T) O
0) o
jj
IB JJ
rt 01
01 IB
£3
TJ
OJ U

JJ IB
g '-t
o e
rt -H
IJH rH
1)
01
X OJ
03 .Q

TJ
0 rH
Oi 3
1) 0
X 3
01
3 JJ
S C

0"! rH
H Ot
21
jj
O 01
JJ 0
3
01 £
T3 JJ
IB -4
0 0
rH Z

JJ Ol
c £
01 H
•H JJ
SH 01
JJ r4
3 X
Z OJ

*

01

0
0

C iB
0 t-J

jj 13
03 11
rH JJ
O 03
CJ It
.4 OJ
0) <
ft. —
















01
TJ
.4

TJ
C
iO
JJ
01

JJ
•rt
rH
IB
3
cr .
X
rt 1)
0) 01
JJ rt
OJ O
3
01
TJ rl
U 01
TJ C
C rl
OJ 0


O 01
O 01
u u
IH E"

CO C
O -rt
CN
JJ
TJ D
C S
IB
11
-tf A
Z
Q TJ
rH
rH 3
rH 0
< 3


TJ

3


TJ
C £
0 SH

jj
X 1
rt 01
03 C
Ot 0
rH
rH
rH 01
<0 JJ
C -t
JJ
•rt Ol
£ C
3 -t
3
0 0
JJ rH
Ul
01
TJ -
IB 13
0 01
rH U]
0!
JJ OJ
U CJ
•rt U
rt TJ
JJ
Z A

*







,r-^

0
c
w
0)



•H


















JJ
Cfl

rH
0)
JJ

•H
X
o
It
a
a
<

*










































JS

TJ
rH
3
O

g
1)
JJ
01
>.
01


£*1 •

o c

O TI
C C
£ 3
O 4H
U
JJ Of
in
OJ 03
>
•H rt
JJ O
IB IJH
C
rt 01
0) rH
JJ ,M
rH •<-(
(0 CT*
H
Ul rH
<;  .

C rH
rt 

TJ 11
01
TJ £
OJ JJ
OJ rt
C O
3
Z jj
c
TJ U
rH 01
3 01
0 -4
3 0.

*


























































^4
0)
>
•rt
OS
1
JJ JJ
c o
u o
£ IX
jj
0! 0
01 JJ
rt
EH 0)
Oi
U rt
TJ IB
IB £
-t O
01 01
g-s










T!
. 0)
01 C
JJ 0
O TJ
03 C
a ieJ
£ ja
•rt 03

C 0)
0 .Q
•rt

U rH
3 3
rt 0
JJ 3
01
C JJ
0 C
U OJ

g a
rt
oi en
JJ C
I rt

rt 01
O -H
£ X
en u

* *

i
jj
c
01
e

03 O
01 JJ

&•* OJ

0 rt

03 £
rl U
rji 01
a-rt
D Q




OS
JJ
01
•rt

^
TJ
TJ
OS
U


TJ
r-4
3

jj 3
01
£ en
TJ
11 rt
JJ OJ
TJ
TJ C
rH IB
3 JJ
O 01

01 JJ
TJ -i
.1 rH
03 03
TJ 3
c tr
IB
JJ rt
01 01
JJ
>* 03
JJ 3
•H
rH CO
IB O
3 CN
9
T!
rt OJ
01 TJ

IB 11

g
as o
Z 0
Q 0)

JJ
01 rH
O rH
S <
IB
£§
r4 -rt
OJ JJ
a 03
o 01
r4 It

OJ

c
•rt OS
JJ
01 01
rt 03
X
OJ TJ
U

0 O
N
JJ
rH >1
•rt rH
3 JJ

01
5 S
3
TJ O
rH
3 0!
0 OJ
3 -t

jj
C C
03 03


2
3 O


*










OJ
>

3,

jj
o





















11
01
3
OJ
O
U
J3

n
u
jj
10
rH
O
• rt
>


A

TJ
rH
3
• 0
CU 3

•H 01
-t TJ
O rt
rH 0]
£ TJ
0 C
03
JJ JJ
a oi
OJ
O 01
X 3
U rl
0
JJ £
oj a
g 01
0
01 £
J3 0.
>,
TJ
TJ
03
CJ
jj
03

rt
01
>
•H


JJ
0
0
a

11

jj

u-t
o


•H
r-t
•TJ



rt
JJ
03

X
rt 0)


*






























































01
D
U
rt
3
O
01

e
03
01
rl
JJ
01
a
3

ItH
o
01
e IB
0 3
rt
UH JJ
c
01 OS
0) rH
Ol Ol
rt
0! OS

O 01
01 H

TJ
>.
>i TJ
a TJ
03
TJ U
0)

U £
0 V
ItH
MH tH
0! r-l

rH •
JJ 0]
03 Ot


Oi 3

rl 03
11

JJ JJ
01 01
n a




















































































£
U
• rt
£
3

IB
OJ
rl
03

Oi
C
• rt
C
c
03



01
£
JJ
c


JJ
C


a

r— t
£


OJ
£






















































































01
C

01 rl

•rt rH

rt 0
O
OS
V- Z
0) D
>
•H Ol


JJ JJ
0 01
O -rl
(X X
1)
0)

+J £
JJ
O

01

01 rt
rt IB
IB JJ

ii .i
01 rt
rt rl






















































































TJ
C

O

c
01 -rt
£ *•!
6* 0

£
• 0
TJ
OJ rt
JJ 0

rH
0 01
•rl TJ
> rt
IB
11 TJ

OJ
TJ JJ
rH M

0 TJ

T3
rl 01
0! g

C 0
18 O
JJ 0)



























































































TJ
O
JJ
IB

"o
• rl
>

U


0
01
rH
03

rH
3
0


Ul
3
O


01
0




















































































U 01
£ 01
JJ Ol
\4
T! IB
01 £

U 01
X -rt
CD TJ

TJ 0
rH JJ
3
0 OJ
3 3
TJ
03
C TJ

•- 1 IS
jj TJ
OJ C
rl 01
JJ JJ
C 01

0 TJ
C 11
0 TJ


c/i S
3 £
o o
£ a

01
0 CO
£ O

















































































c
•rt
c

OJ
rH
a

Q
en
S
s

11

JJ

0)
T!
rt
01
JJ
3
0

01
a.

2

S
(TJ
QJ
iH
JJ
cn
ft
3

a
O
W





















































































"0
.
jj


•—i
IH
0
0
ft

M
0

T3
1J
jj
(0
0)
M
JJ
c
3

IM
0


c
• H
^
• :/!
nj 'Q
OJ ft
•M >
(0 CQ

*
































































































tJ
Q)
4J
ftj

•H
g
-H
r*4

^D

CN
«•

!l

-C
JJ
IH
O
3
4J
C
QJ
C/l
0
i-t

*



































































1
S

^3

o

u
TJ
IB
rl

3






TJ
D
TJ
OS
rl

a
3

11
C]

rH
rH

3


C
•rt
T)
C
IB
£

01
T!

O
01

>,
r-t
0

*






s



o

OJ
T3
OS
tH


D
01
01


OS
3
rH

S
r.
JJ
3
O
en






c
0
•rt
JJ
IB
O
•rt
rH
a
a
IB
TJ
C
IB
rH

rH
rH
C IB
IB

•rl IB
£ £
0 JJ
•rl
S -t
u
Oi 3
X 0
03 rH
03
0 -rt
JJ
JJ
OJ 01
Oi 0
-t 0
IB
£ rH
O CO
01 JJ
13 g




.JS
01
JJ TJ
H rH
g 3
•rl O
rH 3

JJ 0}
C T3
0) rt
3 03
rH T!
UH C
tJ 03
01 JJ
01
en
W £N
Q JJ

3 in
IB
JJ 3
OJ 3*

g Jq
CO

rH 03
3 3
i*
z
JJ Q
C
OS rH
rH rH
O4 <

* *







0 03

-H
U £
Oi CJ
rl -rt
03 S
£
O D
01 X
•rt IB
Q -4



















TJ
0>
JJ N
0) -rt
O
OJ "H
£ 1
TJ §
rH
3 -t
0 0
3 trl

01 01
TJ r-l
rt 01
03 >
T! 11
C rH
OJ
JJ >.
01 JJ
rt
>1 O
JJ -rt
•H X
rH O
IB JJ •
3 C
O* >i 01
• -4 J-l 0
01 01 rt rt
01 JJ 01 JJ
> IB 01 -rt
•rt 3 0 C
JJ Q,
03 0. 03
C Z -P -rl
rt Q a c
u 01 o
JJ rH U S
rH rH X g
OS < U OJ




rt
O


01
rH
11

U
rH

> •
JJ C
•rt 11
O CP
•H O
X rl
O JJ
JJ rt

>1
rH IB
JJ -I
•rt g
Jl O
01 i
0 £
a IB

JJ TJ
a oi
0) N
0 -H
x c
11 0
•H
JJ 1
1 §

















































































1
• r4
c
o
o
iH
U
C/3

QJ

-H
OJ
(TJ


OJ
JJ
i—4


rH
0


J
g

JJ
01

en

rH
03
C ~1
0 rH
•rl •

a
K 0)
U J2
0 OJ
en t<





























c
en
S
s
                                                      3-53
-------
     tn
r\i
rH  J
  •  <
n  z
     O
a  rH
j  o

g  a
     O

     O



















tJ
C
H
PL-

U-J
Q


0

JJ
0
D
rH
O
W





CO
4J
O
1
H




U.
>
H
-U
!5

5^
"i
JJ
i— t
<
0)

__Q
• -,

fl

^

>
H
C
3
i
0
CJ

C
13
r— t
Q-l





















rH
0.
>
'H
a;

OJ
a

3
ns
1 rH
JJ -H
c 2
13
r-t 0


+J  Short-tern
> Plant wou]
w •
tu
O
3
03
3
1 rH
JJ -H
C E
to
rH 0
0< JJ
JJ 01
O OI
3 rH
rH 10
JJ .C
01 U
C Ul
0 —<
0 Q
o
Oi
!H 01
•§ 1
tO -H
C G 01
1J O C
jj a 01
JJ OJ .G
USE"
0
z

c
tO JJ
O1 0
•H C
rC
U T3
•H f-4
S 3
0
01 3

10 0)

i^
o to
JJ rC •
u c
0) 01 fl

rJ TJ -H
IB Si
Si JJ O
O C -H
03 10 S
•H rH
a a o>

O 3 10

c
OJ 0
rH fO JJ
a c
iB TJ iH

a a
E 01 u
0 > 3
O -H T3
JJ 0
01 10 r4
•H C JJ

C/l JJ
0 rH O
0 < JJ.
TJ
rH
3
O
•a 3
IH
10 01 01
T3 JG T3
13 03
JJ C TJ
01 H C
fO
>- -a jj
JJ 01 01
•H JJ
tO rH 01
a o j-;
tr H jj
> o
SH
0) 11 rH
JJ A rH
10 <
3 13
rH
a 3 •
>
OI 01 rH
= = «
» The exist:
for chlorj
Milwaukee
w















J^
01
>
•H
Pi











T3
01
T3

0) ^J
C O

01
.£ 03
TJ

O 10
G T3
C
T3 10
rH JJ
3 01
0
3 >
JJ
C "H
10 rH

•H 3
s: a-
o

S 01
JJ
O to
X 3
10
z
0 Q
JJ

rH O

fO 01

JJ 0
3 H
O -J

G 0
33
0)
c
•rH
0
0
0
4-1
01
TJ
(0
TJ
c
10
01
T3
0
T3
C
J 0
01 O
01
a co
T3 'N
3 O
0 £
3 6-

































C
tfl

JJ
1 G
JJ G 3
01 0 O
O-l -P
U JJ C
(0 13
IH u e
D -H rH
3 rH 01
o a o
rH a
10 C

TJ S ""*
jj G 0) TJ
10 10 JJ C
rH 01 13
TJ >* rH
0) 0) 01
jj s: -H
tO JJ G 13
CT> 0 U
-H UH rH 3
JJ O JJ JJ
rH 10 rH
£ JJ rH 3
01 O U
01 O O -H
a 0 U rH
2) O1
TJ rH C*4 tO

3 C G *H
O 0 O O
O -H -i
JJ JJ Ul
a -H io oj
C TJ SH IH
•rH T3 JJ O
VH *0 rH TO
rH 01 UH O
J3 J= C vjD
O JJ -H rH
01
3 JJ >,
TJ C -H
- rH JJ
JJ Cl 3
rJ JS
10 01 -rH
^4 JJ iH
10 J
C • VH
•H tn 01 CJ
PH "^. Q
0 3 T3 rH
rt3 E 3 JJ
r- to o tn
0 01 3
> JJ 01 rH
01 rH 3
•o a. 1-1 o
rH 3 rH 3
3 >
0 S 01 C
3 O C O
iH 01 3
r4 O 5 E
o 01
and phosph
to dischaj
> Mequon anc
Portion oi
w





























































•a
11
13

01
G

0
A

jj
o
c

T3
3
O
3









C
01
o
jj















































































rH
10
industr
IJH
0
01
01
r4
in
>
rH
01
i Approximat













































































jj
c
rH
a
oi • a
C T3
0) ^
01 G rH
J3 0 3
JJ T3 0
r4 5
o a 01
«H 10 S
T3 01 JJ >JO
0) JJ 01 O
T3 >. rH
0) T3 01 X
01 rH O
C 3 U O3
0 "H
01 3 JJ vfl
JJ OH r*l
p Q) 
T3 C 01
rH tO fl
3 r- 01
O U4 C £
3 -H JJ
01 C • -H
l^ rH 0 T3 O
C rH — 1 01 3
TC -H JJ JJ
rH > O 33 JJ
msec
T3 C 3 rj 01
a a yn £ m
C -H rH -H 01
O £ "3 rJ rH
N EH S 5) 0,













































































01
3
C -P
. Ol -rH • C
ijHtn ^CJJ HJ>I IB
IMS rH-,H GO) CH rj
jj 3D 3-iJ O3 f3
ns .13 ^5 en 3 • J -H Q-t3 rHU
^OiS^CPCU CN3> J-tV^ -H
4J nj -H CM -H > +J 0 *«^ • <3 -W S-IO
jj oo^'U-C cuajcj en -u
JJ FCT^rHCC-rS"J V40J20 t3^i
tT3 0^-33X0-4-4 -T33 T3rH -H*4-t
aj I-H njcn-H^s T3
c i-Hy-n cuO'^^'O -S*J 'O cn(jj
-2 'S'sw.H^^iSflS^ai'S'a 2c
L^!:l'U!5sls -.J
UlrHy-iniJc; ^.X-HQ 4-10)3 r* rH
Cn3On31l)-HO.>03.Hj::T3 -HJ* 3
U-UC Cu 33 JJOJt'S r-(3
Y § H -H CI • fl E WCOCOX







JJ
C
(0 C
rH O 13

J-> OJ J2
CJ 01 U
3 M -H
M U S
•U rC
en o JJ 0)
MH
o o
o
JJ 0
-------
  tn
  a

  EH




  <





  S





  1

  I


C ?




3 03
— >»
u z
— o
CS b.
< O
  U
  10


















0 -H
(X
(0 ,
CJ
>- C
imate]
nserva
cease.
Approx
and co
•















































































01
c c
8rt
01
CP TJ A
(8 1)
rH H 73
•rt r-t
TJ 3 3
u 0" o
JJ 1) 3
fl r4
r4 01
01 01 S
fl A u
JJ
QJ TJ 01
JJ 3 Ul
"" H Qi
73 fl U
0) rrt 01
H
rt O CP
3 Z C
cr -rt
11 C •
-4 . 0 73
31 rt dJ
01 TJ JJ JJ
.Q C • U fl
o c c c
73 a, O 3 -rt
rH 3 UH E
3 73 CT rH -rt
O C O fl rH
3 fl £ S 0
•














































































JJ
c
fl
rH
01
JJ
fl
SH

















































>,
r4
fl
JJ
•rt
-4
jj

























































Q.-S
o
TJ
rrt
3
0
nology.
sville w
s: c
o n

0)
> 73
rl C
JJ fl
fl
Altern
Mequon
• •






























still
n would
§
cr
UH
0
C Q
Portio
to MMS































3
O
X
in
O
CN
m
II
Si
JJ
.4
1
JJ
C
OJ
fl
^
i_l
•





















































































Ul
JJ
impac
ruction
jj
en
c
0
term c
Short-
•





4J

13
r-t
Q-.

JJ
U
3
!w
4J
tn
c
S

c
3
0
4J
c
fl
E
-4
OJ
(JJ

















































0)

73 JJ
1)
• TJ C
01 C 'rt
JJ 11
•rt £ TJ
S £ 0
•rt 0 -U
rrt tj fl
0) rH
JJ -4 0
C -H
01 CO >
3 0
rrt CN U
UH 73
0) C TJ
fl rH
(fi 3
u cs o
Q Z 3
— a
3 01
CP 73
JJ C K
01 -rt ra
0) JJ TJ
S 01 C
rt fl
73 X JJ
rrt U CO
3
o D u
3 £ C
Plant
Both t
chlori
* '
01
o
c
o

5


0


u
CP
u
TJ

O 11
01 >
-rt -rt
Q «









^ F"















































TJ
0)
C
>. O
JJ 73
•rt C
rH fl
fl ja
3 fl
u
rt _Q
0)
JJ TJ

3 1
l-i 3
U
JJ C
O • fl
JJ rrt
< C
1) 3
-Q O
• JJ
-4 T! C

•rt 0 r4
« 3 0
11 01
D 73 CP
C 14 C
Menomo
standa
Existi
'




























^















































TJ
C
fl
rrt


tura
rrt •
3 JJ
O C
r4 rH


























































CP 04
UH 01 VO
0 C O
01 0)
0) £
0
fl -4
0
in UH
W 73
01
>. TJ
imatel
be nee
Approx
would
*





























rH
X
m
^0
rH
II
X
JJ
0
3
jj
Presen
•

































c
0
•H
JJ
fl
rrt
O
O
rj
P
\
C
o
•rt
JJ
fl
rj

rrt
• rt
UH
C
M

>,


C
0
•rt
JJ
fl
U
•rt
rrt
a
a<
fl

TJ

,T$










J^.

impac
ruction
en
o
u
E
-U
Short-
*



i
c
0

4J

o
•rt
rH


rt

73
C


















>,

•rt
rH

3
tr
n
• 01
01 JJ
> fl
•rt 3
4J
fl CO
c o
M CN
11
JJ 73
rrt 0
18 73
C
01 0)


•rt O
01 0
fl 01
01 V4

73
JJ C
01 fl
o
U X
Z
JJ Q
01

0) rH
::






03
JJ
01
•rt 73
X D
11 C
0
rrt 73

•rt fl
C fl
JJ u
a'0
73
C rrt
0 3
•rt 0
1. *
rH JJ
rH C
O fl
^ rH
Oj
rH
01 C
4J 3
fl 0
3 JJ
Ground
German
* •







\^
C
0 C
H 0

(T] JJ
U ,
CP
0

"o
c
r|
U
1)
JJ •
CP
D C
> rt
rt TJ
4J C


^J

jj in
rH CO
fl

01 0
< UH






01
JJ

C
•rt
JJ
01
rQ
s would
73 •
r4 r4
fl 01
73 >
fl (2
JJ
01 0)
01
>. c
qualit
Menomo














































































73
C
fl


fl
3
JJ

3
O
rt
V4
cr
UH
0
01
D
fl
X
CN
>,
imatel
Approx
•












































































•o
c
18
r-t

M rrt
C fl
8-4
3
cr JJ
fO rrt
rrt 3
U
73 -rt
0) tl •
JJ cn a)
18 fl TJ
tH C
D UH O
18 O a
4) 01 11
JJ V4 JJ
O
rH fl -4
o o
UJ O UH
rH
TJ rrt 73
11 01
TJ >. TJ
01 rH U
OJ OJ U
C JJ C
fl
JS4JS
would
Approx
would
0


















































































u
a
TJ
rrt
3
O
3

stems
01
u
•H
JJ
U
01
en
C
ctioni
Mai fun
o























































































vO
O
rH
X
> CO
cr in
o •
rH M3
O rH
C «•
U II
JJ .C
JJ
. 11 1H
73 > O
11 -rt 3
JJ JJ
fl fl JJ
C C C
•rt >H 11
S U 01
•rt JJ 01
rrt rrt -4
01 < 04
O 0





























                                                   3-55
-------
•a  a
 OJ  E^
 3  cn
 c  x
 H  cn
4J
 C  J
 0  <
-:  §
CO  b
<  O
EH
    ai


    I
    O
i O
•H
•U
i-l
,
4-1

C
3

S
0
a

JJ

«g
r-t
a*










cn
•U
o

E
•H
0
H
4J
CJ

V-1
jj
CO
o
o

cn -H
4J
-U (TJ
cn c
QJ U
S o

JJ .-i
3 f£
o

0)
TJ
tfl 3
U 0
•H 3
E
•H TJ
r-t r-l
TJ
4J TJ
C C
a) nj
3 JJ
r-t cn
LU
u* QJ
0) C
-H
CO r-4
§3
04 X
3 O

4J a
01 Z

o>
•o c
rH 'rl
3 4J
0 01
3 '5
4J i)
C
ftj a)
r-t J2
a- EH


Q


o
JJ
0)


fQ
.C U
O O
CO >
H -H
Q Oi
c
•r-t

.^
c
(TJ

r.^

JJ
fl

JJ
C >•
IT] rH

cu o



Jq
0)

jjj
0

rH
•H



C
S
H
0-1
-U
o

&

a
-C
c
•H
TJ
a
4J
rO
rH
0
H
>
















































JJ
a
£

o
Q

TJ
3
i
01
!B
TJ
C
(8

01


































horus
3t 0
31 0
o as

OH 01
£

G
rO C
•rt
OJ
C TJ
-t 01
rt 4-1
0 18
rH rH
£ O
O rt
>

01 0)
TJ J2
C
0) TJ

0 O
O 3
0)
|4 31
TJ
CO IH
O 18
CN T3
C
01 T3
r 4J
S 01


































01

0)

4J
IH
O
Z

0
0>
0)

31
3
S
01
IH
0
C
18
S

rH
(8
CP
_
•rt
^4 4-1
OJ 31
> -H
•H X
OH M


































T3
0)

0
TJ
C
18

18

.a1

TJ
r-|
3
O
3
jj
H
T3
rH
1,
JJ
cn
•
rl rH
18 01
04 4-1
rH E
rH — t
C O
4-1 W
•rt 0,

3 <


































01
44 .Q
0
4J rH
W 3
18 O
04 3

01 e

18
>4 &4
4J
3 IH
0 0
U 3
01 C
01 o
X -rt
3 4J
18 O
3 0)
rH IH
•H IH
2 0
^ U
.Q. 44
O
01 0)
C 01
3 3
0 O
re
TJ
C. 01
18 -C
rH 4J















































4-1
C
18
Qj

3
2


01
4J
rl
0
44
TJ
U
T3
a
OJ
G


































3
01 4J
z o
18
rl
• 4J
Q C
M 0
S U


01 E
jC O
4-1 O
01

TJ
TJ rH
01 3
4J 0
U 3
Ll
a o
a 01
0 0)

0) 31
.a 3
TJ
rH TJ
O 18
3

G rH
-8 IH
rH 0)

















































a

OJ
X
JJ

0
jj
cn
0)
•H
JJ
•H
G
3

S
o
u



































0)


T5
rH
3
0
3

cn
S
0) U
JJ
CO
cn
a
•H
jj
QJ
cu
CO

Ui
H
§Ti
•rt 01
4-1 4-1
0 18
C C
3 rl
44 S
rH rt
>TJ rH
s 01












































t
3
O
i-4
X
 rH
CO 3
4J 0
•rl 3
g
rt TJ

18
4J TJ
G C
01 18
3 4J
rH 01
44
44 0)
01 G
•H
OT r4
H °
Q rH
04 £.
3 0

4J OS
OJ Z
0 Q
0-
TJ C
rH -rt
3 4->
0 31
3 -t
X
4J a
G
rg OJ

O4 EH
4J

Q


0
4-1
a
o>

18

O OJ
31 >
•rl -rt
a a.
G
rt
rH

G
ra
rl
Ut


18

4J

18

04



rl
OJ

4-1
O

rH
rH
»3J


|4
OJ
>
•rt
OS
4-1
O
o
a.

o
•M
c
•H
•tJ
01
4-1
18

'o
rt



































horus
0.


g
a

TJ
c
18
a
c
rt
IH
O
* rH
4J S
0) O
TJ
01 0)

C
TJ 01
3 E
0 O
3 O
0)
01 IH
!H CO
TJ O
TJ CVJ
G
TJ 01
4J i
01 £-<



































0



01
X
JJ

c
•H
TJ
0)
•p
IB
rH
0
•rt
>

0)
Q

TJ
rH
3
i
CO
n3

C
(0
4J
cn


































rH
TJ
iM
a
jj
r-t
3
O
•H
V-l
CP
fl
u-l
c
cn
acre

m

rH
rH
^
01
18
•rl
• X
rl 0
OJ W
> a
•rt 0,
OS r32


































0) TJ
01
44 0)
O C
4J 01
l-i J3
T!
04 TJ
rH
01 3
m o
3

2 s
C rl
3 18
O Cn
O
a u
0 0
33
18 G
3 0
rH rl
"4 4-1
S 0
0)
>i IH
J2 s
TJ U
0)
C 44
3 0
0
OJ
n~j 31
- 3
,8 0




















































J^J

,
•°
TJ
01
V
18
^4
OJ
("i.
O

.3
TJ
rH
3
0
3
jj
c
TJ
rH
04














































vO
O
rH
r-t
m
CO
LTi
v>

u
JS
JJ
o
3
4J
C
OJ
01
0)
M
Oi










































cn
4J
U
rtj
a
£
•r-t
£
O
H
JJ
CJ
3
IM
jj
cn
0
O
r-l
OJ
4J
1
JJ
!M
0

cn

i
jj

al
rH
&
JJ
U
3
r-l
JJ
CO
C
o
u

o
cn
QJ
.X
cn
3
S

jj
13

JJ
C
fl
r-t
OH



CO
JJ
•i-*
E

rH

JJ
C
0)
3
rH
IM
(J-l
0)
cn
w
Q
04
2

jj
D
1
2
3
0
3
4J
C
18

04
01
01
01
EH

0
4J
0)

IH
18

O
31
H
a



















TJ
r* rH
3 r-t
C <
3


>4 X
18 0)
TJ OJ
C W
18 U
4-
31 01
rt
OJ 0)
C G
•rt |H
|4 O
o u
£ 31
O 31
01
Oi EH
z
a c
• rt
cn
C TJ
•-I 01
4J 4J
01 18
-t rH
x o
a -H
>
01
£ 01
EH n





0
0
o

31
!-l
01

)H
0
U





























4J

g
0)
rH
3



01
kt
"8
TJ
C
4J
01
IH
0"
JC
4-J
O


































rine |
O
rH

O

^|
O
44

01
TJ
rl
18
T!
C
T)
4J
01

0)
TJ

CJ
1
o
o
01
u
CO
o


o
£.
E-









































TJ
0)
4J
18
rH
O
rt
>
0)

3
0


3
rl
O
jr.
a
01
o
^:


T3

(8


































3-56
-------
J
tl


1
 I
s
M
EH
cn

co

j


I
a:
CJ
cn

>
35

a
CD
•H
JJ
id
C
o
JJ
OS
H
a.
o
C
JJ
i o
1 OJ
•3
cn











cn

o
I*













o
H
2

^4
01

, — 1
<£

CU

.3

Ul
03
CD
UI4
H
c
3
O
0
JJ
c
03
rH



















JJ • TJ
C Cn TJ rH
•H 03 CO 3
TJ 4J .COS
CU CO 4J T3
TJ £ U C 0)
C 0 id X
CD CU Z ja 03
£ X5 Id r4
S 0
O TJ cn cu 0
CJ rH CD JJ. Ol
CD 3 X 0
.40 CO TJ X
3 3 rH Ul
CO 233
O Ul OS
CM TJ •• 3
r4 CO tjl
T3 03 r4 CO -H
C TJ 0 -U B3
03 C C C
id id id o
O: 4J S rH 4J
z co a.
Q rH Ul
>1 03 4J TJ
cn 4J cn cn 03
C H • CD CO 0
•H rH X OS 3 rH
jj 03 cu s:
cn 3 cu 01 jj jj
H Cf in C 14 C
X U -H o CD
CU !H 4J Z -H
CD SH Ul IH
rH *J CU -H TJ JJ
-H 03 CU X c 3
< 3 Q a 03 Z












































j
rH
OS
c
4J
• H
0
4J
Ul
TJ
id
0
rH

JJ
C
. 4-1 -H c£l
J3 CO S O

T3 CO rH X
CD CU rH
JJ o r-
03 -rl CD •
in JJ ja O
cu £4 en
Jjj CU ^ 
O 01 rH
3 II
CD cn o
-Q C 3 -C

TJ 0 C 0 U
rH 01 O O! O
3 CU -H CU 3
O X 4J X
3 CO 0 Ul 4J
3 C 3 C
4J 2 3 S CU
C ^ Ul
03 TJ rH TJ CD
rH C OS C SH
cu os s: os cu













































CJI 4J
• -H cn
01 CQ 03
jj 01
•HO s:
£ JJ 4J
H rl
rH 01 0
TJ Z
Ul 4J 03
4J C 0 0
Id 3 CD
Oj rH JJ X
e UH c ui
•H IM CD 3
0) H S
C .4
o cn 4J
•H W 3 01
JJ Q C H
00, 0
3 3 C C
IH -H 03
4J JJ 2
01 .11 01
C CU CU rH
o e ui -03
U 03 CD Oi
TJ CU X 01
g rH SH OS «
r4 3 O r-4
o; o c 01
4J 3 -H O C
1 Ol -H
4J 4J ^4 O 4J
iH C O X CO
O 03 r-1 01 -H
£ rH 03 3 X
tn cu s a a




4J -H
- a
03
rH 0 CD
CU 4J X
id
4J CU j
CJ Ol
3 .4 0
w 03 Ol
4J Si CU
CO O X
C Jl 01
0 H 3
0 Q S







3-57



















TJ'
cu
c
0
aband
01
a

TJ
3
O
3
lants
c.

JJ
Ul
0)
3
C.
4J

0
z

TJ
C
03












































0

03
3
TJ
01
TJ
C
5
CJ
CD

CO
O

TJ C 4J >
H 03 0 H II
03 03 4J
TJ X Cn 03 .C
C 0) S C 4J
Id CU -H U r4
4J SH 01 O
Ul O Oi 4J 3
C rH
>, U) -rl OS 4J
4J SH C G
•H CU 'H X CU
rH C 03 CU Ul
03 SH g CU CU
3 O CD V4 in
O* O OS O Cu
















































CO
4J
o
id
O,
.§

c
o
• H
truct
CO

0
o
e
cu
4J
1
4J
SH
o
35


1
c
o
•H

01
o
-rH
rH




TJ
c
Id
„



























01
01
H
X
CD
03
•H
4J
C
CU
4J
0
Q,
C
lutio
rH
0


CO
4J
03
3
T3
C
3
0









6
-M
JJ
03
.4
JJ
rH
-H
CM
C
rH


























JJ
Ul
•d
0)
J=
4J
,4
0
z
0
Oi
CD

CO
3
S

CO
Manor

rH
03
Ol
4j

C
H
jj
Ul
-H
X
a








c
0
H
4J
03
rH
0
O

CU
Cu



























TJ
CU
C
0
aband
JS

TJ
3
Q
3
lants
0.

jj
01
cu
JJ
ij
o
z

TJ
C












































CD
JJ
03
3
TJ
mende
e
o
CJ
cu
u
CO
o
CN
TJ
OJ
Z
Q


c:
-r*
JJ
Ul
•r4
X
cu

rH
rH














































Ul
CO
CD
c
• H
JJ

CU
A

TJ
rH
3
0
3
cn
TJ

03
TJ
C
id
jj
01

>,
4J
H
rH
Id
3
tr

















































X
CD
CD
O

!j
S
TJ
C
OS

X

CD
.4
U

10
i*
01
c

0
u














































TJ
C
03
01
X
3
o
cu
X
cn
3
2
CTi
-H
ffl
0
JJ

CO
TJ
OS
O
rH
,J
C
0)


4J
3
Z














































T3
Ol
creas
01
TJ
CD
a
TJ
rH
3
O
3
TJ
C
0
Cu

X
iH
01
0.

rH
03


H
3











































1
O
01
cu
X
01
3
C
o
JJ
rH
-H
3
•°
CD
-a
TJ
rH
3
0
3
4J
C
id
rH
Q4
iH
03
T3

0
O
CD




























































TJ
C
01
rH

TJ
CU
C
3
0














































Id
rl
3
icult
SH
OS

O

Ul
cu
in
O
03
O
ro

>.

CO
4J

•H
X
0

a
<










































CO
TJ
C
a
a
cu
4J
iH
£
c
o
c
14
CU
>

c
"•'
eeded
s.
C 03
01
CO iH
XI 03
TJ iH
rH CU
3 IM
O UH
3 3

TJ
C TJ
03 C
rH 03












































T3
C
03
C
-H
rH
rl
CO
CO
3
01
z

J2

TJ
(U
opera

CD
J2

T3
rH
3
0
3

4J
C
03
rH
0.






























































O
C71
O
X
Jl
3
S



























-------
    rJ


    i-
 CU  EH
 3  en
 c  >
•H  cn
 q
    o
    cn
    Q




    U












0
H
JJ
(0
c

o
4J
r-4

Id
c
&4

U-l
o

c
0
JJ
U

0)
01


















01
4J
2
s4
H- 1
















•H
4J
13


OJ

r— 1


U
«
.,_)
01

0




>,
P
-H
C
3

§
o
U
jj
c
(C
I— 1
CU

i!
1 -
cn
> cn  — ' i— ' TJ

r) 4-1 13 X Vj -H (d i-l
djr-idjptn cu >i P c u
*• -H c££0id0-(-tH
>» ocojcu ,c tn TJ £3
c 4-1 ,£) 1 .£ -H 0 cn 0

j->Ci§rtj0i-t»OC  Q- PC H' M £4 rH C

PCU!T1O'O >O<-HP
C-nS-TJ Z'dSSSS'S
ijF^4J^4JQrOD 'OdJ-HQ
ojccnoui cc'n'^f^Sa'n
r-ti-tO-1^ (jji— tPOOOC33J
-tp^3^j2-upao cj -H -r* x tn •u'Oo
Xc O DO V^CUUl IM C i— \ CU i-i •• 2J ^ > cn'D^'kiC'-^

en (-4 • X -H-H-r-trdSi-iSJS!-^ i-t 1-1 P3 r-t 0 SOcnozjSfN
u 0^0 o QJUOTOO • QC 3Oi-HU C^OJPO
CU OvO OOOJO) TJX rH CJCJ 0) M 3 £ rH DC-H-X r-4

en r— i j^ 3; c-QP03f-t Ken cxc jJV^ QJ, 3 •— t
DO II SO'COJ CUS3II 2icn CU&iCl) 'G PrOOS3'l
(TOO Q X i— » £ "O 01 O QdJ £ CP-rH C03r-tij O

COGJVj CCSUOOtJPWP CC OCPHJ3 O 30^W^

•HO -H 3 -u cni-t cc3 P rCOCT* ^COCT1-* UCT^
•H H 3 r* -H -H 3 rl -H O 3 U C/l
"tJr~li"i(a Iri^^jr3* TTijrln
CC^IUCD CiUlCJP X^lUC
^fdc^ns* pfdccno cnccnM
CD-HO'^-H 0 r* O -t-i Q 30HO
jJCijOQOrf jJfoOQ^ SCJOCJ
1—t 1— 1
OJ
c >
0 H
•H 4J C
CT 4H ro 0
OJ O C '^

,a c aj i*
3 0 P fcj
cn w rH -Q
H < 3
4J \4 Ol
cn ^

IB
TJ
c
o
CJ
CU
cn
CU
• H
JJ
IB
c

CD
JJ
rH


rH
IB •
c <*>
O rH
H '

s
OS CO
rH
cu n
CU IB
cn EH




























a

si




-------
     S-i
     <
      z
K   O
11
4J
C
to
0!
'4-1
O
c
0
4J
U
0
0
ai





0]
CJ
S
e4
r-t







u

JJ

™

a




j

3
-3

"
O
U
4-1
C
cu












o
u a
O '"O
U r-*
3 O



01 13
Li U







rg
U
0
—1
CQ

0
4->
i
o
a:


Q
i












0) E CO en T!
OM i>4 en cu^* fQ r
3Q04-) OCJOJ .CO)- -H C
jjj^r^iwgjC-l-'Ud} CD 'C 3 i)i_
D 4J C D -H en ^ £ ','OCfV^^uajcnaj a T3O-H r^^HO

SMI— t-uijJi— i OflJ ^43 'M'OU 0 "~i tnjz trJOCO Ln sen c
U^TSO CP XI JJOOJUOJ3 -H3 rQ-iJ -PXlCCO • 0 C a
n3 v£) M-l C* tflUXl 4J^ -WO flj Cfl'w-HM -M4-)-HfT] J
T3-3: 0 -HrOT3 CO O U JJ TJ CJ > O nj^fd 0"'JlQ4 •-
Ucn J-t r— (CNi— t O'OXS'^ ^ -Q-i-J >-33 rtJJlX1!-
c dj ta en ro 3 u'Ur-t^tic c; en -u) 'Ol) LO •— * H o 4-
O'-COJD jJV^O i— ( 3 4JO Q*H) CUQj HWC^ • lit S C
C O *J *w 4JO3OC jJ.fl (TJC3 CPOCC/
T?^-iJl-(iTl ^4 3 O3J TJ'HC3UI 3C* '-<-'CCJf3 i
rQC^OCJ Q'ClM D '-fl.CU.Q Ci^OoS CT^CJtn C'i^ f"4 C
rOfQ jJ O e.POO 3cn4JO fB-r^-HUl'M D1!) -JJ^QjC
ttCi— * fd-^S '"O'wUC'D'C U-^ 0 ^CJCM GOlO j
CT30OI iJO OJ (TJ (d XI r-t C fll 3 >• +J < cSQ^'M 3 o *w f— t w en jj-uten HX'MC 4-
4-. 3S 0) 0) 01 JJ M -HOJH i-H3'4JOJOJ-JV4 3CCD C 34-) C
ft] >>«i ^no 4J jJ3 .CCJOCU'-^O "^ClJE -N^(4-4 'M £
^•H^-PciuccU'C^^ctnoj— 4-*3c c1*4 OH s "CdtOcs
rDOQ-3J'l)OOOO'^«3^403J3UQ*^'(d^'n S'O E CX «H t-4 "X

4--3aaiM4ji4-i acncn+j-u c^'U^o-u o >a;aj ^ ^o'o'^?



OU.lSZen023.Cl.Ts5uOQPi^fl21dc.POD^WXlS-H ^hJO^'Msa.
§Q
S U
S
o
c o
^n un
1 CM
-a i
C OJ

rH 0
M £
•H M

C 3
0 0
i"3 ca




3-59











1
H T3 3 Oi-4
r-l O M O 30
a Oj -H £ en —
'j)£(UCGJ"D i~* 07
IT]-H£O^'M i— t s**
QJ JJ -H 01 -H >TJ
IM JJ 1 fl T3 4-t OJ
u o * c "H c as
C C 0 3 C tJ ^
•H 'Oajen4J -uo
0 c 4J aj 0 en a
n3 £ rd ro r-i -H c
HOJ-UrHCr-t X3
c i4 en o 3 i— t a
0 H < ^
e to >, > * M-. o •
£ r4 4J C O C
rd C -H OJ O • Jl (H
erH X! CP T) X 0 T!
(fl 0 O 4J Xi -^
O£3T3^4J f*i l--iO.C
NnJeT— i4-»c o o «d u
-H 3 H 0 SH 1 3 rt
C^i-iOCE 0 1 O2
O'^*D3 CU — ""• t f*l
H -u fl i-* • en r-i -u
t >« fd V4 H Cj 4J -HO!^;
-r- 130 — £U ^1 y-i !> (13
34-1 X3O-^£ iJCJOJ
c ce; 1^1 g 3 j4 E
«-t fl Z fl S W Cl C-O^-
oodsfd^x: eni^^o






















-------
.—.  I
r s

^g
c en
•H >H
JJ 01
  z

  z

  E
  cd
  o
1 Q)
•H
4J
C
0)
4J
r-t
.— t
c
•H
U-t
O
c
o
•1-t
4J
U
0)
0
i







S
0
IB
t
M









"J
2
4-1
(~
R

4J

**«
, t3 0 -H
-U JJ 0) T3
OJ -^ 4J O^ C
D rH fl C O
g rd r-4 -H O
3 O »•*
T3 O^ -i-l 3 (U
r-t > T3 !M
3 1M 3
0 0) 0) C -P
3 -U XI O 13
fa cn ^
4J 3 T3 0 O
c r-t w a
03 CX 3 -U S
-H z o -H a
a* Q 3 c w




































-

t: i)
OJ | rH 4J
HJ jj •• U] ' HC^H
•H 3 1^ W CJ ^4 £
-H T3 4J fl O CL r-*
XI 0) fl* V< J-1 TJQJ-W
fQ'O^jO ""^ ^^^

MC-UO ^ -Q cn3
X *J O 0 fl C >>
^HCCJOCU 0) -HOH^
OJO-U-Pd) LTl iM i^iJUJ
r- c J^ -u H a ^ o a) ^DOMO

3 30C-C0^3 CJ3 CiJ 0 OT3 XO (!)
£ S-HCJOH-PW ccn uo a; m c -u 3 CN . en 4^
Cv (Tj^ajDOJ^ 4-tQUOV.O COCGJ? T — I Li OJ >
^>i i-*2JC i-*V4 -P i-4 Q4 fQ CM 4J -PlT) -H ••^Ctn CO r— ( 4J fij S«4
^cn-cj^oSScf 5SSfflLlMcHa)^a;O2 ^^
dHK-^u^crajwco^^ G^OJJ^C-PCHCOJ'^I n
cni^iMcm'Hli'^aJaj-Hi-tOH^ cuau's 2
O^SS-HSZC Ct4 =1) i-i ^JOC-HCSOJ 0
OX~Si-)r-<--( OT3OC!-iLiCi3 CPDCC C


•PflJ(UGJCfl'T3rHCyi-4-)MM^O'UpO^3C7'^iH3'O U1CJ
Hgig8££S^S£iSSSS3ISS3S3 So.





















3-60
















-H 4J
0 4J 0
4-J XI H C T3 1
C TJ -"** C 0
o 13 (D yi ^ %4 *

3 O H T3 tfi
03 cr fl r- U
aj y-i o fl c o\°

3 2 -u o >. *(3 ^
-U fQ C CO
tfl i4 C 'O ^j **•*
LTl S-4 O 3 O1 O
13 iw a ~ > wo
1) 0 ^ C *^ O 3
\ O C i4 C U] -P
c (U C3UT3i03
oto U yl< -IZ 3
01 § a
S a u
o o
« o o
W 1*1 m
1 OJ
TJ T3 1
C C 0)
ifl iB i-i
r4 r-l 0
tn in £Z
H M OJ
oo en £
J) CD -U
000
^ T) Ul








-------












CO
r-t
fr*

•z.
w
E-
-J


a
w

"o s
C 01
ft >-


3 J
~i
r- U
3§
< j
H Z
a

Ul
z
S























CD
4J
2
0
4J
r-t
0
0
4J
'J
a;
CD
01















0
s"
1— (






'.T
2
•3



_j
i— <


O

_Q


-.J
CJ
•**
4J
H
3
0
u
c
04


d)
S OJ
l-i .M 3
0 3 O OJ
C -P 13 •-• -C
•-1 co 3 -—I -P

'O '-W --4 '"' O -P -P
o o S "M 4J 0 0
-M £ E
r-t C (U 4J r-t OJ 3)
3 0 • -C  f-t fl -P -P '
±£ -H -H 'D 3 C C C
0 3 ^1 31) 'HD rO tO-C g fl T3r-tT! £0rn
> C -COJ-P130 O'O1-' -PoJi^
^-CCT3COHUCIGJ OE-P OS-P
• • • t • •






















0

1
cu
OS

.c
-p
4J


fl
•H
31 4J
C C
0 OJ •
C -H
d) - O
U-i T3 0 4J r-t
en 4J 0)
^ 3 to 0- .M
^ o v^ o c^
O i--< C/l fQ 1-t 4-1

X O 0) 3
O CN 3J 01  fl
r- jj o 3 -H 2
i— i  tn en CU j^
trT- ^- ftl
11 5-
JJ C
S i
3 i
4J
4J ,
"oJ
fl

*u
r-t

0)
4J
07
fl

JJ
nj
0
ij
TJ
C
•H
3)
4-i
U

constr


3

o

CN
|
c*

o
c
Ul


;->
3
O
01

-8
CD
< > 4J
>j a
-u a

C 3 1
-t -O 0)
01 C V4 •
ra H o <
CD "C Ol
"0 ul
CT C LT1 U
C 18 <">
-r-t CN >W
tt 01 0
o T: 01
0 13 C *
S 0 -r-1 r-l

O r-t -8
•H -H 4J ^1
c ra o o
C i^ 4J '4-i
X >. CD -O
U J3 D1 CD
H fl 4-1
C T3 U U
c ca o 3
-M 01 4-1 S-t
^ 3 01 4J
01
tu >• a c
^C r-i U 0
4J 4J 13 U
4-1 CD ^4 CU
0 01 3 a
0) 01
S 1-4 TJ
-J Ol U rH
3 (03
0 01 CJ 0
o: .H 2 3
•




















c
•a
o

• H
3
a1

o
13
T3
3
0
3

IM
0
3
>,
w
^4
a
0
a
o
4-1

a <
01
0 Ul
z o
•




















g
o
4-1
01

14-4
0
C
O
-H
4J
CJ
3
U
4J
01
2
0
o
0
3
•0
C
0
4J
a,
3
-2

o
•

































Ul
01
o
o
,_t
5

sewurs






















T3
CD

-13
CD
4J
•o

13
TJ
CD
3
4J
a.
o
f
r-t
3
O •
3 <
Ul
U-t Ul
3 0

C X
a
^ c
•


















3-61
-------









en
>
M
<
z

i"

1-4
^
^
JJ

V]
j
^~ i
'S £
o a

c tn
-* >
4J U5
c
0 J
U <
-* z
o
m H
-1 S?
fi 2

3 ~
i—4 ^
2
< 'O
r- S
H
2
a
Cy
C£
O
cn

>H
X
<
Q
rj
U)


























a
•H
i— i
rH
C
o
i c
0
Jj
U
0
OQ




















JJ
o
rtj

E
H

















>
-H
-U
£
N

jJ
r-i


0

"2
y]
03
CJ

JJ
C
3
I
0
o
JJ
Cb













0 «o < e
^ 4J ^H 01 N 3
300) r-tTC-IOOOJ

3u-ijj ONoiOJ^JJ
r-( I U O 0) MO^^TJ
-HOO 4-1 *J -^ JJ "4-t 0 -N 3 JS O
Sf^jJ O 0 O C OTJ^-U
g £ £ 0 - JJ oft 3
DOlr-t OJ OJ O U^OICOCrHJJr-l
£ rtj id Q5 3- Q5 NdJ^rO'-'-'oJfa
jJO 3ft3MJ--i O O^|^*JCnT3H
CJJC •*-* •** ^ feDNSUX-WC
-aO fl 03 T x 3^^jlucr>c^i>
NO-H O U U O OJ UXCO-H
OJOT3JJ -H -H r* CN JJ'C'J-IMOOO'CJJ
> r-tfO JJ" -U rj-JJ • 0] t-4 0 JJCH rHH3
-HQJ3C C C CC V tfS ^-HrJlOJ^C
QX3ON a>- a- oo« en soaj^aiNjaoN
C'O^JJ Hi> H> Ul-H> i-H J^ra3T3N>T3 JJ
3 p—t !j 01 -— i H "-I ^-H  13 GJ N O -^ '— * VI r- 1
030JJ-C3C13-iJ<
jJO^O j3Ti XJro dt^fl |l fifqjjJOajOU
Cfl3T3(T3Qj C C XC *\ N(/) >^(-JUlC3 fCOJ
OX-QE^O rO'-HflJ f") rH D i-HQ jJ CJJd) id4>iO£; E fd
w 0 -r-( N C3-U OJ3^i N3JJ N O01U 03N^JO HN
CJCCO fOOr-^ N C i— < O 0 r- ( O £ fd N N T3 Jl C O

cuiwccn ^7 ^ o. -jMM-H-HONCf-n

Jjr-4~ijj 4J^ 4-G^ ^jjo1 c -Q>cncntJTJOuic]J

j^QCflO Of^N ^. tl C l)*aN jJLT CNLJ^>0 -CCJJJf30
jJ>GE£ CChO 3Q.O JJ^O U10J O ra Hr-pOJJ>a4££
0-H3aj(l) OSJJ 0£jJ «£•*-> ON ^OU^NrCCOHQUOJ
;QQ£4Jpi;X fTJMUl CO j M C/l Ml— 1 en O CU USZO^SrOCQQi'^QicC

• * • • • • •••••»
^
s o a
-u s u
a o
u in o
^ -T j-t
1 00

01 C 0)
D id ^
0 ^~* O
K » JS
X H M
1 01 J5
3 CD -U
oca
r-( 0 0
tn 1-3 en








3-62
-------
'A
>
inued)
YSTEM-t.EVEL ALTEKNAT

TAULM 3.13 (Cc
CONDAKY SCKKENfNG OF REGIONAI
y:

i C/l -H U -t
O^JOO) -H C p-l 4J T3 JJ tfl 3
QUOCLiJS 4JH rHllCrH U]fuOOpO^lf^
_Q^44J jj O!^S OJ233O--ii)CJ4JCJ
^o .n u i1 o TJ H . — . inooccsy-'oi-'^--1-'
^ i— i GJ CP o — } 4J 03 QJ i— t • 4JroOs-HOOi^-*c<'0
rH3r-J3-HJJ 0 C U~I(D^ CrH Ur3?0-l-'2QcnO
3O--^rOX £ £ 'H^S-t 0 3 0) AJ ^4 Uj'OC/j^
03-H rH O 01 34JQO CJOa)CT3S-4-JO^O U-U
314-4^0^ 3d 0- C/1H4J3 3^O fOCflO^O
T3C4ii^ r-t CJ 0) ^4C>-> 0-U''3C.r-IC£l^'-'lOO XC
C03^rHCJ-J^ -C -C rdtjO-J-1 r— *U3-"^3 Q.'^'-H^30J-'-ir3
Ult( 'O 0 0 3^00^ X4I201 iUCT'CPOrH OOJ
4_i.,-4Qi4jj.H 4J ^J i^o'wi-tO OJOJ CtwiJC^>3i'4^
^H C 4-1 (^  '3rMvj£"iO)';T1U 3 -— t Q)
•i-* S 0 ^ 0- OOJ- CJ^CTiOS-i-l 3*OiJ^f>->-i9i,3:; 3^JX1
fHO4OrO4J4J< OJ-P fl D 4^ OO^-'HUO'-toSaJCa!3.
^03'HMOCU£o] rn^Qj rHOJ 4J COJO fl * 01 " — i &. Li uu r_l
CCO'TSO^O nW O 3 J-) ^3-jJ ^4 CJ^t32T3"tt^'OOO 30 lj~|
r^QiHU-C'C 0 ^QrH 0 0 i~ 4 0 £02J OJ^OA-'O'Sv'i) i^4JO'D
— H U1 Q) 4J CT1!-1 03"^ *J 3 ^ 3 CJ 4-J 4-* LijJJJ'Hi^U-J JJ • y] !/) C ^3
'Jj-U'OOiirHCCn -C -i 4-)UlO*'HHif]3'^^tOr3|!;irJ^J~;
— i H (i) ^1 ^ 3 H cntfl :_Q T? U-i SM
il'iT33£f3_CLH3r30 iJij^ (i) rQ C 4JU2 Q'Jl'O^CTiD'OlMW-HG^ GCffl
C|CD^^-iH-J'HCiCJ CE-P CS-tJ 0^-t C/jfjO-'-io>-l'^cnoO)00-Ci"3'f^*'-^
Tl^V-i^^PJlOy-J — Cii COr-t^o >H|MCO CJ&* OCJOinj2-QCJ'~(-3^32J-'S!l-^'^^C
Q
CJ Q
O S w
T3 O
^ O O
0 rn u->
4J I CN
C 0)
O oj M
C rH 0
•H ai x:
r— t M C/5
\ O 4J
£-1 C 3
tf 0 0
u ^ to
3-63
-------

en
>
M
inued)
YbTKM-LF.VKL ALTERNAT
TABLE 3.13 (Cont
CRKMNING OF REGIONAL t
ICONDARY £
x


01
H
4-1
nj
C
a
.p
^<
IB
c
H
U-l
0
0
l-t
o
CO

Impacts

•P
13
C
o
-U
OJ
—1
t.
.-f
3
|
-I
f5
.— 1
Q*
U 0) 1
- > OJ  E" x: -H -H ' 13
4JJJ fTj r- 1 -H CO OJ r-l r-l X G
D^ICNCnwj^ GJSl) r*"iQ3)»
JJrJOJJOJO-HOO'^'fOHU >
•HGJJJ>H fdocj'oi-i  H -H yi-H> i— i j<;fO''O (Q-P-P'^uc'CJiijJ
3,-^^-H JJ jJ CH t/> 'O^WD'HQ inU^ S^UCfir-H
O3:JlJJ-P C C OO-P OO^r-iOO3DCL'~'C3OJJ*^
— t O i— i 0 13 dJ  w^4> 00"~* 0 £01) !U>ifOOGJ V4CJCG O
fl ji^ r— i 03 -H O'fl"^ -P 3 *^I 3 ^j-PjJ i-ip^J Hp U1C f^HC^-P
^CCOHOJ i-< yi n3 COCntO CJM<1) JJ T] 3E3>3^2> T3 j^CQt/J-^
iilii iii iii ill n *mmmmn
Q
O Q
Si
O
0 0
O <~n t/l
tji t 0]
to G (U
0 ^ ^
JJ r-i 0
cn tn ,G
M CO
c ^i x;
H d) JJ
rH C 3
COG
3-64
-------
   E


   c*
   03
            a
            g
                                                   C
                                                   03  OJ
                                                   a £i
§  z
™   73  in
 T3 r-H  CD

 C 3  JJ
                       •3  Vl
                       a o
                       e  jj
                    a  o
                    = u
                                                     ^ (1)
                                                      3 -P

                                                      §3

                                                      [fi 0
                                                   o
                                                   3
storacje alternative analysis.
M
0)
jj
03
3

• H
JJ
01
C
M
0)
JJ
1-4
03

•o
C
01
rH
C/l
M

01
O
c
0
n
14-4
o

,
a
-H
01
>.
f-J
03
C
03
0)
>
H
JJ
01
c
^
0)
JJ
rH
03

0)
!*4
g

S5

j=
jj
3
0
03
UJ
O
03
M
Q
01
0
03
01
H
U
OJ
x:
jj
c
-H
•a
o;
jj
03
3
rH
0)
>
a
01
M
0
jj
a
OJ
o
"j
u
c
•!-t
OJ
Ul
0
JJ
^JJ
0
01
•H
01
>,
iH
03
C
01

OJ
-H
+J
OJ
C
^
OJ
JJ
r-4
01

CJ
JZ
Jj

IJ-I
0

31

H
03
JJ
OJ
T3
^
0
ul
r4
01
>,

03
C
03

OJ
>
JJ
2

n
OJ
jj
.— i
03

U
OJ
3
CJ
01

'*
o
JJ
u
OJ
c
c
o
o
OJ

01
i-H
§
0)
tj
1
e
OJ
jj
01
>,
03
M
01
c
o
•H
Oi
o;
jq
3
'Ji
TJ
OJ
03
U
3
CJ
jj
M
OJ
•o
c
3

T3
OJ
•r*
«-<
•o



CJ
a

•o
rH
3
0
3

!H
0

JJ
rH
H
3
ja

0)
J3
jj
0

o
rH

IH
OJ
JJ
a
0!
•C
o

c
Q
l—t
04

5
OJ
JJ
en
>i
to

LI
0)
-U
rt3
3
0)
•U
t/1
m
2
c
H
                                                                                     OJ
                                                                                     TJ
                                                                                     •O
                                                                                     C
                                                                                     a-
                                                                                          X
                                                                                          H
                                                                                          T3
                                                                                                  M
                                                                                                       JJ
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       OJ
                                                                                                        a
                                                                                                        oj
                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                             a
                                                                                                             o
                                                                                     01
                                                                                     OJ
                                                                                     O!
                                                                        3-65
-------
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs were studied independently
of the analysis of system-level alternatives.  The purpose
of expanding and rehabilitating the WWTPs is to enable the
WWTPs to operate at maximum treatment efficiency and to meet
the limitations in their WPDES discharge permits.  Environmental
consequences and cost were also considered.  The evaluation
of system-level alternatives does not depend on the evaluation
of WWTP alternatives, since the flows to the WWTPs under the
Local, Regional, Subregional, or Mosaic Alternatives would
vary by less than seven percent.  The one-plant Regional
Alternative would greatly alter the flows to the South Shore
WWTP, but this alternative was determined infeasible in
Primary Screening.  See Table 3.10.

3.7.1  Jones Island WWTP

For the Jones Island WWTP, consideration was given to possible
treatment and disinfection processes, the possible location
for siting the additional equipment, and the methods used
for processing and disposing of the solids removed by wastewater
treatment.  The process and location evaluations are summarized
here and described in detail in Appendix II, Jones Island
and Appendix IV, Solids Management.  Solids Management is
addressed briefly in section 3.8 of this chapter.

Numerous alternatives were considered by the MMSD for the
processes and disinfection methods at the WWTP.  However,
only the alternatives considered feasible are described
here.  Six process alternatives were included:

     Alternative 1 - Upgrade and expand the existing air
     activated sludge system.

     Alternative 2 - Air activated sludge system with primary
     treatment.

     Alternative 3 - Single air activated sludge system.

     Alternative 4 - Two parallel air activated sludge
     systems.

     Alternative 5 - High purity oxygen (HPO) activated
     sludge system.

     Alternative 6 - Activated biofilter (ABF) followed by
     an activated sludge system.

Disinfection alternatives included the following:

     chlorine
     ozone
•    chlorine dioxide

                              3-66
-------
Three feasible location alternatives were identified:

     new site
     existing site
     expansion of existing site

After evaluating numerous different alternatives for these
expansion options (see Figure IV-7 of Appendix II), retaining
the existing site with adjacent expansion for new facilities
was found to be the most cost-effective.  Therefore, the
MMSD evaluated various locations for siting disinfection
facilities and providing land for future expansion.  The
feasible alternatives are listed below:

     A 9.5 acre lakefill for new disinfection facilities,
     construction staging, and future expansion.  In addition,
     the MMSD would require up to 10 additional acres
     located south of the plant.
     A 5.7 acre lakefill for new disinfection facilities
     plus 10 acres south of the plant.

     A 4.8 acre lakefill for new disinfection facilities
     plus 10 acres south of the plant.

     A cofferdam which would enclose a 4.8 acre area of the
     Outer Harbor during the construction of the new dis-
     infection facilities, but would be partially removed
     following completion of construction.  The 10 acre
     expansion south of the plant would also be necessary.

     A dual-use facility involving construction of underground
     disinfection facilities at a site presently occupied by
     a cargo warehouse.  After construction, the site would
     be used for sewage treatment and Port of Milwaukee
     operations.  The 10 acre expansion site would also be
     needed.

Throughout the analysis of the Jones Island WWTP, the No
Action Alternative was also included.  In this case, the No
Action Alternative assumed that all other elements of the
MFP would be implementd, but that no improvements would take
place at the Jones Island WWTP.

3.7.1.1  Feasible Alternative for Jones Island WWTP

The development and screening of alternatives for the Jones
Island WWTP is described in Appendix II.  The most feasible
alternative for the Jones Island WWTP would be expansion to
300 MGD (13.1 m3/sec).  The hydraulic capacity of the aeration
                              3-67
-------
basins at the facility is now 300 MGD (although, the treatment
capacity is 140 MGD).  Expanding only the primary treatment
and secondary clarification capacities would enable the WWTP
to treat 300 MGD adequately to meet WPDES limitations.
Expanding the facility to a greater capacity would be far
more costly.  The average dry weather flow to the WWTP is
expected to be 95 MGD (5,0 m^/sec) in 2005.  The capacity of
the facility would not change under the Local, Subregional,
or Regional System-Levels.  Some type of plant site expansion
would be necessary.  This expansion could occur on Harbor
Commission land or by lakefill.

The most feasible process alternative for the WWTP is Alternative
2-Air activated sludge system with primary treatment.  The
treatment process would include primary treatment, secondary
treatment with air-activated sludge, and disinfection by
chlorine gas.

This alternative was retained through the screening process
for the following reasons.

     The alternative had the lowest net present worth of any
     feasible alternatives.

     The projected annual energy requirements of the alternative
     would be approximately 20% of present requirements.

     The net present worth of chlorine disinfection would be
     40% less than ozone disinfection.

3.7.2  South Shore WWTP

South Shore WWTP (as did Jones Island WWTP) received consideration
for possible treatment and disinfection processes, possible
locations for siting additional equipment, and methods for
processing and disposing of solids removed during wastewater
treatment.  A detailed description of these evaluations is
included in Appendix III, South Shore, and Appendix IV,
Solids Management.   Solids Management is addressed briefly
in Section 3.8 of this Chapter.

The air activated sludge process, which is currently used at
the treatment plant, was retained for secondary treatment.
Chlorination and ozonation were considered as possible
disinfection alternatives.  Additional land would be required
to site additional facilities at the WWTP.  Alternatives
developed for expansion at the South Shore WWTP are described
below.
                             3-68
-------
Alternative 1 - Expansion in the Lake to the North
                a) Enclosing 30 acres  (12 ha) and filling
                   12 acres  (5 ha).
                b) Filling only 12 acres  C5 ha).

Alternative 2 - Expansion on the shoreline by cutting 14
                acres  (6 ha) of bluff.

Alternative 3 - Expansion by filling 9 acres  (4 ha) of lake
                and cutting 3 acres  (1 ha) of bluff.

Alternative 4 - Expansion on the top of the bluff.

Three additional MMSD alternatives were considered in response
to requests from nearby residents.  They are:

Alternative 5 - East expansion - filling in 9 acres  (4  ha)
                to the east of the present lakefill.

Alternative 6 - South expansion - filling in 6 acres  (2 ha)
                to the south of the present lakefill.

Alternative 7 - West expansion - cutting 9 acres  (4 ha) of
                bluff to the west of the present lakefill.

The EIS also evaluated two additional alternatives.

Alternative 8 - A 6-acre (2 ha) lakefill to the north of the
                present lakefill.

Alternative 9 - Expansion at lake level without any bluff cut
                or lakefill.  The proposed chlorine contact
                chambers would be located at the northern end
                of the existing lakefill, while the secondary
                clarifiers would be at the southern end.

The No Action Alternative was also considered for purposes of
comparison and to allow a baseline for evaluation.  The No
Action Alternative assumes that the MMSD's Master Facilities
Plan would be implemented without improvements at the South
Shore WWTP.

3.7.2.1  Feasible Alternative for South Shore WWTP

The development and evaluation of expansion alternatives for
the South Shore WWTP is described in Appendix III.  The most
feasible alternative for the WWTP involves expanding the
existing wastewater treatment process to a capacity of 250
MGD.  The most feasible location for expansion would be at
lake level (cutting into the bluff or lakefilll.  Aeration
capacity would be expanded by 16% and secondary clarification
capacity would be expanded by 50%.  Preliminary and primary
                              3-69
-------
treatment facilities would remain unchanged while new
chlorination/dechlorination facilities would be constructed.
The reasons for the selection of this alternative are outlined
below:

     The plan's cost would be within 5% of the lowest cost
     alternative.

     The alternative   would have the lowest annual energy
     requirements.  Electrical requirements would be 40%
     lower than the electrical requirements for expansion
     on the top of the bluff.

•    The chlorination and dechlorination disinfection system
     would have a present worth which is 12% of the present
     worth of an alternative ozonation system.

3.8  SOLIDS MANAGEMENT

In addition to the wastewater treatment studies being carried
out for the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs, the method
of solids handing for these two WWTPs was also studied in
the MMSD's Solids Management Facility Plan Element  (SMFPE).
Appendix IV, Solids Management, to this EIS discusses the
environmental impacts of the solids management alternatives.

The feasible solids management alternatives for the Jones
Island facility include agricultural application, landfill,
incineration, and co-combustion processes.  The Milorganite
process was evaluated, but it was not considered feasible
because of its high energy requirements.  Feasible alternatives
for South Shore include agricultural application and landfill
options.  Composting sludge was also considered.

3.8.1  Feasible Solids Management Alternative

The most feasible solids management alternatives are listed
below.

     For Jones Island - Dissolved air flotation thickening
     of waste activated sludge, anaerobic digestion of the
     thickened waste activated sludge and the primary sludge,
     filter press dewatering of the digested solids and
     landfilling of the dewatered solids.  (This alternative
     is identified in the SMFPE as J31.)

     For South Shore - Dissolved air flotation thickening of
     waste activated sludge, anaerobic digestion of the
     thickened waste activated sludge and the primary sludge,
     belt filter dewatering of the digested solids and
     application to agricultural land of dewatered solids.
      (This alternative is identified in the SMFPE as S12.)

                              3-70
-------
3.9  INTERCEPTORS

In conjunction with, the analysis of wastewater treatment
facilities in the planning area, conveyance systems had to
be evaluated for each system-level.  Certain interceptors
within the County of Milwaukee and some service areas outside
Milwaukee County were included in the Notices of Intent.
These sewers had been under consideration since 1956, when a
consulting engineering firm recommended the construction of
the South Shore WWTP and new interceptors to extend sewer
service to unsewered areas.

The service areas of the interceptors included in the EIS
are shown on Figure 3.9.

The original notices of intent included the following interceptors:

Franklin-Muskego
Mitchell Field
Northridge
Menomonee Falls-Germantown
Hales Corners
Underwood Creek
Ryan Creek
Franklin Northeast
Root River
Oak Creek (south of Ryan Road)
Oak Creek (north of Ryan Road)
Oak Creek Southwest
Caddy Vista
Northeast Side Relief System

Prior to 1978, Environmental Assessments had been prepared
for the Northeast Side Relief System, the Root River Interceptor,
and for portions of the Menomonee Falls-Germantown and Hales
Corners Interceptors.  The EPA examined these assessments
and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) for
portions of the Menomonee Falls-Germantown and Hales Corners
Interceptors within Milwaukee County.  The FNSI for the
Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor included the southern
segment of the interceptor (Contract 813).  This segment is
currently under construction and will provide for the connection
of the Village of Menomonee Falls sewer service area to the
MMSD.  Two WWTPs in Menomonee Falls will be abandoned.  The
FNSI for the Hales Corners Interceptor will permit the
southern segment of that interceptor to be built (Contract
237).  This portion of the Hales Corners Interceptor is also
currently under construction and will permit the abandonment
of the Hales Corners WWTP.  A FNSI was also issued for the
Northridge and Mitchell Field Interceptors.

Based on the environmental impact analysis presented in the
Draft EIS, the EPA issued a FNSI on the Underwood Creek
Interceptor on October 17, 1980, and the Root River Interceptor
on January 13, 1981.  Facility Plan approvals by EPA and DNR

                              3-71
-------
                                                                     INTERCEPTOR SERVICE AREAS

                                                                      7) North«
-------
were received on the Underwood Creek Interceptor on November
19, 1980, and on the Root River Interceptor on February 16,
1981.  Both interceptors are currently under design.  The
documentation of these decisions is contained in the Addendum
to Appendix VIII, Interceptor Alignment.

On March 9, 1979, facilities planning was halted for four
other interceptors:  the Ryan Creek, Oak Creek Southwest,
Oak Creek  Csouth of Ryan Road), and Caddy Vista Interceptors.
It was determined that these interceptors would not be
needed during the twenty-year planning period and thus
should not be included in the facilities planning process.

For the remaining interceptors, the EPA specified whether an
EIS had to be prepared on the alternative routes to assess
construction impacts, impacts to the service area, or both.
Table 3.14 indicates which aspects were studied as part of
the EIS analysis.

3.9.1  Purposes of the Interceptors  (see Figure 3.9)

3.9.1.1  Franklin-Muskego Interceptor

The Franklin-Muskego Interceptor would convey Muskego's
wastewater to the Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer (MIS)
System and eventually to the South Shore treatment plant.
It would also provide service to areas of Franklin currently
served by the St. Martin's pump station as well as areas
currently not provided with sewer service.  Sewage transport
would begin at the existing Muskego Northeast Treatment
Plant and run to the MIS located in College Avenue in Milwaukee
County.

3.9.1.2  Franklin Northeast Interceptor

The Franklin Northeast Interceptor would serve the northeast
section of Franklin, including small parts of Greendale and
Greenfield.  Construction of the interceptor would eliminate
sewage bypassing into the Root River and the possibility of
septic tank failure in its service area.  It would also
provide sewer service to presently undeveloped areas.

3.9.1.3  Oak Creek North Branch Interceptor

The Oak Creek North Branch Interceptor would connect 3,200
acres (1,295 ha) in the northwest section of the City of Oak
Creek and a small portion of the City of Franklin to the
MMSD collection and treatment system.  The Oak Creek Interceptor
is intended to relieve septic system problems and bypasses
from Wildwood Drive lift station into the North Branch of
Oak Creek,  as well as to provide sewer service for future
development.
                               3-73
-------
                           TABLE  3.14
                   EIS  ANALYSIS  OF  INTERCEPTORS
Interceptor
Oak Creek
(North, of Ryan Road)
Franklin Northeast
Franklin-Muskego
Underwood Creek
Hales Corners
Root River
Menomonee Falls-Germantown
Northeast Side Relief
    System
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.
FNSI 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.

FNSI on construction impacts.
FNSI on service area impacts
EA previously prepared by
   MMSD,  but updated in MFP.

EIS on construction impacts
  of northern 2/3 of interceptor,
EIS 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.
                             3-74
-------
3.9.1.4  Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor  Cabove
         Contract 8131

The original Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor was to be
extended north from its intersection with Contract 813 along
the Waukesha-Milwaukee County Line to the Village of
Germantown.  This interceptor would have served portions of
Menomonee Falls and Milwaukee and all of the Village of
Germantown in the planning area.  Later analysis showed that
additional sewer service to Menomonee Falls and Milwaukee
was not needed at this time and that the wastewater flows
from Germantown could be served through an existing MIS in
N. 107th Street.  Accordingly, the alignment of the Menomonee
Falls-Germantown Interceptor was changed to an east-west route.
The new interceptor would allow the abandonment of the
Germantown wastewater treatment plant and would extend sewer
service to areas in Germantown currently using septic systems.

3.9.1.5  Underwood Creek Interceptor

The Underwood Creek Interceptor would alleviate overloading
to the MIS system in western Wauwatosa and a portion of West
Allis.  The existing interceptors in this area do not have
adequate capacity to handle wet weather flows, and several
bypasses have been installed to prevent local collecting
sewers from backing up into basements.  In addition, the
Underwood Creek Interceptor would allow for the hook-up of
areas now using septic tank systems, eliminating the impacts
of potential system failures.  The interceptor would not
extend service to any undeveloped areas.

3.9.1.6  Root River Interceptor

The Root River Interceptor would relieve the sewerage system
in portions of New Berlin, West Allis, and Greenfield.
Local collector systems would be constructed in the City of
Greenfield, thus eliminating 75 septic systems.  Also, the
interceptor would relieve frequent surcharge and flooding
problems that have occurred due to inadequate sewerage
capacity.  In addition, it would allow some new development.

3.9.1.7  Hales Corners Interceptor (above Contract 237)

The Hales Corners Interceptor would serve the southern
portion of New Berlin within the planning area.  It would
allow the abandonment of the Regal Manors WWTP and a number
of septic systems in the area.  The interceptor would also
allow the development of some presently unsewered land.
                               3-75
-------
3.9.1.8  Northeast Side Relief System

The Northeast Side Relief System would augment the existing
sewer system which has insufficient capacity to transport
wet weather flows.  The relief system would eliminate both
the bypassing of sewage and the flooding of basements in the
northeast portion of Milwaukee County.

3.9.1.9  Construction Methods

These intercepting sewers could be constructed by the open-
trench method or tunneling.  The open-trench method requires
the digging of shallow trenches, typically less than 20 feet
(6.2 m) below grade.  Pipe is laid in the trench and covered.
Construction by the tunnel method allows deeper construction,
usually 20 feet (6.2 m) or more below grade.  Manholes and
dropshafts are the only exposed work areas.  Historically,
the MMSD has used the tunnel methods because it involves
less soil moving and fewer temporary facilities during
construction.

The specific routes and construction impacts of the interceptors
identified in the final alternatives were analyzed independently
by the EIS.  This analysis and its results are discussed in
Appendix VIII, Interceptor Alignment.

3.9.1.10  EIS Analysis

The Mequon/Thiensville, Germantown, New Berlin, Muskego
Northeast and Northwest, Caddy Vista, and South Milwaukee
connector sewers were also identified as system-level alternatives
The EIS evaluated these sewers for obvious, serious environmental
impacts.  All of the identified connector sewers were found
to be feasible and could be constructed in a cost-effective
and environmentally sound manner.

On September 10, 1980, the EPA issued a FNSI on the Caddy
Vista Connection.   Facility Plan approval was given by EPA
and DNR on October 17, 1980.  It is expected that construction
on the connector will begin in September, 1981, with hook-up
to the MMSD sewerage system by the end of the year.

Further facilities planning and environmental assessments
could be necessary in order to determine the specific routes,
construction methods, and impacts prior to the construction
of the other five connector sewers.

3.10  CSO ABATEMENT

The CSSA is shown in Figure 3.3.  Prior to the development
of the MFP, CSO which includes storm water and wastewater


                               3-76
-------
was recognized as a major contributor to water quality
degradation  and as a potential health, hazard.  In 19-71,
SEWRPC published A Comprehensive Plan For The Milwaukee
River Watershed,, which identified CSO as a problem, and
recommended a strategy for alleviating the problem to meet
Federal and State water quality standards.

The SEWRPC recommendations served as a starting point for
this aspect of the MFP.  Because planning for CSO abatement
began prior to planning to meet the other requirements of
the MFP, the two planning processes developed separately for
a considerable time.

The U.S. District Court Order required the MMSD to design
and construct a system that would be able to contain CSO
from the greatest storm of record.  The central requirement
of the Court Order was the elimination of all discharges of
human waste from combined sewers.  A system to achieve this
goal would have to be constructed by December 31, 1989,
regardless of the availability of Federal or State funding
assistance.  Because MMSD filed .a petition with the United
States Supreme Court to appeal the U.S. District Court
decision, there was reason to include, in the planning process,
alternatives that would abate CSO to comply with the Dane
County Stipulation, in case the District Court decision were
to be reversed or modified.  In order to meet the requirements
of the Dane County Court Stipulation and the Wisconsin
Statutes, the DNR has determined that a CSO abatement alternative
must result in the achievement of applicable water quality
standards.

Because the requirements of the two court orders differ in
some respects, the MMSD's CSO abatement planning proceeded
on two parallel paths.  The first path developed alternatives
that would meet both the U.S. District Court Order and the
Dane County Stipulation by:  1)  eliminating the discharge of
human waste into area waters; 2) meeting applicable effluent
limitations and water quality standards; 3)  meeting all
other State and Federal facilities planning requirements;
and 4)  constructing an abatement alternative in accordance
with the U.S. District Court Order schedule.

The second path developed alternatives to meet only the Dane
County Stipulation by:  1} meeting applicable effluent
limits and water quality standards; 2) meeting all state and
federal facility planning requirements; and 3)  constructing
an abatement alternative in accordance with the schedule set
by the Dane County Stipulation.
                               3-77
-------
3.10.1  Development of Alternatives

Taking all these concerns into consideration, the MMSD used
the available wastewater pollution control approaches des-
cribed in section 3.1 to develop general strategies for CSO
abatement.  Initially, four alternative strategies were
identified:  sewer separation, out-of-basin methods, in-
basin methods, and instream measures.  A detailed discussion
of the development of these alternatives is located in
Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow.

3.10.2  Screening of CSO Alternatives

The initial screening determined the practicality of the
alternatives, their approximate cost based on previous
experience and the expected performance of the system.  In
addition, a preliminary assessment of environmental impacts
was made.  After comparing these criteria for each alternative,
the least effective strategies were eliminated.  Next, a
secondary evaluation was conducted to analyze the improvements
to surface water quality, to prepare more precise cost
estimates, and to make a more comprehensive assessment of
the effects on the environment of the alternatives.  The
screening process is described in detail in Appendix V.

As these alternatives were being analyzed, additional water
quality impact data became available.  It appeared, based on
this new information, that any plan to abate combined sewer
overflows might not in itself enable the waters of the
Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers to meet EPA
and DNR water quality standards.  Although instream measures
would be beneficial in improving water quality, they would
not reduce the discharges of untreated CSO.  Accordingly,
both to abate overflows and to improve water quality, the
instream measures were combined with the sewer separation,
inbasin and out-of-basin alternatives for abating CSO.

Completion of this initial screening process resulted in the
six alternatives described below.  Alternatives 1 through 4
were developed to meet only the requirements of the Dane
County Court Stipulation.  Alternatives 5 and 6 were developed
in order to meet both court requirements.

1.   Out-of-Basin system using large diameter tunnels in the
     Niagaran rock stratum for the storage of CSO as well as
     for the conveyance to a new facility for treating CSO
     near the existing Jones Island WWTP.  This alternative
     would provide a "two-year level of protection," meaning
     that on a statistical average, only one storm in a two-
     year period would cause an overflow.  This alternative
                               3-78
-------
     would include instream measures.*

2.   In-Basin system using large tunnels in the Niagaran
     rock stratum for CSO storage and conveyance to three
     new WWTPs  (one for each river basin) for treating CSO
     before discharging it to the river basin from which it
     came.  The system would provide a two-year level of
     protection and instream measures would be included.*

3.   Complete sewer separation with instream measures.
     Sanitary sewage in the CSSA would be completely separated
     from storm water.  All sanitary sewage would be treated
     at the existing Jones Island WWTP.  Instream measures
     would be undertaken in order to meet water quality
     standards.*

4.   Out-of-Basin system using large tunnels in the Niagaran
     rock stratum for storage of CSO as well as for conveyance
     to a new CSO WWTP near the existing Jones Island WWTP.
     This system would serve 56% of the CSSA.  In the remaining
     44% of the CSSA, sewers would be completely separated.
     This alternative would include instream measures.*

5.   Out-of-Basin system to meet both the U.S. District
     Court and the Dane County Stipulations.  All CSO (storm
     water and sewage) would be conveyed to a new advanced
     waste treatment WWTP for treatment.  (Advanced waste
     treatment requirements have since been repealed.)
     Enough storage would be provided by the conveyance and
     storage system to store all overflow from the worst
     storm of record.  Instream measures would be implemented
     to meet water quality standards as required by the Dane
     County Stipulation.*

6.   Complete separation and instream measures adequate to
     meet both court requirements.* All storm water would be
     separated from domestic sewage.  The Jones Island WWTP
     would be upgraded to advanced waste treatment.   (Advanced
     waste treatment has subsequently been repealed.  Conse-
     quently, Alternatives 3 and 6 have become identical.)
After reviewing the six feasible alternatives, the MMSD
selected the alternatives they believed would meet the
*MMSD maintains that it does not have the authority to
 undertake instream measures.  Therefore, instream measures
 are not a part of the final alternatives in the MFP.  At
 this time, the MMSD, EPA, DNR, and SEWRPC are investigating
 alternative instream measures and means for their implementation,
-------
requirements of the Dane County Court Stipulation and the
U.S. District Court Order.  The MMSD recommended that, to
meet the District Court Order, CSO be eliminated by sewer
separation in the public right-of-way.  Properties outside
of the public right-of-way would be required to abate CSO in
accordance with cost-effective findings.  Each of the 176
individual basins in the CSSA could then be evaluated to
determine whether sewer separation or some other alternative
would be the most cost-effective means of abating CSO.

In order to meet the Dane County Stipulation, the MMSD
proposed sewer separation in a portion of the CSSA.  The
remainder of the CSSA would be served by a deep tunnel
system with facilities being developed to capture infiltration
and inflow from the separated sewer area.

3.10.3  Refinement of CSO Abatement Alternatives

The analysis of each of the 176 CSSA basins was undertaken
by the MMSD as a means of minimizing the need for construction
work on private property.  The results of these analyses was
the following CSO abatement plan to meet the U.S. District
Court Order.

     Complete separation in 11% of the CSSA with no private
     work.

«    Partial sewer separation of the public right-of-way
     with local, near-surface storage of CSO for 41% of the
     CSSA.

     In the remaining 48% of the CSSA complete sewer separation
     with private property work was cost-effective.

This "Modified U.S. District Court Order CSO Abatement Plan"
was adopted awaiting the results of the peak wastewater flow
attenuation alternative analysis.  Analysis of a CSO abatement
plan to meet the requirements of the Dane County Court
Stipulation was also halted pending the development of the
peak wastewater flow attenuation alternatives.

3.11  PEAK FLOW ATTENUATION

In addition to eliminating CSO, the MFP must eliminate or
treat.to secondary standards all dry and wet weather bypassing
from separated sewers and treatment facilities.  Without
these bypasses, the maximum flows in the sewerage system
would be much greater than the present capacity of the Jones
Island and South Shore WWTPs.  In developing possible treat-
ment configurations, consideration had to be given to either
expanding the existing facilities so that they could treat


                               3-80
-------
the maximum flow, or providing storage facilities.  Different
combinations of treatment capacity expansion and CSO and
peak flow storage were developed in conjunction with the
Regional System-Level Alternatives, since this type of
alternative would result in the greatest total flow to the
one, two, or three regional WWTPs.

3.11.1  Development of Alternatives

The MMSD originally considered nine combinations of treat-
ment and storage facilities to contain and to treat future
maximum flows.  These nine combinations were formulated
using the one, two, and three WWTP Regional Alternatives,
but the South Milwaukee WWTP was also assumed to continue
operations.  This list included all reasonably feasible
alternatives developed to meet the requirements of the court
orders, legislation, and the 208 Plan.

The EPA and DNR, in conjunction with the EIS consultant,
independently evaluated the MFP storage alternatives and
concluded that the list was comprehensive.  Next, these
treatment and storage concepts were screened separately as
part of the EIS analysis.  Because Regional System-Level
Alternatives had been created assuming the abandonment of
the South Milwaukee WWTP, storage concepts were developed
with the same assumption.  Since the peak capacity of the
South Milwaukee WWTP is only 12 MGD, the results of the EIS
and the MFP analyses can be compared.

The nine storage alternatives originally considered by the
EIS are listed below.

1.   One WWTP with adequate capacity to treat the maximum
     year 2005 flow (No Storage).

2.   One WWTP, with on-site storage for peak wastewater
     flows.

3.   Two WWTPs with adequate combined capacity to treat the
     maximum year 2005 flow (No Storage).

4.   Two WWTPs with on-site storage for peak wastewater flow
     attenuation at two sites (Jones Island and South Shore).

5.   Two WWTPs with storage at a remote site (a location at
     the intersection of 58th and State Streets was identified
     by the MMSD in a computer modeling study).

6.   Two WWTPs with storage included as part of the conveyance
     system.  Tunnels would be constructed along the routes
     of the Milwaukee Interceptor,  the Kinnickinnic Interceptor
     and the Crosstown Diversion Sewer.

                               3-81
-------
7.   Three WWTPs (Jones Island, South Shore, and a new WWTP
     located west of the Root River and north of Ryan Road
     in Franklinl with adequate capacity to treat year 2005
     maximum flow with no storage.

8.   Three WWTPs with storage sites at the Jones Island,
     South Shore, and Franklin sites.

9.   Three WWTPs with another location for storage at the
     intersection of 58th and State Streets.

3.11.2  Screening the Alternatives

Since the alternatives for peak flow attenuation were developed
in conjunction with the Regional System-Level Alternatives,
the screening described in section 3.6.2 and Table 3.10
eliminated all but three of the nine alternatives described
above.  (The one and three WWTP alternatives and Alternative
4, were all screened out.)  The following three alternatives
remained.

1.   Remote Storage - The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs
     would continue operations.  Jones Island would be
     expanded to a capacity of 300 MGD (13.1 m^/sec), and
     South Shore to 250 MGD (11.0 m3/sec).  Storage facilities
     would be provided at a third location  (near the intersection
     of 58th and State Streets) for flows exceeding those
     capacities.

2.   CST Extension - The South Shore and Jones Island WWTPs
     would be expanded.  Excess flow would be stored in 30-
     foot (9.1 m) diameter tunnels extending north along the
     Milwaukee River and west along the Menomonee River.
     These tunnels would convey and store peak wastewater
     flows as well as CSO from the CSSA.

3.   Flow-Through Treatment - Jones Island and South Shore
     WWTPs would be expanded to such a capacity that they
     could treat the maximum flows with no storage.

These three alternatives were studied in detail.  Also, the
MMSD developed two new alternatives using favorable aspects
of the alternatives that had been eliminated.  The two new
alternatives are described below.

4.   Jones Island Storage - The Jones Island and South Shore
     WWTPs would be expanded and excess flows would be
     stored at the Jones Island Site.

5.   Inline Storage - The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs
     would be expanded.  Large diameter sewers  (20-foot, 6.1

                               3-82
-------
     m) along the Milwaukee and Menomonee Rivers would
     convey and store peak wastewater flows.

Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 were developed solely for the
storage and treatment of bypasses from the separated sewer
area without any consideration of methods for the abatement
of CSO.  However, Alternative 2 included facilities to
control both CSO and peak wastewater flows.

Because it might be cost-effective to construct facilities
for storing and treating both CSO and bypasses from the
separated sewer area,  Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5 were also
studied for their flexibility for dual-use.  Accordingly,
the screening process was expanded to determine the most
effective method for storage and treatment of bypasses from
the separated sewers, the most effective alternative for CSO
abatement, and the most effective method for combining those
two alternatives.

3.12  JOINT FACILITIES FOR PEAK FLOW ATTENUATION AND CSO
      STORAGE

3.12.1  Alternatives

The MMSD developed three alternatives for the joint storage
of bypasses from the separated sewer area and CSO by integrating
the Modified U.S. District Court Order CSO Abatement Plan
(described in section 3.10.3) with the Remote Storage, Jones
Island Storage, and Inline Storage Alternatives.  These
alternatives were then evaluated along with the CST Extension
Alternative.

At the request of the DNR, the MMSD evaluated a fifth joint
CSO abatement/peak wastewater attenuation alternative.  This
alternative, the Modified GST/Inline Storage Alternative
(also called the CST/Inline Storage Alternative) combines
features of the Inline Storage and CST Extension Alternatives.

The MMSD did not further analyze the Flow-Through Alternative
because they concluded that it would not be technically
feasible to treat the high peak flows at the Jones Island
WWTP that would result from this alternative.  For the EIS
process, the Flow-Through Alternative was evaluated further
because it was the only remaining alternative that did not
require the construction of deep tunnels or storage caverns.
The Flow-Through Alternative was also integrated with the
Modified U.S. District Court Order CSO Abatement Plan.

Each of the five joint alternatives included varying degrees
of cavern storage, near-surface storage, and complete and
partial sewer separation.  They also involved different

                               3-83
-------
levels of construction work on private property.

The differences in alternatives were due to the facilities
required by each flow attenuation alternative, and how
easily and cost-effectively portions of the CSSA could be
made tributary to the peak wastewater attenuation storage
and conveyance facilities.  Based on the analysis of various
combinations, the six following joint alternatives were
developed.

1.   Remote Storage

     Complete sewer separation in 11% of CSSA.  No private
     property construction work.

     Partial separation with 757 acre-feet CO.93 million m^)
     of cavern storage near 58th and State Streets for 18%
     of CSSA.

     Complete sewer separation in 48% of CSSA.  Private
     property construction work would be required.

•    Partial sewer separation with 236 acre-feet  (0.29
     million m^)  of near-surface storage in 23% of the CSSA.

     Excess flows from separated sewers also tributary to
     cavern storage at 58th and State Streets.

2.   Jones Island Storage

     Complete sewer separation in 11% of CSSA.  No private
     property construction work.

     Complete sewer separation in 48% of CSSA with private
     property work.

     Partial sewer separation with 437 acre-feet  (0.54
     million m^)  of near-surface storage in 41% of the CSSA.

     550 acre-feet (0.68 million m^) of cavern storage near
     Jones Island for storage of excess flows from separated
     sewers.

3.   CST Extension

     Complete sewer separations in 11% of the CSSA.  No
     private property work.

     No sewer separation in 68% of CSSA.  All CSO tributary
     to 30-foot C9--1 ml tunnels in bedrock and 1,334 acre-
     feet  C1.6 million m3! of cavern storage near Jones
     Island.

                               3-84
-------
Partial sewer separation with 235 acre-feet  CO.2a
million m3! of near-surface storage in 21% of the CSSA.

Excess flows from separated sewers also tributary to
30-foot  (9.1 m) tunnels and cavern storage.

Inline Storage

Complete sewer separation in 11% of CSSA.  No private
property work.

Partial sewer separation in 68% of CSSA.  Remaining CSO
tributary to 20-foot  C6.1 m) tunnels in bedrock and a
767 acre-feet  (0.95 million m3) storage cavern near
Milwaukee County Stadium.

Partial sewer separation with 235 acre-feet  (0.29
million m3) of near-surface storage in 21% of the CSSA.

Excess flows from separated sewers tributary to 20-foot
(6.1 m) tunnels and cavern storage.

Modified CST/Inline Storage

Complete sewer separations in 11% of the CSSA.  No
private property work.

No sewer separation in 68% of CSSA.  All CSO tributary
to 30-foot  (9.1 m) tunnels in bedrock and 1,291 acre-
feet  (1.6 million m3) of cavern storage near Milwaukee
County Stadium.  A 174 acre-feet (0.21 million m3)
storage cavern would be built at Jones Island for grit
removal.

Partial sewer separation with 235 acre-feet  (0.29
million m3) of near-surface storage in 21% of the CSSA.

Excess flows from separated sewers also tributary to
30-foot  (9.1 m) tunnels and cavern storage.

Flow-Through Treatment (Evaluated in EIS only)

Complete sewer separation in 11% of the CSSA.  No
private property work.

Complete sewer separation in 48% of CSSA with private
property work.

Partial sewer separation with 437 acre-feet  (0.54
million m3! of near-surface storage in 41% of the CSSA.
                          3-85
-------
•    Excess clear water would be treated at an expanded
     Jones Island with a peak flow capacity of 450 MGD (19.7
     m^/sec).

The Remote Storage, Jones Island Storage, and Flow-Through
Treatment Alternatives were initially developed with some
private property construction involved.  Because of implementation
difficulties that could arise due to this private property
work, these alternatives were reevaluated using near-surface
storage facilities in 48% of the CSSA instead of complete
sewer separation.

3.12.2  Costs

A comparison of the costs for each alternative with and
without private property work is shown in Table 3.15.

                         TABLE 3.15

    CSO ABATEMENT/PEAK WASTEWATER FLOW ATTENUATION COST

                    Net Present Worth        Net Present Worth
                    With Private             Without Private
Alternative         Property Construction    Property Construction

Remote Storage      $  1818.00 X lof         $   1917 QQ x 106
Jones Island           1875.00 X 106             1974!00 X 106
  Storage
Inline Storage         1832.00 X 106             1849.00 X 106
CST Extension          1880.00 X 106             1898.00 X 106
Modified CST/ "
  Inline Storage       1859.00 X 106             1979.00 X 106
Flow-Through Treat-    1899.00 X 106             1998.00 X 106
  ment
Source:   MMSD

The differences in costs between each alternative are less
than 10%, well within the level of accuracy of the cost
estimates.  The environmental impact evaluation of these
alternatives as part of the Regional System-Level secondary
screening analysis is summarized in Table 3.13.
                               3-86
-------
3.12.3  EIS Alternatives for the Attenuation of Peak
        Flows and Abatement of CSO

With the Inline Storage Alternative  (recommended in the MFP
and shown on Figure 3.10) 11% of the CSSA would be completely
separated without private property work.  Another 68% of the
CSSA would be partially separated  (separation in the public
right-of-way only), .  Excess wastewater from this area would
flow through 20-foot diameter tunnels to a storage cavern
near Milwaukee County Stadium.  The remaining 21% of the
CSSA would be partially separated, and overflows would be
stored in 235 acre-feet of near surface storage.  Excess
sanitary wastewater from the separated sewer area would flow
through 20-foot diameter tunnels to the cavern storage at
Milwaukee County Stadium.

The Inline Storage Alternative for abating CSO could significantly
affect both the man-made and natural environments.  Partial
separation of sewers in most of the streets of the CSSA
would require extensive construction, disrupting traffic and
business.  In addition, with partial separation, storm
sewers would continue to discharge urban runoff containing
organic pollutants as well as heavy metals into the lower
portions of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers.  Instream water quality standards might not be
achieved.  Also, without proper precautions, the construction
of cavern storage facilities could have both short-term and
long-term impacts on groundwater.  For these reasons the EIS
detailed impact analysis included the evaluation of three
other alternatives for CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation
in order to more further investigate alternatives which
could avoid potential, adverse environmental consequences of
the Inline Storage Alternative.

1.   Complete Sewer Separation (see Figure 3.11) This alternative
     was developed by combining complete sewer separation of
     combined sewers in the CSSA with the 20-foot tunnels
     necessary to eliminate bypassing in the separated sewer
     area.

     Complete sewer separation in 11% of CSSA.  No private
     property work.

     Complete sewer separation in 89% of CSSA with private
     property work.

     Excess flow from the separated area tributary to 20-
     foot C6.1 m)  diameter tunnels.

2.   Modified CST/Inline Csee Figure 3.121  This alternative
     was also evaluated by the MMSD.  It was further evaluated


                               3-87
-------
                                                     LEGEND
                               	 STREET OR HIGHWAY

                               '— -•—~ LAKE, RIVER OR CREEK

                               1MMMI 24O" DIA. TUNNEL

                               IllUlllllllltlUU FORCE MAIN

                               • •••• SOUTH 6tn SI. BRANCH

                                A   NEAR SURFACE STORAGE

                                A   DEEP CAVERN STORAGE
                                        COMPLETE
                                        SEWER SEPARATION

                                        PARTIAL SEWER
                                        SEPARATION
                                        DEEP CAVERN STORASE

                                        PARTIAL SEWER
                                        SEPARATION
                                        NEAR-SURFACE STORAGE
FIGURE

    3-10
DATE


 APRIL 1981
INLINE  STORAGE ALTERNATIVE
                                                                SOURCE    MMSD
                                                                PREPARED BY
                                                                   ITlEcolSciences
                                                                   ^TU ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
                                              L E G EN 0
                                STREET OR HIGHWAY


                                LAKE, RIVER OR CREEK


                                240" DIA. TUNNEL


                                FORCE MAIN


                                SOUTH 6lh St. BRANCH


                                PUMP STATION
                                          COMPLETE
                                          SEWER SEPARATION
FIGURE

    3-11

DATE


 APRIL 1981
COMPLETE SEWER  SEPERATION ALTERNATIVE
                                                             SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY


      EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
                                                                                                 4,000
                                                   L E 3 EN 0
                              	 STREET OR HISHWAY
                              •	LAKE, RIVER OR CREEK
                              ^•MH 360" DIA TUNNEL
                              imnmmmm FORCE MAIN
                              • •••• SOUTH 6lh St. BRANCH
                                A  NEAR SURFACE STORASE
                                A  DEEP CAVERN STORASE
                                     COMPLETE
                                     SEWER SEPARATION
                                     NO SEWER SEPARATION
                                     DEEP TUNNEL STORAGE
                                     PARTIAL SEWER
                                     SEPARATION
                                     NEAR-SURFACE STORASE
FIGURE
    3-12
DATE

 APRIL 1981
MODIFIED  CST/INLINE STORAGE
          ALTERNATIVE
                                                           SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY
       EcoiSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
     in the EIS because it involved less disruption due to
     sewer construction, appeared to be beneficial to water
     quality, and had a cost comparable to the Inline Storage
     Alternative.  See Section 3.12.1 for the description of
     the alternative.

3.   Modified Total Storage  (see Figure 3.13) This alternative
     is a modified version of the Modified GST/Inline Alternative,
     It was evaluated in order to eliminate most sewer
     construction disruption and end most urban runoff from the
     CSSA into the local rivers and the Outer Harbor.

     Complete sewer separation in 11% of CSSA.  No private
     property work.

     No sewer separation in 68% of CSSA.  All CSO tributary
     to 30-foot  C9.1 m) diameter tunnels in bedrock and 1291
     acre-feet (1.6 million m^} of cavern storage at Milwaukee
     County Stadium.  A 174 acre-feet (0.21 million m-3)
     storage cavern would be built at Jones Island for grit
     removal.

     No sewer separation in 21% of CSSA.  All CSO tributary
     to 715 acre-feet  (0.88 million m-3)  of near-surface
     storage.

     Excess flow from the separated sewers would be stored
     in the 30-foot (9.1 m) diameter tunnel system.

These three alternatives and the Inline Storage Alternative
are evaluated in Chapter*V, Environmental Consequences.  A
detailed evaluation of the impacts of these four CSO abatement/
peak wastewater attenuation alternatives is presented in
Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow.

3.12.4  Alternatives to Comply with Water Quality Standards

The purpose of this section is two fold:  to provide background
information concerning the development and evaluation of CSO
abatement alternatives for meeting applicable water quality
standards and to provide the results of additional analyses
which have been conducted since release of the Draft EIS and
which take into account the preliminary findings of the
SSES conducted by MMSD.

After the MMSD completed the original CSO abatement analysis,
the MMSD recommended a system providing a 2-year level of
protection as the preferred CSO alternative for meeting the
requirements of the Dane County Court Stipulation.  This
analysis was subsequently expanded to evaluate the potential
for joint use of facilities for elimination of separated

                               3-91
-------
                                                                                                  4,000
                                                     L E G EN 0
                                      STREET OR HIGHWAY
                               ~—	' LAKE,RIVER OR CREEK
                               mmmm sso" DIA. TUNNEL
                               iiimiimimiir FORCE MAIN
                               • •••• SOUTH 6th St. BRANCH
                                 A   "EAR SURFACE STORAGE
                                 A   DEEP CAVERN STORAGE
                                                                 COMPLETE
                                                                 SEWER SEPARATION
                                              NO SEWER SEPARATION
                                              DEEP TUNNEL STORAGE
                                              NO SEWER SEPARATION
                                              NEAR-SURFACE STORAGE
FIGURE
    3-13
DATE
 APRIL 1981
                                                                    SOURCE  MMSD
MODIFIED TOTAL  STORAGE  ALTERNATIVE
PREPARED BY
       EcolSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
sewer bypassing and CSO abatement.  Based on this additional
analysis, the MMSD recommended the Inline/Near-Surface
Storage Alternative with a 1/2-year level of protection for
meeting the requirements of the Dane County Stipulation.
This alternative is shown in Figure 3.14.  Neither the DNR
nor the EPA approved this CSO abatement alternative.

In the first half of 1980 the DNR requested that the MMSD
evaluate additional levels of protection and determine the
associated costs and overall impacts on water quality.  This
additional information was requested so that it would be
available and could be used for selecting a CSO abatement
alternative for achieving applicable water quality standards,
if the U.S. District Court Order is overturned by the U.S.
Supreme Court.

When the Draft EIS was distributed, the MMSD had generated
some of the requested information.  It consisted of additional
level of protection data to compare different CSO and peak
flow storage volumes with the frequency, amount, and duration
of overflows from the CSSA.  Wet weather bypasses from the
separated sewer area are prohibited by both the U.S. District
Court Order and the Dane County Stipulation.  Based on the
MMSD's I/I study and MIS modeling, it had been determined at
the time the Draft EIS was distributed that 550 acre-feet of
storage would be necessary to eliminate wet weather bypassing
in the separated area.  This value assumes a daily maximum
capacity at Jones Island of 300 MGD, a daily maximum capacity
at South Shore of 250 MGD and removal of 48% of the existing
I/I.

By assuming various storage volumes, corresponding levels of
protection for CSO were developed by the MMSD.  These data are
summarized in Table 3.16.  These values represent the volume
of CSO from the CSSA that could be expected for different
levels of protection.  The analysis assumes that all wet
weather bypasses from the separated sewer area would be
captured and subsequently treated.  The remaining storage
was used for CSO.  After the total storage capacity of the
system is reached, the system would close and all remaining
CSO would be discharged to the surface waters.

This MMSD analysis was preliminary.  It did not optimize the
treatment capacities of the Jones Island and South Shore
WWTPs, nor did it identify the costs or water quality impacts
of each level of protection.  At the time the Draft EIS was
released, it was recognized that it would be necessary to
develop additional information prior to the selection of a
CSO abatement alternative to meet applicable water quality
standards.
                              3-93
-------
                                                                                                   4.000
                                                      L E 6 END
                                 ^—— STREET OR HIGHWAY
                                 1	LAKE, RIVER OR CREEK
                                 tmfmm aio" DIA. TUNNEL
                                 inmimtmmn FORCE MAIN
                                 • •••• SOUTH 6tn St. BRANCH
                                   A   NEAR SURFACE STORAGE
                                  A   DEEP CAVERN STORAGE
                                        COMPLETE
                                        SEWER SEPARATION
                                        NO SEWER SEPARATION
                                        DEEP TUNNEL STORAGE
                                        NO SEWER SEPARATION
                                        NEAR-SURFACE STORAGE
FIGURE
    3-14
DATE
 APRIL 1981
        HALF YEAR  L.O.R
INLINE STORAGE ALTERNATIVE
                                                           SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY
       EcolSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
       td     vo
       4-i     in
rH     O     "*
H  dP E-i  en  •.
•H
 CU CO 4H  rd
co  td O  Q
       CO     tH


       fd 4H  a
       DOW
H
en
S
w
E-)
cn
                        CU

                     (!) (il
                     CT*  I
                     (d cu


                     4J "
                     CO -"
                                 o
                                 00
                                       00
                                              
<











>i
4J
• r-l
rH
-H
42
rd
J^
O

fit
rd
j3
c
c
<











Cn
G
•H
rH
rd
rj
O1
w

4H
O
H
rH
•rH
Cu
CO


4H
O

rH
CU
>

J
Cn
G
•H
rrj
CU
CU
O
X
w

J_j
o


cu
g
3
rH
O
>
G
0
•rl
4-1
U
cu
4-1
O
SH
eu


G
•H

CU
tji
rd
s^
O
4->
CO
4J
CU
CU
fa
1
CU
SH
O





_^
en
SH
fd
cu
><

SH
id
cu


C
cu

•rl
C_rj

id





CN CN ro r*- ^D ^
o ro co r** "3* ro
 ID OO CN iH H






in oo o vo o o
ro o p*- oo r—i
« * « • * •
rH CN m CO CTi O
rH








*3* 00 t^ ^O rH O
r~- T CN CN rH rH
• •••••
O O O O O O
                      O    O
                      IT)    rH
                      in    o
t-»
o
       n
       vo
                                                            CN
              m
              01
                                                                   CN
C •
O CO
•rH rH
4-> rH
0 -rl
3 Pt
• rrj U3
>i cu
H SH O
C G
O • SH
Q CU -
(li O 4-> ^3
E-" g id 1
S S 4-1
& 'J' SH id
rH 03 CU
cu H cu SH
SH rH 4->
CO O 4H U
T3 43 O t!
SH co cu C
O Ai > (d
U 43 cd -H
CU 4J CU 4-> T3
SH 3 Cu O i
rH 4-) 4H 4-1 rH
fd o cu en G
MH 4-1 "O O •
C CU aft SH co
•H 1 4-1 00 O tO H
rd Q -H i S H 0) 4-1 4H 3
rH o E rd SH 4J
S-i in o rd 3 cu  ^-i rd d) ^*
cnrdGcUfdcutocN
SH rH rd en SH
id CU OH T3 rd T3 O
CU T3 CU CU 4J
>i4J CU -P -O G
G •• G id CU -H >i
H-gCU-HSH4-l4JSH
?>-P42g OiSH O-3
fd id O CU id O 3
G CU -H O CO CU 42
O SH SH (U 4-1 -H
4-1 id g g co C SH
T3 > O O CU 4J
cu O SH SH g en
C04->CU4H4HOCU<
td 4J SH SH w
42 S id 3 S 4H CuW
O SH O O (U U
CO rH rH rH £ SH
•H 4H 4-1 4H 4H O MH
CO 3 rH CD O
>irH O H H 4H rH
rH (d CU H-HO
G O 3 O O H CUO
rilE-'CLiE^E^i'llCOrH










































CO
SH
CU
4-1
cu
S

O
-H
42
3
U
m
•
n
ro
CN
H

II

4-1
O
O
fa
1
CU
SH
O
rij

H



•
O
00
Oi
rH

-
^
H

4J
to
3
CTi
3



•
K
&
a

•*
c
G
rd
g
3
id
ffl

o
4-1

».
a
en

§

v
CU

rj
O
CO
SH
3
O
g
O
SH
4H

SH
CU
4J
4-1
CU
t-3


..
CU
o
SH
3
0
CO
                                                       3-9.5
-------
Since release of the Draft EIS, the MMSD at the request of
EPA and DNR has continued to perform further analyses concerning
the sizes and costs of various alternatives that may be able
to comply with applicable water quality standards as required
by the Dane County Stipulation.

These additional analysis take into account the preliminary
findings set forth in the Draft SSES Report, that was released
for public comment by MMSD in February of 1981.  These
analyses are also based upon a computer model of the conveyance
capacity of the existing MIS, which is used to predict,
under various assumptions, the volumes of CSO and bypasses
from the separate sewer area during the forty year period of
record C1940-1980) for which hourly rainfall data is available
at General Mitchell Field.

By specifying certain information for an alternative, such
as its storage volume, the daily wastewater volumes to be
treated at the Jones Island and South Shore Treatment Plants,
the degree of sewer separation in the CSSA, and the I/I
removal level to be achieved in the separated sewer area,
this model makes predictions about the daily volumes of CSO
that would be discharged during each storm event during the
40-year period of record of hourly rainfall data.

Table 3.17 presents a summary of the storage volumes required
and the corresponding costs under a given set of assumptions
which specify the:

1.   I/I removal percentage for the separated area
2.   The degree of separation in the combined sewer service
     area
3.   The level of protection for CSO.

By using this information, the EPA and DNR have tentatively
determined that the Modified Total Storage Alternative with
a level of protection for CSO somewhere between two to five
years will be required to meet applicable water quality
standards.

Recent analyses of level of protection for CSO versus total
system cost have shown that the total storage volume required
for a given level of protection is quite sensitive to the
assumed I/I removal level and the daily volumes to be treated
at the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs.  These analyses
show that as the daily volumes to be treated at the two
WWTPs decrease, the required storage volume and total system
cost increase.  Therefore, regardless of which alternative
is implemented, in order to determine a storage volume that
will provide a given level of protection for CSO that will
                              3-96
-------
                              .  TABLE 3.17
                TOTAL SYSTEM COST VERSUS LEVEL OF PROTECTION
                        FOR VARIOUS I/I REMOVAL LEVELS

                            6% I/I Removal

              Without Partial              With Partial
              Separation in CSSA           Separation in CSSA
CSO LOP
(yrs)
2
5
Storage
Volume
(ac-ft)
1400
2700
Capital
Cost
($ x 109)
1.52
1.69
13% I/I
Without Partial
Separation in CSSA
CSO LOP
(yrs)
2
5
Storage
Volume
(ac-ft)
1400
2550
Capital
Cost
($ x 109)
1.47
1.64
19% I/I
Without Partial
Separation in CSSA
CSO LOP
(yrs)
2
5
Storage
Volume
(ac-ft)
1150
2300
Capital
Cost
($ x 109)
1.52
1.67
Storage
Volume
(ac-ft)
1300
1350
Removal
Capital
Cost
($ x 109)
1.71
1.72
With Partial
Separation in CSSA
Storage
Volume
(ac-ft)
1100
1150
Removal
Capital
Cost
($ x 109)
1.65
1.66
With Partial
Separation in CSSA
Storage
Volume
(ac-ft)
700
750
Capital
Cost
($ x 109)
1.67
1.68
Source:   MMSD
-------
achieve applicable water quality standards, it will be
necessary to determine the cost effective I/I removal level
and the daily volumes which can be treated at each WWTP.

At this time it is anticipated that MMSD will adopt a Final
SSES Report in May, 1981.  This Report will set forth the
MMSD recommended I/I removal level and will be used in
conjunction with other information to more precisely deter-
mine the storage volume required to comply with both Court
Orders.

3.13  FINAL ALTERNATIVES

The configurations of wastewater treatment facilities and
interceptors determined by the EIS to be the most environ-
mentally sound and technically feasible for each system-
level are described below.  The Subregional System-Level
Alternative was not evaluated further because of high costs
compared to the other system-levels and because of potentially
severe water quality impacts especially in the Root River.
In addition, there were no benefits of implementing this
alternative which could not also be achieved through any of
the other action alternatives.  Accordingly, the Subregional
Alternative was deleted from the list of final system-level
alternatives.  The "No Action" Alternative is included as a
means for comparing the impacts of the other action alternatives.

3.13.1  The No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative involves the maintenance of all
existing sewage conveyance and treatment facilities in the
planning area in their present condition until the year
2005.  Only routine operating procedures and maintenance
would be performed.  Any equipment or sewer that breaks down
during this period would be repaired without upgrading.

The service areas for the local treatment plants would
remain the same, regardless of population changes.

With the No Action Alternative, the Jones Island, South
Shore, and South Milwaukee WWTPs would continue to serve
portions of Milwaukee County.  Outside the County, six WWTPs
would be operated by local communities:  Muskego Northeast,
Muskego Northwest, New Berlin Regal Manors, Germantown,
Thiensville, and Caddy Vista  (.in the Town of Caledonia).  In
addition, all private WWTPs would continue operating.  No
steps would be taken (other than those already under construction)
to expand sewer service, relieve overloaded systems, or
eliminate CSO, bypasses, and diversions of untreated wastewater
into area rivers.  The alternative is illustrated in Figure
3.15.
                              3-as
-------
                               Y
                         QERM//NTOWN
                             A+
                                              v   .ruitt :"!<"~r^2fi^f
                                              '.M6NOMONEE FALLS-     •  IJI    J  jl
                                              I-UKMAKTOWN I.,,) ,  ,,, " *-V?t  T~* ,. 
-------
3.13.2  The Final Local Alternative

3.13.2.1  Wastewater Treatment

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the final Local Alternative
was developed using the strategy of treating wastewater
flows within the planning area at numerous locations.  The
local alternative for each WWTP that was identified by EPA, DNR,
and the EIS consultant as being the most environmentally
sound and least costly is shown in Figure 3.16.  It would
include the following WWTPs.
                                   Private WWTPs

                                   Wisconsin Electric Power
                                     Company (WEPCO)
                                   School Sisters of Notre Dame
Public WWTPs

Jones Island
South Shore
Thiensville
Germantown
New Berlin Southeast
Caddy Vista
South Milwaukee
Muskego

3.13.2.1.1  Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs:  The Jones
Island facility would be expanded to a maximum capacity of
300 MGD (13.1 m-Vsec)•  Equipment would be added to upgrade
and expand the secondary treatment and solids handling
processes.  The South Shore WWTP would be expanded to treat
a peak flow of 250 MGD  (11.0 m^/sec).  Additional secondary
treatment and solids handling equipment would be added to
the facility.

3.13.2.1.2  Thiensville WWTP:  The capacity of the Thiensville
WWTP would be expanded, although the type of treatment
process would remain the same.  The expansion would take
place on land to the north and west of the facility.  New
facilities for sludge processing would be included.  Anaerobic
digesters would be added to stabilize the sludge, which
would be dried on sand beds located on the land to the north
of the facility.  The sludge would be trucked to a land
application site.  The effluent discharge location for the
Thiensville WWTP would remain the same at the Milwaukee
River.

3.13.2.1.3  Germantown WWTP;  In Germantown, the land application
alternative was identified as the most feasible.  The existing
WWTP would be abandoned and wastewater flows would be conveyed
to a new infiltration-percolation site.  At the new site,
sewage would be treated in an aerated lagoon system and then
discharged to infiltration-percolation ponds.
                             3-1QQ
-------
                                                                         LEGEND	



                                                                      STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                      COUNTY LINE

                                                                      CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                      WATER RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC

                                                                      MAJOR HIGHWAYS

                                                                      M.MSD LIMITS

                                                                      2005 AREA SERVED BY M M S 0.

                                                                      AREA SERVED LOCALLY

                                                               l^rU?,J3  COMBINED SEWER SERVICE AREA

                                                                 ^    PUBLIC TREATMENT PLANTS

                                                                 0    PRIVATE TREATMENT PLANTS

                                                                 A    PUMP STATIONS TO BE UPGRADED

                                                               •••••  NEW CONVEYANCE TO BE CONSTR'O

                                                               • •••  CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY BEING
                                                                      DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED

                                                               _.._  CONNECTING SEWER
                                                                      Cj Sisters of
                                                                       •\ Notre
                                                                        A Dome
                      r        —-1 i  Berlu
                      "—•———*" Southeast
                                                                                      South Milwaukee WWTP


                                                                                      South Shore WWTP
                                                                     OAK  CREEIt
                                                                                                  Electric
FIGURE

    3-16

DATE


 APRIL 1981
                                                                  SOURCE  MMSD
SERVICE  AREA  AND  FACILITY  MAP
   OF  THE  LOCAL  ALTERNATIVE
PREPARED BY

        EcolSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
The conveyance system for the new facility would consist of
two pump stations and a 20-inch diameter force main.  The
conveyance route and new site are shown on Figure 3.16.
The aeration lagoons would occupy 27.5 acres Cll.l ha).
Seven infiltration-percolation ponds, each covering 11.6
acres 04.7 ha), would also be included.

3.13.2.1.4  New Berlin Southeast WWTP;  In New Berlin, the
Regal Manors WWTP would be abandoned.  A new, aerated lagoon
treatment facility would be constructed on a site at Sunny
Slope and Grange Streets, shown on Figure 3.16.  Influent
wastewater would be treated in aerated lagoons and then
transported to infiltration-percolation ponds in the Town of
Vernon.   The lagoons and buffer area would require approximately
211 acres (89.4 ha)  of land.

The conveyance system for transporting the treated effluent
to the land application site would include a 30-inch  (76.2
cm) force main and one pump station.  Twenty-one infiltration-
percolation ponds, each 8.2 acres (3.3 ha) in size, would
be constructed.  An emergency storage site of 12.1 acres
(4.9 ha) and 500 feet (152 m) of buffer area would also be
included at the land application site.

3.13.2.1.5  Muskego WWTP;  The Muskego Northeast and Northwest
treatment facilities would be abandoned.  The wastewater
flows from the existing WWTPs in Muskego would be combined
and pumped to the Town of Vernon.  There the flows would be
treated in aerated lagoons, which would require a 22 acre
(8.9 ha) site.  The treated effluent would be applied to
seven infiltration-percolation ponds.  The total system plus
buffer area would require 115 acres of agricultural land.

3.13.2.1.6  Caddy Vista WWTP;  The existing Caddy Vista WWTP
would be abandoned and demolished.  A new advanced secondary
treatment facility would be constructed on the site.  An
additional 150 feet (45.7 m) would be needed on the south
side of the existing site.  Treated effluent from the new
WWTP would be discharged to the Root River.  Solids would be
aerobically digested,  dried on 'sand drying beds and trucked
to a land application site.

3.13.2.1.7  South Milwaukee WWTP;  The South Milwaukee WWTP
would not be expanded, but the operation and maintenance
procedures would be improved.  The South Milwaukee WWTP
currently has a solids management study underway.

3.13.2.1.8  Private WWTPs;  The School Sisters of Notre Dame
treatment facility would not be expanded, but would continue
operating with its existing processes.  Improvements to the


                            3-102
-------
operation and maintenance procedures might be made during
the planning period.  The facility currently has no solids
handling procedures.  In the future, a private hauler would
be used to transport solids to a land application site or
discharge them into a public sewer system.

The WEPCO facility would also remain in operation using
existing processes.  Treated effluent would be discharged
into Lake Michigan.  Solids from the activated sludge process
would be applied to land in the Village of Germantown, as is
the current procedure.  Operation and maintenance procedures
might be improved during the planning period.

The Muskego Rendering Company facilities would not be abandoned.
However, the treated effluent from this facility is high in
suspended solids and BOD5.  Therefore, rather than discharging
the treated effluent to infiltration-percolation ponds, the
existing facility would serve as pretreatment prior to
discharge of effluent to the Muskego sanitary sewer system,
about 9,600 feet (2,926 m) away.  A force main and lift
station would be constructed to convey the effluent to the
public sewer system.

3.13.2.1.9  Abandoned WWTPs:  All other WWTPs in the planning
area would be abandoned.These include:

Public WWTPs                       Private WWTPS

New Berlin Regal Manor             St. Martins Road Truck Stop
Muskego Northwest (Woods Road)      Highway 100 Drive-in
Muskego Northeast                  Cleveland Heights Grade
Germantown                           School
                                   Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant
                                   New Berlin Memorial Hospital

All the private facilities would be connected to the nearest
public sewer system.

3.13.2.2  Interceptors

In order to extend sewer service from the local WWTPs to
unsewered areas that were designated for development during
the planning period, the following interceptors would be
constructed.

     Northeast Side Relief System
     Underwood Creek (East-West Alignment)
     Root River (short route)
     Franklin-Muskego (Franklin section only)
     Franklin Northeast - the six pump stations would
                          be upgraded
     Oak: Creek North Branch


                            3-103
-------
The locations of these interceptors are shown on Figure
3.16.

In addition, connector sewers would be built outside of
Milwaukee County in order to extend sewer service in Mequon
and New Berlin.  The location of these connector sewers are
also shown on Figure 3.16.

3.13.3  The Final Regional Alternative

3.13.3.1  Wastewater Treatment

The Final Regional System-Level Alternative (shown in Figure
3.17) gives the MMSD responsibility for the conveyance,
treatment, and storage of all wastewater flows in the planning
area.  This alternative employs the MIS system to convey flows
to the South Shore and Jones Island WWTPs.  All other public
wastewater treatment facilities in the planning area would
be abandoned.  In addition, interceptor sewers would be
built to divert wastewater flows from abandoned WWTPs to the
MIS system and to extend service to some presently unsewered
areas.

As with the Local Alternative, the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs would be expanded and upgraded.  The Jones
Island WWTP would be expanded to a peak capacity of 300 MGD
(13.1 m^/sec).  Secondary treatment and solids handling
equipment would be added.  Milorganite production would be
abandoned.  The South Shore WWTP would be expanded to a peak
capacity of 250 MGD (11.0 m^/sec).  Secondary treatment and
solids handling equipment would also be added to this facility.

3.13.3.2  Wastewater Conveyance

All other wastewater treatment facilities in the planning
area would be abandoned.  The flows to these existing facilities
would be connected to the MIS system.  The following interceptors
would be used to convey these flows and to extend sewer
service to currently unsewered areas.

     Northeast Side Relief System
     Underwood Creek (East-West alignment)
     Root River
     Hales Corners
     Franklin-Muskego
     Franklin Northeast - six pump stations would
                          be upgraded
     Oak Creek North Branch
     Menomonee Falls-Germantown  (East-West alignment)


                            3-104
-------
                                                                                         LEGEND
                                                                                      STUDY AREA BOUNDARY


                                                                                      COUNTY LINE


                                                                                      CORPORATE BOUNDARIES


                                                                                      WATER RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC


                                                                                      MAJOR HIGHWAYS


                                                                               ••••••.  MMSD LIMITS



                                                                                      2005 AREA SERVED BY M M S D


                                                                                      COMBINED SFWER StRV.CE AREA


                                                                                      PUBLIC TREATMENT PLANTS






                                                                                      PUMP STATIONS TO BE UPORAOEO



                                                                                      NEW CONVEYANCE TO BE CONSTR'D


                                                                                      CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY 8EINO

                                                                                      OESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED


                                                                                      CONNECTING SEWER
FIGURE

    3-17

DATE


 APRIL 1981
SERVICE  AREA  AND  FACILITY  MAP  OF

     THE  REGIONAL  ALTERNATIVE
                                                                SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY


       EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
A number of sewers would be constructed in order to connect
the local sewer service areas in Caddy Vista, Germantown/
Muskego, New Berlin, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville to the
MMSD.  These connector sewers are shown in Figure 3.17.

The MIS sewer system would be rehabilitated and expanded in
the ways noted in section 3.4.3 of this chapter.

3.13.4  Final Mosaic Alternative

In addition to considering the most cost effective and
environmentally sound alternative at each systems level and
No Action, a fourth alternative was developed by the MMSD
that combined aspects of all the other final alternatives.
This is referred to as the Mosaic Alternative.  Like the
other final alternatives, the Mosaic Alternative (.illustrated
by Figure 3.18) includes conveyance, storage, and treatment
of wastewater from all communities in the planning area.
The alternative was developed by examining the cost and
environmental impacts of the systems levels, and considering
public opinion to evolve an alternative that includes the
most viable aspects of each system-level.

3.13.4.1  Wastewater Treatment

With the Mosaic Alternative, the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs would be expanded and upgraded  (see section
3.13.2.1.1).  The South Milwaukee WWTP would also be included
in the Mosaic Alternative.  The facility would not be expanded,
although operation and maintenance procedures might be
improved.  All other public WWTPs in the planning area would
be abandoned.

Three private WWTPs would continue operating.  The School
Sisters of Notre Dame would operate at its present capacity.
Operation and maintenance procedures might be improved, but
no additional equipment or processes would be needed during
the planning period.  Solids from the treatment process
would be stored in the existing sludge tank.  A private
contractor could be hired to periodically empty the tank.

The WEPCO facilities would also be retained.  No expansion
or upgrading of the facility would be necessary, although
the operation and maintenance procedures might be improved.
Solids from the WWTP would be land applied in the Village of
Germantown, as they are now.

The Muskego Rendering Company treatment facility would be
used for industrial pretreatment.  The site's infiltration
and percolation ponds would be abandoned.  Effluent would be
pumped to the local City of Muskego sanitary sewer system,
                              3-106
-------
                                                                                               LEGEND
                                                                STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                COUNTY L'NE


                                                                CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                WATER RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC


                                                                MAJOR HIGHWAYS


                                                                M M S D. LIMITS

                                                                ZOOS AREA SERVED BY M.M S.D.


                                                                AREA SERVED LOCALLY


                                                                COMBINED SEWER SERVICE AREA


                                                                PUBLIC TREATMENT PLANTS


                                                                PRIVATE TREATMENT PLANTS


                                                                PUMP STATIONS TO BE UPGRADED


                                                                NEW CONVEYANCE TO BE CONSTR'D
                                                                    0^ Sisters of
                                                                     •I Notre
                                                                     \Dame
                                                                                            CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY BEING
                                                                                            DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED
                                             „.—*-«—-,    (.
                                                      »-^Vjc-
                                           HALM CORNERS (237) J._

                                                     "
                                                                                          Wisconsin Electric
                                                                           ......... ........i.i power Co.
FIGURE

    3-18

DATE


 APRIL 1981
SERVICE AREA and  FACILITY MAP
   of the MOSAIC  ALTERNATIVE
                                                               SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY
   HTlEcolSciences
   I^M.1 ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
9,600 feet  (2,926 mi away.  The conveyance system would
consist of one lift station and a force main.

All other private WWTPs in the planning area would be abandoned.
Flows from the existing facilities would be connected to the
nearest acceptable public sewer system.

3.13.4.2  Wastewater Conveyance

In order to expand sewer service to presently unsewered
areas, the following interceptors would be constructed.

     Northeast Side Relief System
     Underwood Creek (East-West alignment)
     Root River
     Hales Corners
     Franklin-Muskego
     Franklin Northeast - six pump stations would
                          be upgraded
     Oak Creek North Branch
     Menomonee Falls-Germantown (East-West alignment)

All of the connector sewers discussed under the Regional
Alternative would also be constructed under the Mosaic
Alternative with the exception of the South Milwaukee Connector,

3.13.5  MMSD Recommended Plan

The MMSD Recommended Plan is the Mosaic Alternative with
slight modifications.  For this reason, the impacts described
in Chapter 5 for the Mosaic Alternative would also occur
with the MMSD Recommended Plan, unless it is stated otherwise.
The MMSD Recommended Plan is shown on Figure 3.19.

3.13.5.1  Wastewater Treatment

The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would be rehabilitated
and expanded in the manner described in section 3.13.2.1.1.
The MMSD recommends that chlorine disinfection facilities
for the Jones Island WWTP be located on a 9.5 acre  (3.8 ha)
lakefill in the Outer Harbor, adjacent to the existing site.
This expansion would require the acquisition of less land
and would be less costly than building on a new land site.

For the expansion of the South Shore WWTP, the MMSD recommends
filling in 12 acres  C5 ha) of Lake Michigan to the north of
the WWTP and enclosing an additional 18 acres (12 ha) for
future expansion.  This recommendation is based upon the
MMSD's determination that lakefill expansion would allow a
more technically feasible layout for the plant than other
alternatives.


                           3-10 8
-------
                                                                                       LEGEND
                                                                                    STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                                    COUNTY LINE

                                                                                    CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                              — 	  WATER: RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC

                                                                              —<&—  MAJOR HIGHWAYS

                                                                                    M.M.S.D. LIMITS

                                                                                    ZOOS AREA SERVED BY M.M.S.O.

                                                                                 ZSI  COMBINED SFWER StRVICE AREA

                                                                                    PUBLIC TREATMENT PLANTS
                                                                               mmm  CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY BEING
                                                                                    DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED
                                              CQUtl^.^.....^^.^-...-^^^!.
                                                   ?    * I    \ ^ I r>^'i~
IGURE

   3-19
ATE

APRIL 1981
SERVICE AREA  AND FACILITY  MAP  OF
       MMSD  RECOMMENDED  PLAN
                                                              SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY

       EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
The solids from these WWTPs would be landfilled and land
applied as described in Section 3.8.J..

With the MMSD Recommended Plan, the South Milwaukee WWTP
would continue operating at its present size, although
operation and maintenance procedures might be improved.  The
WWTPs at the School Sisters of Notre Dame and WEPCO would
operate as described in Section 3.13.4.1.  The Muskego
Rendering Company would use its WWTP to pretreat wastes
before discharge to the local sewer system.  All other
private WWTPs would be abandoned.

3.13.5.2  Wastewater Conveyance

The MMSD Recommended Plan includes all the interceptors and
connector sewers mentioned in Section 3.13.4.2, except that
the MMSD recommends the construction of the Franklin Northeast
Interceptor rather than upgrading the six pump stations.

The MMSD also recommended the construction of the Northridge
and Mitchell Field Interceptors at some future date during
the planning period.  These interceptors have received a
FNSI and are therefore not evaluated in this EIS.

3.13.5.3  CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

The MMSD used the following factors in the selection of
their Recommended Plan for CSO abatement and peak flow atten-
uation.

1.   Construction difficulties - The Remote Storage, Jones
     Island Storage and Flow-Through Treatment Alternatives
     would require shallow interceptor construction through
     the downtown area.  Damage to foundations would be a
     major risk.

2.   Operational problems - The very high peak flows C450
     MGD, 19.7 m^/sec) at Jones Island for the Flow-Through
     Treatment Alternative would disrupt biological processes
     and could result in inadequate operation.

3.   Operation and Maintenance - The Remote and Jones Island
     Storage Alternatives and the Flow-Through Treatment
     Alternative would have high O&M costs due to the large
     number of small, near-surface storage facilities required
     for CSO abatement.  Operation and maintenance for the
     Inline Storage Alternative would be less costly than
     the CST Extension Alternative since solids removal
     equipment is not required in the storage cavern.
                            3-11Q
-------
 4.   Flexibility  - The MMSD  felt  that  the  Inline  Storage
     Alternative  would provide  the  greatest  flexibility
     should  the U.S. District Court Order  be successfully
     appealed.  However,  it  appears that much of  the  flexibility
     attributable to the  Inline Storage system would  also be
     true of the  Modified CST/Inline Storage system.

 Based on these factors the MMSD chose  the  Inline  Storage
 Alternative  as its Recommended  Plan.   The  alternative is
 illustrated on Figure 3.15 and  in detail on  Figure 3.10.

 3.13.6  EPA  Preferred Alternative

 The EPA Preferred Alternative is  similar to  the Mosaic Alternative
 with some exceptions.  Differences  in  impacts between the two
 alternatives are  discussed where  appropriate in Chapter 5.  The
 EPA Preferred Alternative is shown  in  Figure 3.20.

 3.13.6.1  Wastewater Treatment  Facilities

 The EPA concurs with the  MMSD Recommended  Plan for wastewater
 treatment because the total  present worth  of the  Local
 Alternative  is $50 million more than the Mosaic Alternative.
 In addition,the Mosaic Alternative would use  slightly  less
 energy and resources and  the annual operation and maintenance
 costs are lower for the Mosaic  Alternative.

 The Jones Island  and South Shore WWTPs would serve the
 entire planning area except  for South  Milwaukee which would
 operate its  own facility.  All  other public  WWTPs would be
 abandoned.   The two private wastewater treatment  plants,
 School Sisters of Notre Dame and Wisconsin Electric Power
 Company, should also continue operations,  and the Muskego
 Rendering Company should  operate a  private facility for
 pretreatment of effluent  before its discharge to  the  local
 sewer system.

 The EPA also concurs with the MMSD  recommended plan with
 respect to liquids and solids treatment processes at  the
 Jones Island and  South Shore WWTPs.  However,  the MMSD
 recommendations for a 9.5 acre  lakefill at the Jones  Island
 WWTP and enclosing 30 acres  and filling 12 acres  at the
 South Shore  WWTP  are considered excessive  by the  EPA.  EPA
 recommends limiting the Jones Island WWTP  lakefill to 5.7
 acres and the South Shore WWTP  lakefill to 12 acres.   This
 should allow expansion to proceed without  any major construction
 difficulties.  Lakefill expansion also ensures operation of the
 WWTPs in the most efficient manner.

 The EPA concurs with the  MMSD recommendation to disinfect
 the final effluent from the Jones Island and South Shore
WWTPs with chlorine gas.   The MMSD discharge  permits require
                           3-111
-------
                                                                O' Sisters of
                                                                  I Notre
                                                                  \0ome
                                                                    STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                    COUNTS LINE

                                                                    CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                ——  WATER ' RIVERS.CREEKS, ETC


                                                                    MAJOR HIGHWAYS

                                                             ••••>••  M.M.S.O. LIMITS

                                                                    2O05 AREA SERVED BY M.M.S.D.

                                                                    AREA SERVED LOCALLY


                                                                    COMBINED SEWER SERVICE AREA

                                                                    PUBLIC TREATMENT PLANTS


                                                                    PRIVATE TREATMENT PLANTS

                                                                    PUMP STATIONS TO BE UPGRADED


                                                                    NEW CONVEYANCE TO BE CONSTR'O
                  -   ~y
                 tERMA/NTOWN
                                                                                          CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY BEING
                                                                                          DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED
              MENO/MONEE
               r
          ..  s..T	
                                                        FOR CSO ABATEMENT
                                                        AND PEAK WASTEWATER
                                                        ATTENUATION  SYSTEM
                                                        DETAILS. SEE FIGS. 3.21 8r 3-22
           L L. \ j  BROOKfiEUO
           *•-»    \            *»v^
                                       FRANKLIN-UUEKEGO
                                                                                  South Milwaukee WWTP


                                                                                  South Shore WWTP
                                                                                        sconsin Electric
FIGURE

    3-20
DATE

 APRIL  1981
SERVICE AREA AND FACILITY  MAP OF
     EPA  PRFERRED ALTERNATIVE
PREPARED  BY

        EcolSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/1 in the final effluent.  The
MMSD recommends dechlorination with sulfur dioxide to achieve
this effluent limit.  However, EPA proposes recommending
that dechlorination should reduce residual chlorine to at
least 0.05 mg/1 without causing excessive sulfur dioxide
overdosing.  Adequate system controls such as feed forward
control should be used to minimize sulfur dioxide overdose
and to avoid the resultant unnecessary oxygen demand in the
final effluent.  This level of residual chlorine will minimize
the toxic effects of combined and free chlorine in the Outer
Harbor and Lake Michigan while continuing adequate pathogen
control.

EPA also recommends that the MMSD evaluate alternatives for
ammonia-nitrogen control at the Jones Island WWTP and implement
the most cost-effective alternative.  Ammonia-nitrogen
control is necessary due to the EPA and DNR interpretation
of the effluent mixing zone and the existing DNR un-ionized
ammonia-nitrogen standard of 0.04 mg/1 for the Outer Harbor.
At a minimum the following conditions must be achieved:

1.   The effluent mixing zone should be limited to a range
     of 900 to 2000 feet from the Jones Island outfall.

2.   The passage between the Inner and Outer Harbor should
     be free from a toxic barrier which could be harmful to
     aquatic life.

3.   The acute un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen toxicity standard
     CO.4 mg/1) should be met within the limited mixing zone
     and at the point of discharge.

4.   The chronic un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen toxicity standard
     (0.04 mg/1) should be met at the boundary of the limited
     mixing zone.

3.13.6.2  Solids Handling

The EPA is in basic agreement with MMSD's recommendations to
landfill Jones Island WWTP sludge and to agriculturally apply
sludge from the South Shore WWTP.  The concern about toxic
substances and heavy metals and their potential effect on
area farmland is valid, but the controls proposed by MMSD
should be sufficient to avoid any adverse effects.  It is
important that MMSD rigorously implement its pretreatment
program to minimize all toxic discharges to its system.  If
the pretreatment program is successful, reduced levels of
toxic substances and heavy metals may allow land application
of Jones Island WWTP sludge in the future.
                             3-113
-------
3.13.6.3  Wastewater Conveyance

EPA is in agreement with the MMSD Recommended Plan for
construction of intercepting and relief sewers.  There are
several cases, however, that are somewhat controversial,
and one case where EPA cannot make a definitive recommend-
ation at this time.

EPA concurs with the MMSD that the Menomonee Falls-Germantown,
Hales Corner and Oak Creek interceptors should be constructed.
However, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission  (SEWRPC) and the local governments will need to
work closely to prevent scattered development not in conformance
with the Regional Land Use Plan.  EPA also concurs with the
MMSD that the Northeast Side Relief System, Underwood Creek,
Root River, and Franklin-Muskego Interceptors should be
constructed.

The Franklin Northeast interceptor was also recommended in
the 208 Plan but MMSD, at least initially, found it to be
more cost-effective to upgrade several pump stations.  They
later changed their recommendation after strong opposition
at public hearings.  EPA needs additional information concerning
the existing on-site systems in the area and the ability to
serve additional development on such systems.  The 208 Plan
conclusion was based primarily on the fact the soils in the
area are classified by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
as severely limiting.  While this factor must be taken into
consideration it alone cannot serve as the basis for supporting
an interceptor recommendation.  Until further information is
available, EPA will be precluded from approving this portion
of the facilities plan.

3.13.6.4  CSO Abatement and Peak Flow Attenuation

The EPA has decided not to identify and quantify an alternative
for CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation to meet the
requirements of the U.S. District Court Order because of
uncertainties in some of the more critical estimating assumptions
such as that of infinite transport capacity to the storage
and treatment facilities, which may be invalid for flow
contributed by large storm events occurring less frequently
than once in ten years.

However, the EPA has made a recommendation for CSO abatement
in order to meet applicable water quality standards.  Based
on the water quality data available at this time, EPA recommends
the Modified Total Storage Alternative to attenuate peak flows
from the separated sewer area and to provide a level of
protection ranging between two and five years for the abatement
of CSO in order to meet applicable water quality standards.


                            3-114
-------
This alternative will not meet the more stringent requirements
of the U.S. District Court Order to convey, store and treat
CSO from the greatest storm of record over the past 40
years, and the alternative would only be implemented if the
U.S. Supreme Court overturns the U.S. District Court Order.

The aspects of the Modified Total Storage Alternative providing
a two to five year level of protection are outlined below.

Two Year Level of Protection CSO Alternative  Csee Figure 3.21)

     Complete sewer separation in 11% of the CSSA with no
     private property work.

     No sewer separation in the remaining portion of the
     CSSA.

     CSO from 68% of the CSSA would be tributary to 20-foot
     diameter tunnels and cavern storage facilities located
     at Milwaukee County Stadium and Jones Island with an
     approximate storage capacity of 1,060 acre-feet.

     CSO from 21% of the CSSA would be tributary to four
     near-surface storage facilities with an approximate
     storage capacity of 340 acre-feet.

     Excess flow from the separated sewer area would also be
     tributary to the 20-foot tunnels and the cavern storage
     facilities.^

Five Year Level of Protection CSO Alternative (see Figure 3.22)

     Complete sewer separation in 11% of the CSSA with no
     private property work.

     No sewer separation in the remaining portion of the
     CSSA.

     CSO from 88% of the CSSA would be tributary to 20-foot
     diameter tunnels and cavern storage facilities located
     at Milwaukee County Stadium and Jones Island with an
     approximate storage capacity of 2,500 acre-feet.

     CSO from J.% of the CSSA would be tributary to the near-
     surface storage facility with an approximate storage
     capacity of 50 acre-feet.
 In calculating the storage volumes of the tunnels and cavern
 facilities, EPA assumed a 13% I/I removal rate.
                               3-115
-------
                                                            \
                                                                          4.000
L £ G EN 0
nnnmiiiiimii
•••••
A
•
STREET OR HIGHWAY
LAKE, RIVER OR CREEK
240" OIA TUNNEL
FORCE MAIN
SOUTH 6th St. BRANCH
NEAR SURFACE STORAGE
DEEP CAVERN STORAGE
Hplpiri SEWER SEPARATION
r\\\N NO SEWER SEPARATION
k. X X Xl DEEP TUNNEL STORAGE
'/// NO SEWER SEPARATIOII
f//' Nf AB-MIBMrf 
-------
L E 3 EN 0
mnminimini
A
STREET OR HIGHWAY
LAKE, RIVER OR CREEK
340" OIA. TUNNEL
FORCE MAIN
SOUTH 6th St. BRANCH
NEAR SURFACE STORAGE
DEEP CAVERN STORAGE
JiSSaE] SEWER SEPARATION
IVVV' NO SEWER SEPARATION
k\\\ nrfPTtluMFL STORAGF

'///I "0 SEWER SEPARATION
/ / S A NEAH-SURFACF STORAGE

                                                                               : The MMSD has not
                                                                         proposed any specific alignment
                                                                         for the tunnel extension into the
                                                                         Kinnickinnic and Lake Michigan
                                                                         Basins.
 IGURE
    3-22
DATE

 APRIL 1981
             FIVE .YEAR L.O.P.
MODIFIED TOTAL  STORAGE ALTERNATIVE
PREPARED BY

   HflEcolSciences
   L±nU ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
     Excess flow from the separated sewer area would also be
     tributary to the 20-foot tunnels and the cavern storage
     facilities.

The storage volume is impacted by several factors including
the actual storage requirements resulting from greater I/I
flow, the specific level of protection necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards, and the specific treatment
capacities at the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs.  The
total storage volume cannot be finalized until the EPA, DNR
and MMSD agree on these key issues during the design phase
of the project.

In addition to the storage and treatment issues outlined
above, the EPA recommends that further water quality analysis
be conducted in order to definitely establish the minimum
level of CSO control required to meet the provisions of the
Clean Water Act.  The EPA recommended water quality analysis
should be applied to each waterway affected by CSO, and it
includes the following elements:

     The characteristics of the existing collection and
     treatment system should be described, including CSO
     discharge locations and the frequency, quality, and
     quantity of overflows related to varying storm intensities.

     The overflow statistics should then be compared with
     instream analyses of water quality before, during and
     after several storm events.  It may be necessary to use
     a continuous simulation model to develop the dynamics
     of instream water quality characteristics.

     The resultant water quality impacts based upon the
     pollutant reduction estimates associated with various
     levels of protection for CSO abatement should be calculated
     at a minimum in terms of the follow parameters:  dissolved
     oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, phosphorus, sediment oxygen
     demand, fecal coliform, and nonpoint pollutant loadings.

     The water quality improvements due to each CSO abatement
     alternative should then be compared to the costs necessary
     to construct that CSO abatement alternative.  This
     technical, environmental, and economic sensitivity
     analysis would identify the most cost-effective CSO
     abatement alternative needed to meet an attainable
     water quality standard.
    calculating the storage volumes of the tunnels and cavern
 facilities, EPA assumed a 13% I/I removal rate.
                              3-11 8
-------
Because of the large quantities of rock and overburden that
would result from the construction of any CSO abatement/peak
flow attenuation alternative, the EPA also recommends that
the MMSD continue facilities planning for developing a cost-
effective and environmentally compatible alternative for the
disposal of rock and overburden.  This planning task must be
submitted to EPA and DNR for approval prior to the start of
construction.

3.13.6.5  Costs

The total system capital costs for EPA's preferred Alternative
assuming a 13% I/I removal level would range from $1.47
billion for a 2-year level of protection of CSO to $1.63
billion for a 5-year level of protection of CSO.  The total
system capital costs for the U.S. District Court Order
Alternative will be higher because of the increased level of
protection and therefore larger storage requirements.

3.14  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The following section briefly compares the major impacts
that the Final Alternatives would have on the environments
of the MMSD planning area.  For this discussion, it can be
assumed that the MMSD Recommended Plan and EPA's Preferred
Alternative would have impacts similar to those of the
Mosaic Alternative.  All the environmental impacts of the
Final Alternatives, as well as the MMSD Recommended Plan and
the EPA Preferred Alternative, are described in detail in
Chapter 5 of this EIS.

3.14.1  Water Quality

3.14.1.1  Inland Wastewater Treatment Plants

An analysis of inland wastewater treatment plant alternatives
was conducted for each effluent receiving stream under low
flow conditions.  Table 3.18 sets forth a summary of the
water quality analysis for the final wastewater treatment
plant alternatives.  In most cases, abandonment of the
wastewater treatment plants would substantially reduce the
low flow of the receiving stream.  Under the Regional and
Mosaic Alternatives, both the existing DNR and the 208
recommended water quality standards would be achieved in all
receiving waters.  A detailed analysis of the feasible
wastewater treatment plant alternatives is presented in
Appendix VII, Water Quality.  Chapter 5 of this EIS describes
the water quality impacts of the final system-level alternatives
                          3-H9
-------
                                      TABLE 3.18

               SUMMARY OF LOW FLOW STREAM AND LAKE WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
                        DOWNSTREAM OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

Location
Root River
Downstream of
the Caddy Vista
WWTP




Menomonee River
Downstream of
the Germantown
WWTP




Tess Corners
Creek Downstream
of the Muskego
Northeast WWTP




Bit; Muskego
Laks, receiving
effluent from
Muskego North-
west WWTP








Deer Creek
Downstream of
the Regal Manors
WWTP




Milwaukee River
Downstream of
the Thinesville
WWTP





Parameter Existing
Flow (cfs) 1.82
BOD (mg/1) 13.2
Phosphorus (mg/1) 1.34
Chlorine (mg/1) 0.030
Fecal Coliform 843
(MFFCC/lOOml)
Un-ionized Ammonia 0.009
Nitrogen (mg/1)
Flow (cfs) 1.26
BOD (mg/1) 13.38
Phosphorus (mg/1) 1.05
Chlorine (mg/1) 0.66
Fecal Coliform 320
(MCFFC/lOOml)
Un-ionized Ammonia 0.494
Nitrogen (mg/1)
Flow (cfs) 0.618
BOD (mg/1) 15.7
Phosphorus (mg/1) 1.74
Chlorine (mg/1) 0.49
Fecal Coliform 250
(MFFCC/lOOml)
Un-ionized Ammonia 0.007
Nitrogen (mg/1)
Phosphorus WWTP Load 10,600
(pounds /year)
Total Lake Phosphrus 21,300
Load (pounds/year)
Steady State Lake 0.115
Phosphorus Concentra-
tion (mg/1)
Average Summer Chlor- 70 . 3
phyll-a Cone, (mg/1
Average Summer Secchi 0.87
Disc Depth (feet)
Trophic Status Eutro-
phic
Flow (cfs) 0.238
BOD (mg/1) 50.4
Phosphorus (mg/1) 0.97
Chlorine (mg/1) 0.48
Fecal Coliform 306
(MFFCC/lOOml)
Un-ionized Ammonia 0.075
Nitrogen (mg/1)
Flow (cfs) 23.7
BOD (mg/1) 9.68
Phosphorus (mg/1) 0.278
Chlorine (mg/1) 0.012
Fecal Coliform 362
(MFFCC 100ml)
Un-ionized Ammonia 0.025
Nitrogen (mg/1)
No
Action
2.05
14.7
1.45
0.042
200

0.013

1.70
13.71
1.08
0.68
200

0.506

0.783
15.8
1.75
0.49
200

0.007

10,600

21,300

0.115


70.3

0.87

Eutro-
phic
1.02
51.4
0.992
0.495
200

0.075

42.3
9.38
0.272
0.008
200

0.017


Local
1.27
11.3
1.3
0.060
200

0.012

0.15
3.90
0.16
0.0
200

0.003

0.01
9.0
0.10
0.0
200

0.008

0

3,700

0.020


5.7

9.70

Me so-
trophic
0.01
12.0
0.10
0
200

0.008

42.3
9.62
0.277
0.009
200

0.017

Regional
and Mosaic
1.10
6.0
0.59
0
200

0.011

0.15
3.90
0.16
0.0
200

0.003

0.01
9.0
0.10
0.0
200

0.008

0

3,700

0.020


5.7

9.70

Meso-
trophic
0.01
12.0
0.10
0
200

0.008

41.6
9.0
0.274
0
200

0.006

Source:   ESEI
                               3-120
-------
3.14.1.2  Combined Sewer Overflows and Bypasses

During rainfall events, CSO is discharged into the lower  reaches
of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers, the
Inner Harbor, and the Outer Harbor.  Combined sewer overflows
occur about 50 times each year.  In addition, bypasses,
overflows, and diversions of wastewater from the separated
sewer systems occur in every community in the planning area.
There are at least 263 permanent flow relief devices in the
planning area.

Pollutant loads to the Inner Harbor from the CSSA under
existing conditions and alternative future abatement conditions
are set forth in Table 5-8.  Those combined sewer overflow
abatement alternatives which include the storage and treatment
of both storm and sanitary wastewater (the Modified CST/Inline
Storage and Modified Total Storage Alternatives)  provide a
higher level of water quality improvement than those alternatives
which include total or partial separation of the storm and
sanitary sewers (the Inline Storage and Complete Sewer
Separation Alternatives).  Abatement of the combined sewer
overflows will affect water quality, loadings to the bottom
sediments, sediment scouring and disturbance, and sediment
quality conditions.  Bypasses and other sewage flow relief
devices would be eliminated under all of the CSO abatement
alternatives.

3.14.1.3  Pollution Sources to the Outer Harbor
          and Lake Michigan

Pollutant loads to the Outer Harbor are primarily contributed
from the Inner Harbor, from the Jones Island WWTP, from two
CSO outfalls which discharge directly to the Outer Harbor,
and from Lake Michigan inflow.  Existing pollutant loadings
to the Outer Harbor are set forth in Table 5-10.   Inner
Harbor and Jones Island WWTP loads of most pollutants to the
Outer Harbor would be reduced under all future system-level
conditions.  However, a higher concentration of ammonia in
the WWTP effluent will more than double the load of ammonia
from the WWTP.  Concentrations of phosphorus and suspended
solids in the WWTP effluent could also increase slightly in
the future.  However, the total flow from the WWTP is expected
to be reduced by at least 7% under future conditions.

An analysis was conducted to evaluate the impacts of possibly
relocating the Jones Island WWTP outfall outside of the
Outer Harbor.  Relocation of the outfall would substantially
improve water quality conditions and sediment quality conditions
in the Outer Harbor.  However, relocation of the outfall
would increase total pollutant loads to the main body of
Lake Michigan.  Increased phosphorus loadings could increase


                            3-12 1
-------
the eutrophic conditions of some nearshore areas.  Increased
ammonia discharges may result in occasional localized toxic
effects on fish and aquatic life.

Lake Michigan is currently described as a relatively clean
lake.  However, there is some indication that the quality of
the lake is deteriorating.  Within the MMSD planning area,
five wastewater treatment plants currently discharge directly
to Lake Michigan:   the South Shore WWTP, the South Milwaukee
WWTP, the School Sisters of Notre Dame private WWTP, the
Wisconsin Electric Power Company's Oak Creek plant, and the
Chalet-on-the-Lake private WWTP.  In addition, the Outer
Harbor, which receives pollutants from the Inner Harbor and
the Jones Island WWTP, also discharges into Lake Michigan.
Annual pollutant loads to Lake Michigan are set forth in
Table 5-15.  The flow from the South Shore WWTP is expected
to increase by 40% under future conditions.  In addition,
concentrations of some pollutants in the effluent such as
phosphorus and suspended solids may increase in the future.
Thus, reductions in pollutant loads to Lake Michigan from
the Outer Harbor under future conditions are partially
offset by increases from the South Shore WWTP.  The Outer
Harbor and South Shore WWTP are the largest sources of
pollutants to the Lake, contributing over 98% of the total
loads estimated to the Lake from the Milwaukee area.

Phosphorus has been shown to be a major nutrient control-
ling algae growth in the Great Lakes.  Excessive levels of
phosphorus may result in eutrophic (nutrient enriched)
conditions and algae blooms in portions of Lake Michigan.
The International Joint Commission (1980) estimated the
existing (1976) phosphorus load to Lake Michigan and established
a 'future target phosphorus load to provide for the continued
protection and maintenance of the Lake's water quality.  The
proportion of the total phosphorus load to Lake Michigan
contributed from the Milwaukee area is currently about 4.5
percent.  Under future conditions, because of increased flow
and possible increased phosphorus concentrations from the
South Shore WWTP,the proportion of the total Lake Michigan
load contributed from the Milwaukee area would increase to
5.8 percent.

3.14.2  Groundwater

With the No Action Alternative, the infiltration-percolation
pond at the Muskego Rendering Company might be overloaded
before 2005.  If the facility is overloaded, groundwater in
the area could be contaminated.  Residential and commercial
buildings in the area rely on shallow wells for their water
supply.  With any action alternative, this infiltration-
percolation pond would be abandoned.  Instead, the treatment


                             3-12 2
-------
facility would be used to pretreat the Muskego Rendering
Company wastewater before its discharge into a local sewer
system.

The MMSD has recommended that the solids from the South
Shore WWTP continue to be land applied during the growing
season and landfilled during the winter, and that Jones
Island WWTP solids be landfilled and no longer processed
into Milorganite.  Adherence to DNR standards for land
application and landfill and a careful monitoring program
should protect groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill
and land application sites.

During construction of recommended facilities under any
action alternative there would be the possibility of groundwater
depletion or contamination.  The construction of new sewers,
interceptors, dropshafts and both near-surface and deep
storage facilities would occur at elevations lower than the
groundwater table.  Where construction occurs below the
groundwater table, site dewatering will be necessary which
could result in significant localized drawdown of groundwater
levels.  Construction techniques such as installing sheet
piling or sump pumping in lieu of dewatering wells could
minimize these impacts.  Contaminants could enter the aquifer
from gasoline, oil, or untreated sewage spills at the construction
site.  Such impacts could be minimized by the careful handling
of such materials and development of rapid clean-up procedures
in the event a spill should take place.  These spills should
not occur in deep tunnel facilities as the TBM (tunnel
boring machines) and spoil removal systems are electric-
powered .

Tunnels and caverns in the Niagaran Aquifer could lower
groundwater levels because they would be constructed below
the piezometric surface of the aquifer, and groundwater
would naturally tend to infiltrate the facilities .  Where
the piezometric surface of the Niagaran Aquifer would be
drawn down to levels below the tunnel elevation due to well
pumping, localized exfiltration would occur.  Grouting of
discontinuities in the rock to several feet in depth and
tunnel linings could dramatically limit both infiltration
and exfiltration from the tunnels.  Exfiltration would also
occur if flow depth control devices tsuch as sluice gates
ahead of the dropshafts} were to fail, and water levels in
the tunnels exceed the groundwater piezometric surface
elevation.  These devices should be equipped with backup
facilities and, with proper maintenance, should provide
reliable protection.

Further investigations by the MMSD will be required to
ensure that risks to the groundwater from the tunnels are
minimized prior to final approval of any deep tunnel system.


                              3-123
-------
All action alternatives would include the above impacts.
The Local Alternative would also include the construction of
infiltration-percolation ponds in Vernon and Germantown.  A
thorough investigation of the sites for those facilities
would be necessary prior to their construction.  Proper site
selection and design would minimize the hazard to groundwater.

3.14.3  Air Quality

The No Action Alternative would not affect air quality in
the planning area.  Although pollutant emissions are caused
by generators, the incineration of screened materials, and
trucking sludge to landfills, the greatest source of pollutant
emissions associated with MMSD sewerage facilities is from
the production of Milorganite.  Approximately six percent of
annual particulate emissions in Miwaukee County are from
Milorganite production.  With the No Action Alternative,
these emissions would continue.

Any action alternative would have both temporary and long-
term effects.  The temporary impacts would be construction-
related.  The rehabilitation and expansion of the Jones
Island and South Shore wastewater treatment plants would
require about four years of construction.  With the MMSD
recommended expansion alternatives, all parameters of air
quality would be increased on the average from 0.01%  (sulfur
dioxide) to 0.5%  (for particulate matter) each year of the
construction period.

The emissions associated with the construction of facilities
to abate CSO and attenuate peak flows would vary according
to the alternative selected.  Table 3.19 outlines average
annual emissions for- different CSO abatement/peak wastewater flow
attenuation alternatives.

The long-term direct impacts would be associated with the
operation of the sewerage facilities included in each final
alternative.  The greatest impact of any action alternative
would be the reduction in particulate emissions that would
result from the abandonment of Milorganite production.
Abandoning that process would also alter the use of energy
at the WWTPs.  All the action alternatives would require
very similar changes in energy use, so they can all be
compared to the No Action Alternative.  Based on energy use,
particulate emissions would be reduced Cfrom the No Action
Alternative) by 23.4% and sulfur dioxide by 8.3%.  Other
emissions would increase:  carbon monoxide by 136.5%,
hydrocarbons by 189.3%, and nitrogen oxide by 32.5%.
                            3-12 4
-------
cn
W
03





















EH
1
EH
D
O
CU
D
S
<
H
AVERAG








































§
EH
U
D
PS to
EH W
to >
0 £
u <
3
§ W
W EH
JH h4
1 
O
14
CO
0
U
(C
CU
0)
cn
it
t.
H
Q)



rH
•P
O
EH




rrj
0)
•H
•H \
•O EH
o cn
g u


ro
0)
4-1
CU
—J
^1
CU
§
u


CM
C
•H
rH
H


rH
CU
•H
1985
County-v












4-1
C
fO
4J
rj
r-H
rH
0

0)
(0
o
4->
tn


•*•
rH
H






cu
•H
rH
C
M




00
O
r-H


O
•H
4J
(0
(0
CU
(U
tn


O
vo
rH


0)
o
4-1
cn

rH


CO
r>
Emissioi

n
vo
m
i-H





















M
(U
4J
-P
(0
s

0)
4-1
03
r-H
2
O
•H
JJ
^1
(C
CU


o
rH









I —






1C
r-H



0
rH



CO
00
rH







CU
T3
•H
X
0
•rl
P

M
r3
4H
rH
J3
to


VO
cn
CN








r-
^*
CN




CN
cn
CN



in
n
CN



CN
rH
rH












0)
T3
•rH
X
CO O
C -H
0 P
43
>H C
(0 (U
O CT>
O O

•O 4J

K 2























o
00
cn
rH

00
CN
Report
Planning

-
u
PS
»5
W
cn


•
rH


• •
CO
0)
o

J3
O
tn




















o
00

00
in
0)
4-1
U
*.
rH
4-1
OH
r-H
rH
O
6
cn
u

a
cn
s
jgj


•
CN






























O
00
rH
P
X
•rl
C
CU
Cu
<
CN
4-)
(0
CU
rH
O
0
cn
u

p"
cn
2
s


•
ro










                                     3-125
-------
3.14.4  Cost

The No Action Alternative would not have any direct construction
costs.  However, the MMSD and the City of Milwaukee would
violate two court orders if no action is taken to improve
sewerage facilities or to eliminate CSO.  The results of
these violations could be fines or other penalties.

The costs of the action alternatives are shown in Table
1. 6.  These costs are   estimated  to be accurate to within
+30% and -15%.

3.14.5  Fiscal Impacts

It is not possible to estimate all of the costs that the
MMSD would incur if no action is taken to upgrade the sewerage
facilities in the planning area.  Although MMSD capital
costs and user charges would not change greatly from the
present, fines or other penalties could be levied for not
complying with the U.S. District Court Order and the Dane
County Circuit Court Stipulation.

It is possible to compare the fiscal impacts of Local,
Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives.  Table 3.20 shows the
debt services for each alternative.  Tables 3.21 and 3.22
compare the average annual community and household charges
for each of these alternatives.  As shown by these tables,
the Regional Alternative would be the most expensive to
Milwaukee County, requiring a greater amount of debt service
in the 29 year period from 1980 to 2009 (allowing 20 years
for bonds issued in 1989).  The higher cost would be the
result of connecting flows from the South Milwaukee WWTP to
the MMSD.

Although the Regional Alternative would have the highest
annual debt payments from 1980 to 2009  ($1,970,574,000), the
tax rate levied by the County to finance the alternative
would be lower.  The addition of the City of South Milwaukee
to the MMSD would increase the amount of taxable property by
about $400 million.  As a result of this increased tax base,
the annual tax rate would be only $4.29 per $1,000 equalized
property value, as compared to $4.37 for the Mosaic Alternative.
Residents of the City of South Milwaukee would have a tax
burden increase of 600% from a projected $33 per household
for the Mosaic Alternative to $238 per household for the
Regional Alternative.

The next most expensive alternative in terms of MMSD capital
expenditures would be the Mosaic Alternative.  From 1980 to
2009, the Mosaic Alternative would require a total of
$1,966,223,000 in debt service.  Because this alternative
                            3-126
-------
                           o
                          U  CD
                              CJIrH
                            •  03  10
                           S  !H
                              CD
                  •H
                  a
                          3
                          C  X
                          G  K3
0)  Q  O
-P  03  O
nj  a  CN
PS  a   i
       in
    SH  oo
    0  cn
    fa  rH
                                          ro
                                                 cn
                                                 CN
r-
ro
O
CN
  •
ro


pa

m

EH
W
>
H
EH
<
X
K
W
EH
^
<

>H
P3

W
U
H

£
w
EH
PQ
W
Q
o
•H
SH
CD CD
CT1 rH Cn
(0 <0
M 3 -P
CD C X!
t> G CD
< < Q


CD
IJlrH
ro (0
Lj '•J
CD G
> G








CD
-P
tcj
0
0

rH
<

4i
U
(0
^i
-P
C
0
u





CD
O
U
«
2!
1—)
•H
a

o
EH

-P
•H
C
£3
§
ES
0
u







>i
4J
J_j
CD
*
O
o
CN
1
O, in
O
^(
ft

cn
-P
C
CD
g
00
cn
^
•K
O
O
CN
1
in
>|00

0,
CD
u
•H
£>
^1
CD
cnrH o:

















03
V-l
CD
£>
<












fO
3
C
c



Q
cn
a
a

rH
(0
-p
o
EH

4J
£)
CD
Q
CD
U
•H
£>
M
CD
cn

-P
q
CD
Q
cn
rH


4c
cn
o
o
CN
I
m
CO

**O
00






ro
CN
CN
«.
^O
^D
cn
^
rH
                                    CD
                                   4J
                                    tO
                                    CD
                                   -P
                                                   (0
                                                   O
                                                   O
                     G
                     O
                    •H
                     Cn
                     CD
 u
•H
 (0
 cn
 O
a
cn
(0
H
rH
O
'O

4H
0

cn
rrj
C
03
CO
3
O
r;
4J

G
M



•K









II
cn
c
0
•H
-P
Cu
e
3
cn
cn
ft,




cn
C CD
O -P
Q (0
SH
•
0 -P
• cn
CJ3 CD
rl
^ CD
(0 -P
CD G
>H -rH

0 <*>
CN ^5













cn

to
rH
r-H
O
'O

o
00
cn
rH










an annual maximum of $60 million
o
4J

Cn
C
•H
t3
G
3
PM

dP
m
r--












•
C
o
•H
-p
(C
rH
MH
G
•H

dft
O










financing

CD

•H
5
I
-P
O
•H
^
-P
cn
•H
Q












H
pa
O3
w

rrj
G
03

Q
cn
2
§




..
CD
U
3
O
cn
                                                   3-127
-------
                                TABLE 3.21

            1985-2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMUNITY CHARGES  (in thousands)
                     Local
Mosaic
Community
Capital'
725
789
1,491
190
166
1,910
358
1,204
1,664
815
3,016
2,022
3,127
778
1,664
1,173
41,313
933
2,958
2,674
403
780
1,480
250
356
6,655
6,153
1,064
1,861
O&M
$ 93.
438
366
93
76
1,002
150
207
608
422
541
393
703
179
919
626
22,871
435
754
2,518
50
305
303
414
129
1,584
1,829
893
355
Capital
$ 717
742
1,472
179
36
1,888
337
1,192
1,642
676
2,972
1,999
3,087
770
1,561
1,100
40,870
576
1,626
2,632
398
770
1,466
1,841
190
6,588
6,093
1,504
1,843
O&M
$ 93
411
344
88
22
946
140
194
570
391
509
369
660
168
862
588
21,566
293
948
2,381
47
287
284
406
77
1,489
1,720
846
333
Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Elm Grove*
Fox Point
Franklin
Germantown*
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls*
Mequon*
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay

* Outside Milwaukee County
1.  The assumptions used for this fiscal analysis are identified in
    Tables 5.36, 5.40 and 5.44

Source:  MMSD
Capital
732
750
1,502
181
36
1,926
341
1,216
1,675
684
3,032
2,039
3,149
786
1,580
1,114
41,694
583"
1,646
2,685
406
786
1,495
250
192
6,721
6,216
1,075
1,880
O&M
$ 9^4
416
348
89
22
956
142
196
576
396
515
373
668
170
872
594
21,804
297
959
2,405
47
290
288
414
78
1,507
1,739
855
337
                                   3-128
-------



























CN
CN
•
ro
W
m

EH







































O
•H
id
en
1;









Q
<
en
K 8 rH
« o 2
a? r 1 *"*
Si 2 °
U H •£
Q W $
JO K
O <<
E K
W H
D <
0
O
 r~l
le? *Q
a. o
«« s
O
0
CN
1
1
ID
00
r-i

























•
o.
id
u


a

(D




CTH



•
ft
id
U




a
o










•
a
id
u



a

o












>
-P
•H
C
3
g
g
O
U
rH in in -^ oo
r-4 O rH O 0


fO rH i-H CTl VO
c^ ro r** ro en
in rH CN



r— p"- P~ t*- P-
in in in in m



H- in «* •* co
rH O rH O O




S £SS£
^ rH CN




^ ^
in in in in in




rH m in ^r CN
rH O rH O CO





oo oo oo rH in
rj^ po VO ^3* ^3*
^* r"H CN ^3*



rH rH rH rH T
vo vo vo vo o
CN









*
* id
'O rl -P
rH CU CO
a) CD -H
QJ -rl Q * >
IT-J H_J ^J
•H ^ £ 0) >i
CO O !5 rH >T3
>i O O -P T3
(d M Vi 3 (d
pQ pQ £Q pQ r)
inn-omuj-^inrocNr^
rHOrHrHOrHrHrHrHO


inr^ooeninooincninvo
cNrot^CT>cr\cN^|vocr>cN
CNrH^CN rorOCNCNrH



t^ p^ r^* r*» c^" t*^ P^ r^ r^ r^*
mininininininininin



m <« o m vo ^ in CN CN r-
rHOrHrHOrHrHrHi-HO




c^S^c^SS^SSc^
CNrH^CN rOrOCNCNr-H




i>j>r-r>-r^r-r-r^r~r-
mininininininininin




in^omr^^^orocNr^
rHOrHrHOrHrHrHrHO





roro^1! — 'a'incNvocNCN
CN *d* r^ cr\ i — i CN ^* vo cr* ro
CNrH-^CNrHrorOCNCNrH



rHrHrHrHCTlr-HrHrHr-lr-l
vovovovom^ovovovovo






•K
en
rH
CO rH
M id
* 0) fa
* c -d c
cco<»H
O -rl -H -P r— 1 id -H O G
>lMOr— IC(d'CJl'H O
r* f^p ^| y^ (ij rr^ Cj C3 CO £5
id £3£3£-!ci)0)cDO
tJgXtdrlCUCBOr-lG
3rHOJHCDr— l^lMldQ)
UWfafaOOOOKS
ininr-voroooinrH
OrHOOrHOrHCN


cNinmvoromoo'a'
CNr~oomcr>or~
r— IrHrHrHCNVDCNrO



t^ r — ^* r^ r^ (^* r^ t^*
tnininminininm



in ^r r- ^ oo oo in rH
OrHOOrHOrHCN




rH CN ^J* l«n O^ CN ^3* P"^
CN r^* *—* f * ^* oo ^~ ^ tp
rHrHrHrHCNVDCNOO




r»r-r^t^r^r^t>-t^
inmininLninmin




ininocn^j'ooinrH
OrHrHOrHOrHCN





^^ CO ^^ ^H rH OO VO C3
^^ r^ vo c^ LO oo ^3 r^
^_ i f-~^ i__ j f^-| ^^ ^Q ^^ p^



rHrHCTlCTlrHrHrHrH
VOVDP^^VOVDVOVO











« CO CO
C rH -H
CD -H J^ rH O t3
0) * H CD -H fi O
* A^ O JH cu K id O
C 3 Cn ! > • O
CD -H 3 Q) id -H -P XI
S222O&cflcfl
•*
o


ro
ro




rH
m



^r
rH




00
ro
CN




O
m




•<*
o





ro
ro




rH
in







0)
0)

jj
id

rH
•H
a

rj
-P
3
O
W
vo
o


vo
rH
rH



p^
in



vo
o




in
rH
rH





m




o
rH





in
rH
CN



OO
r~










•1C
(1)
rH
rH
•H

CO
£
(D
-rl
x:
EH
in
rH


vo
o
ro



p^
in



in
rH




o
o
ro





in




in
rH





ro
o
ro



rH
vo













id
CO
0
-P
id

rj
id
S
 ro ro
rH CN rH


r~ rH ro
VO CN CT>
CN CN rO



r- r- r~
in m in



oo ro ro
rH CN H




CN r» vo
VO rH 00
CN CN ro





in in m




cr» ro ro
rH CN rH





^3* O^ ^3
VO rH CTl
CN CN 00



rH rH rH
VO VO VO








0)
CU >1
X id

co 
-------
would not include the City of South Milwaukee in the MMSD,
the annual tax rate for the County Cexcept South Milwaukee!
would be higher than the Regional Alternative C$4.37 as
opposed to $4.29 per $1,000 equalized property value}.  The
higher property tax rate for Milwaukee County residents
Ccompared to 4.33 for the Local Alternative! would be
attributable to the cost of constructing local connecting
sewers and I/I rehabilitation outside the County.

The least expensive alternative in terms of total cost to
the MMSD Cdebt service) would be the Local Alternative.
With this plan, the communities of Caddy Vista,  Germantown,
Muskego, New Berlin, Thiensville, and South Milwaukee would
all maintain and upgrade their own treatment facilities.
The average annual debt services for these six communities
with each of the four alternatives are compared in Table 3.23.

                         TABLE 3-23

         COSTS CIN THOUSANDS) TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES

                    Local          Regional       Mosaic
Community           Alternative    Alternative    Alternative

Caddy Vista           166             36             36
Germantown            815            676            684
Muskego               933            576            583
New Berlin          2,958          1,626          1,646
South Milwaukee       250          1,841      -      250
Thiensville           356            190            192

The most costly system for these communities Cexcept South
Milwaukee)  would be the Local Alternative.  Comparison of
the Local and Regional Alternatives reveals that it is less
expensive for five of the six communities Call but South
Milwaukee)  to connect to the MMSD rather than to manage
their own WWTPs.

3.14.6  Economic Impacts

Since the costs of the No Action Alternative cannot be fully
accounted for, neither can its impacts on the Milwaukee area
economy.  However, a detailed analysis was performed to
determine the effects of the action alternatives on Milwaukee's
economy.  This analysis suggested that the Local, Regional,
and Mosaic Alternatives would have very similar economic
impacts.  If it is assumed that the tax money used to finance
the MFP is money that would have been spent outside the
Milwaukee area C"Least Case"!, the project would increase
gross output, earnings and employment.  On the other hand,
if it is assumed that the money used to finance the MFP
                             3-130
-------
would have been spent in the region  (."Worst Case") , gross
output and employment would decline  and the increase in
earnings would be less.  Table 3.24  shows the range of
the net economic impacts of the Action Alternatives.

                        TABLE 3.24

               RANGE OF NET ECONOMIC IMPACTS

                         "Least Case"        "Worst Case"

Gross Output  (x 103}     $ 2,578,133         $ -  981,306

Earnings  (x 1<)3)             840,042               36,313

Employment (Man-years)        31,390           -   17,100

These two scenarios are hypothetical.  The actual  impacts
would fall within this range.

Different CSO abatement/peak flow attenuation alternatives
would have varying impacts on the Milwaukee economy.  However,
it is assumed that an alternative that uses the local labor
market would have a more positive impact on the local economy.
In general, the construction of deep tunnels and  cavern storage
facilities would require sophisticated equipment  that may not
be available in the Milwaukee area.  The Complete  Sewer
Separation Alternative would utilize more local labor than the
partial or  omplete  torage  Iternatives.  However, the rather
intense disruption to CSSA businesses under Complete Sewer
Separation could offset the positive impact of local employ-
ment.

3.14.7  Public Health

Each year, CSO and sanitary sewer bypasses  allow  more
than 6.4 billion gallons of untreated sewage and  stormwater
to enter the Inner Harbor and the lower reaches of the
Menomonee, Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers.  In addition,
during wet weather, the treatment facilities in the planning
area are overloaded, discharging partially treated effluent.
These inputs can carry disease-producing organisms.  With No
Action, these inputs would continue.  Any action alternative
would eliminate these potential hazards to the public health.

3.14.8  Access and Traffic

All the action alternatives would require the rehabilitation,
expansion, or construction of wastewater treatment facilities,
and the construction of interceptors, connecting sewers, and
facilities for the abatement of CSO and attenuation of peak
                            3-131
-------
flows.  With the Local Alternative, construction would take
place at more WWTP sites.  However, this construction should
not greatly disrupt traffic.

Connector sewers would be open-cut.  Usually, however, they
would follow roads with average to wide right-of-ways or
they would be constructed across rural land.  Therefore,
they would not substantially affect traffic or access.  Most
interceptors would be constructed by the tunnel method.  As
a result, their construction should not tear up many roads,
but would be limited to access shafts and storage sites.
Construction and supply vehicles would add to traffic con-
gestion in the construction area.

The alternatives for the abatement of CSO and the attenuation
of peak flows would disrupt Milwaukee's central business
district to varying degrees.  The Complete Sewer Separation
Alternative would require the greatest amount of sewer
construction (primarily open-cut) in the CSSA.  With this
alternative, 92% of the CSSA would be disrupted, including
separation of plumbing within buildings.  The Inline Storage
Alternative would disrupt almost as much area, but would
include no private property work.  The Modified CST/Inline Storage
Alternative would include partial sewer separation construction
in 21% of the CSSA.  The Modified Total Storage Alternative
would have the least severe impacts on traffic and access.
Only a few sites would require sewer construction.

The construction of storage facilities would require three
to four years.   In the vicinity of the construction sites,
traffic would be increased by construction vehicles.

3.14.9  Energy Use

Any of the action alternatives would result in a reduction
of between 27% and 37% from energy use with No Action Alternative.
Total energy use for the alternatives is compared in Table
3.25.

                         TABLE 3.25

             TOTAL ENERGY USE (IN BILLION BTU)

                          Natural  Diesel  Fuel  Digester
Alternative  Electricity  Gas      Fuel    Oil   Gas       Total
No Action
Local*
Regional*
Mosaic*
  325.19
1,247.58
1,023.30
1,037.79
2249.56
  47.50
  47.50
  47.50
 6.0
79.48
79.03
76.42
76.97 249.83
 0.81 725.80
 0.81 721.33
 0.81 724.93
2907.55
2141.03
1871.98
1890.45
*Assuming the Inline Storage Alternative
                               3-132
-------
Energy use for CSO abatement/peak flow attenuation alter-
natives was also evaluated.  The most energy intensive
alternative would be the Modified Total Storage which would
require 119 billion BTU each year.  The Modified GST/Inline
Storage would require 98 BTU/year, the Inline Storage would
require 47 billion BTU/year, and Complete Sewer Separation
45 billion BTU/year.

3.14.10  Engineering Feasibility

The screening process described in this chapter used engineer-
ing feasibility as a criterion for evaluation.  Alternatives
that would include components that are considered infeasible
were excluded from consideration.  Thus, all aspects of the
final alternatives employ sound engineering technology.

Some of the CSO components, primarily the deep tunnels and
storage caverns, include innovative technology.  Other
cities, Chicago and Rochester for instance, are now in the
process of constructing facilities using these components,
although such systems are not currently in use.
                               3-133
-------
      CHAPTER 4




AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
-------
Chapter 4
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.0 INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the effects of final alternatives on the environ-
ments of the planning area, it is necessary to assess the
present state of those environments.  Thus, in this chapter,
the human and natural environments of the planning area are
described.  The description begins with the natural environ-
ment including the subjects listed below.

          Waters of the Planning Area
          Aquatic Biota
          Threatened or Endangered Species
          Air Quality/Odors
          Geology
          Topography
          Soils
          Groundwater
          Floodplains
          Wetlands
          Wildlife Habitats

These discussions are followed by descriptions of the human
or man-made environment.  Included in this section are the
topics listed below.

          Legal and Regulatory Environment
          Land Use
          Population
          Economy
          Municipal Revenues and Expenditures
          Sewerage System Costs
          Noise
          Odors
          Public Health
          Transportation, Traffic, and Access
          Archaeological and Historical Sites
          Recreation

These descriptions present those aspects of the environment
of the planning area that could be affected by or that place
limits on planning for the MFP.  The discussion in Chapter
5, Environmental Consequences, builds on the information in
this chapter.

4.1  NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

4.1.1 Waters of the Planning Area

The City of Milwaukee is situated on the shore of Lake

                               4-1
-------
Michigan, at the confluence of three rivers:  the Milwaukee,
the Menomonee, and the Kinnickinnic.  The Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District  (MMSD) planning area also includes Oak
Creek and parts of the Root River to the south, and tributaries
of the Fox River to the west.  All the major lakes, streams,
and creeks in the planning area are shown in Figure 4.1.

Lake Michigan, the fourth largest freshwater lake in the
world, is 80 miles (135 km) wide at Milwaukee, and its
length is 350 miles (560 km).  The lake retains water for
about 100 years before it flows out its natural outlet at
the straits of Mackinac or the Chicago River.

Water consumption in the MMSD service area relies most
heavily on water from Lake Michigan.  All public water
utilities within Milwaukee County use Lake Michigan as the
source for water, with the exception of the City of Oak
Creek Water and Sewer Utility which uses both Lake Michigan
and groundwater wells (SEWRPC, Lake Michigan Estuary and
Direct Drainage Area Subwatersheds Planning Program Prospectus,
1978) .  Average consumption for these utilities for 1977 has
been estimated at approximately 282 million gallons per day
(12.35 m-Vsec) , with a served population of 1,147,000 persons
(SEWRPC, 1978m).  The daily per capita use is thus estimated
at 2-46 gallons (931 liters) for these utilities.  Private
water utilities also provide water service and there are a
number of industries which utilize their own wells for a
supply of water.

The Milwaukee River upstream of the Inner Harbor is wide and
shallow, with a watershed which extends well north of the
planning area.  Its tributaries within the planning area
include Pigeon Creek in Thiensville, Indian Creek in Bayside,
and Lincoln Creek in the City of Milwaukee.  The Thiensville
WWTP adds effluent to the Milwaukee River within the study
area.

The Menomonee River is wholly contained in the planning
area.  The portion upstream of the Inner Harbor is shallow
and extensively channelized.  The river flows along the
industrial Menomonee Valley in the City of Milwaukee. The
principal tributaries of the river are Underwood Creek in
the City of Wauwatosa and the Town of Brookfield, Honey
Creek in the City of West Allis, and the Little Menomonee
River in the City of Milwaukee.

The Kinnickinnic River is very small upstream of the Inner
Harbor.  The stream bed is completely channelized.  Combined
sewer overflows  (CSOs) occur at several points along the
river.  Oak Creek flows through the Cities of Oak Creek and
South Milwaukee.  Its principal tributary is the North
                           4-2
-------
                                                                           LEGEND	

                                                                         rriWY AMEA (OUNOAKY
                                                                         COUNTY LINE
                                                                         COAPOKATE BOUNDARIES
                                                                         •ATE*: mVEM.CREEKS.ETC
                                                                         MAJON HKMWAYS
SURE
   4-1
iTE
 PRIL 1981
  LAKES AND  STREAMS
IN THE  PLANNING  AREA
                                               SOURCE MMSD
PREPARED BY
      EcolSciences
      ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
Branch of Oak Creek.  Both streams are very small with tree-
lined, natural channels for most of their length.  The Root
River has its source in Milwaukee County, and flows south to
Racine County.

The Fox River and its tributaries are in a different drainage
basin than the other watersheds in the planning area.  All
of the other rivers flow to Lake Michigan, but the Fox River
flows south to the Illinois River and ultimately to the
Mississippi River.  Deer Creek is a small, intermittent
tributary to Poplar Creek which flows into the Fox River.
Big Muskego Lake is located in southern Waukesha County.  It
has a volume of 275 million cubic feet (7,788,000 m3).

4.1.1.1 Water Quality Parameters

The chemical and physical properties of a lake or stream
influence the types of aquatic plants and animals that can
exist in the water and the uses to which it can be put.

There is no one index of water quality; instead, many
factors affect the quality of water for particular uses.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has set
standards for several parameters to meet designated goals
for the maintenance of waters for fish and human uses  (shown
in Table 4.1).  The water quality classifications of streams
and lakes in the planning area are shown in Table 4.2.  Existing
water quality conditions are compared to DNR standards in
Figure 4.2.

Some water quality parameters are characteristic of both
natural and polluted waters.  These parameters are dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids, and nutrients.   Other parameters
are measures of human pollution.  These parameters include
ammonia, toxic substances, pathogens, and other nonpoint and
point source pollutants.

4.1.1.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen;  The concentration of dissolved
oxygen in water is a measure of its quality.  While air is
20% oxygen, well-aerated water is only about 0.001% oxygen.
Fish, other aquatic animals, and aquatic plants all require
oxygen. Most fish need at least 5 milligrams of oxygen per
liter  (mg/11 of water  (0.0005%), but some require 6 or 7
mg/1.  These levels can be maintained in lakes and streams
that are low in organic matter and in plant nutrients and
have good natural reaeration by wind action or rapids.
Microorganisms that feed on organic matter in the streams
consume oxygen.  If there is a large amount of organic
matter in the stream from the leaves of overhanging trees,
a large amount of dead aquatic plants, or discharges of
inadequately-treated sewage, the oxygen level may be lowered.
                               4-4
-------
                                    TABLE 4.2

                  DNR WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS OF AFFECTED
                        MILWAUKEE AREA LAKES AND STREAMS
 Affected Stream or Lake   Location
                                 Classification
 1.   Milwaukee River
 2.   Milwaukee River
 3.   Milwaukee River
 4.   Menomonee River
 5.   Menomonee River
 6.   Menomonee River
 7.   Deer Creek
 8.   Deer Creek
 9.   Tess Corners Creek
10.   Tess Corners Creek
11.   Big Muskego Lake
12.   Root River
13.   Oak Creek:  North
     Branch

14.   Outer Harbor
15.  Lake Michigan
Thiensville WWTP
CSO Area, North of North Avenue
CSO Area, South of North Avenue
Germantown WWTP
CSO Area
CSO Area
New Berlin:  Regal Manors WWTP
New Berlin:  Southeast WWTP
New Berlin:  Southeast
Muskego:  Northeast WWTP
Muskego:  Northwest WWTP
Caddy Vista WWTP
Oak Creek Interceptor
Jones Island WWTP
South Shore WWTP
Recreational Use,
warmwater fish and aquatii
life
Recreational Use,
warmwater fish and aquatii
life
Variance  (b)
Recreational Use,
warmwater fish and aquatic
life
Variance  (a)
Variance  (a)
Marginal Surface Waters
Marginal Surface Waters
Intermediate Aquatic Life
Intermediate Aquatic Life
Recreational Use,
warmwater fish and aquatii
life
Recreational Use,
warmwater fish and aquatii
life
Recreational Use,
warmwater fish and aquatii
life
Recreational Use,
warmwater fish and aquatii
life
Recreational Use,
coldwater fish and aquatii
life
 Source:  Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Administrative Code,
          NR104

           See Table 4.1, Variance (a)

           See Table 4.1, Variance (b)
                                       4-6
-------
                                                                                   LEGEND
                                                                                STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                                COUNTY LINE

                                                                                CORPORATE 80UNOARIES

                                                                                WATER; RIVERS,CREEKS,ETC

                                                                                MAJOR HIGHWAYS
                                                                                FECAL COLIFORM

                                                                                FECAL COLIFORM and
                                                                                DISSOLVED OXYGEN

                                                                                FECAL COLIFORM and
                                                                                Un-ionmd or total AMMONIA


                                                                                OiMOlwd OXYGOJ.dtlORlNE
                                                                                aUiuonzxlor total AMMONIA
                                                                                MINIMUM STANDARDS
IGURE

   4-2

ATE


APRIL 1981
EXISTING  CONDITIONS  OF WATERS
      IN  THE PLANNING  AREA
                                                              SOURCE  MMSD
PREPARED BY

       EcolSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
There are complex cycles of oxygen levels in natural waters
which vary daily and seasonally.  Aquatic plants play a
major role in these cycles both as producers and consumers
of oxygen.  Temperature, the quantity of organic matter, and
the degree of mixing within the body of water also contribute
to the cyclical variations of dissolved oxygen.

During the day, plants produce oxygen through photosynthesis.
At night photosynthesis does not.occur* so_ plant and animal
respiration and the decomposition of organic matter (especially
the large quantities introduced by sewage discharges)  can
sharply decrease oxygen levels.

Oxygen levels also vary seasonally, declining in the winter
when ice cover reduces water circulation and the light for
photosynthesis.  This decrease is most evident in lakes and
slow-moving streams.

If oxygen levels are severely depleted in a body of water,
many forms of aquatic life cannot survive.  Organisms requiring
dissolved oxygen are replaced by those which do not require
oxygen (anaerobic forms).  Anaerobic microorganisms generate
foul odors and some types produce toxic substances (such as
hydrogen sulfide and ammonia) that make water unsuitable for
other organisms and human use.

The standard measure of oxygen consumption is biochemical
oxygen demand  (BOD).  BOD is a laboratory measurement which
is not directly applicable to natural conditions, but does
serve as an indicator of the level of oxygen-demanding
organic matter in a watercourse.

4.1.1.1.2  Suspended Solids;  Suspended solids are particles
of undissolved substances in lakes and streams.  They reduce
the transparency of the water which affects plant and animal
life.  Excessive suspended solids settle, covering valuable
bottom habitats.  Suspended solids and sediment reduce the
water storage capacity of harbors, reservoirs, and lakes,
and can interfere with feeding and spawning habitats and the
respiratory organs of fish and other aquatic life.  The
decomposition of organic solids requires oxygen, and may
lower oxygen levels in a stream or lake, potentially causing
fish kills and foul odors.  Suspended solids may also transport
pathogens and other forms of pollution, such as nutrients,
pesticides, or heavy metals.

4.1.1.1.3  Plant Nutrients;  Phosphorus and nitrogen, sub-
stances naturally present in water and concentrated in
sewage and effluent, act together to sustain plant growth.
Normally, nitrogen is present in Wisconsin waters in excess
of plant requirements.  Thus, where adequate light is available,
plant growth is limited by the supply of phosphorus in the
water.
                               4-8
-------
Excessive nutrients produce algae blooms.  Algae affect the
oxygen levels of a watercourse, and can interfere with
swimming and boating.  A lake with a high concentration of
nutrients experiencing nuisance growths of weeds and algae
is called eutrophic; a lake with a low concentration of
nutrients is called oligotrophic.  All lakes gradually
accumulate phosphorus and other plant nutrients, but the
process of eutrophication may be greatly accelerated by the
addition of large amounts of phosphorus from fertilizers
Cagricultural runoff), urban runoff or sewage effluent.

4.1.1.2  Human Influences

4.1.1.2.1  Wastewater Treatment and Modifications;  Discharges
of effluent from wastewater treatment plants and bypasses of
untreated sewage affect stream flow, can reduce levels of
dissolved oxygen, and can introduce suspended solids, phosphorus,
nitrogen, various toxic substances, and pathogenic organisms
into a river.  Stream flow is the amount of water in the
stream.  Effluent discharges to small, intermittently-
flowing streams can greatly increase total flow.  If the
sewage is inadequately treated, the stream's water quality
can be greatly impaired.  However, if the wastewater is
treated so that its chemical composition resembles that of
the receiving stream, the effluent enlarges the stream and
allows the existence of aquatic organisms that require
permanently-flowing water.

Lake Michigan receives effluent discharges from six wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) in the MMSD planning area:  the
Jones Island, South Shore, and South Milwaukee public WWTPs;
and private facilities at the School Sisters of Notre Dame
and Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant in the City of Mequon, and
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO)  in the City of Oak
Creek.  A flow reversal of the Chicago River removes a maximum
of 3200 cfs from Lake Michigan.  The river ultimately discharges
this water to the Mississippi River.

Six additional public treatment facilities discharge effluent
to the waters of the MMSD study area, as shown below.
     WWTP

     Thiensville
     Germantown
     Muskego Northeast

     Caddy Vista
     New Berlin-Regal Manors
     Muskego Northwest
Discharge Location

Milwaukee River
Menomonee River
Tess Corners Creek
(a tributary of Root River)
Root River
Deer Creek
Big Muskego Lake
                               4-9
-------
A portion of Lake Michigan near the City of Milwaukee has
been partitioned off by a breakwater to form the Outer
Harbor.  The Outer Harbor receives waters from the Milwaukee,
Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers and effluent from the
Jones Island WWTP.  It has four openings where its water
exchanges with water from the main body of Lake Michigan.
Water flows out of the Harbor at the rate of 730 cubic feet
per second C21 m^/sec), and wind driven currents bring a
small amount of lake water into the Harbor.  The Outer
Harbor functions as a lake, with a volume of 1.2 billion
cubic feet C33.8 x 106 m3) and a water residence time of
about 6 days.  A flow reversal of the Chicago River removes
a maximum of 3200 cfs C91 m3/sec) from Lake Michigan, and
ultimately discharges this water to the Mississippi River.

The Inner Harbor is the artificially deepened and channelized
sections of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers.  Its waters are slow flowing; the Milwaukee River
section has an average velocity of about six inches per
second (0.15 m/sec) and the flow of the other portions is
almost nil.  Many of the MMSD combined sewers overflow
directly to the Inner Harbor.

4.1.1.3  Pollutants from Human Activity

4.1.1.3.1  Ammonia:  Ammonia is a form of nitrogen present
in sewage effluent.  When ammonia enters a lake or stream,
some of it changes chemically  (ionizes) and becomes harmless,
but the remainder stays un-ionized.  Un-ionized ammonia has
a distinct, pungent odor, and is toxic to fish.  The percentage
of ammonia that remains un-ionized varies with the acidity
and temperature of the water; the colder and more acid the
water, the less the un-ionized percentage.  Eventually, all
ammonia entering a body of water becomes oxidized to a far
less toxic form  (.nitrate) .  The amount of nitrogen in the
ammonia form that is present in water is referred to as
"ammonia-nitrogen."

4.1.1.3.2  Toxic Substances;  Wastewater can contain a
number of other toxic substances from industrial, commercial,
residential, and transportation activities.  These substances
include cadmium, lead, zinc, chromium, copper, pesticides,
and polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs).  Chlorine, another
toxic substance, is used by sewage treatment facilities for
disinfection of effluent.  Although chlorine is toxic to
aquatic animals even in small quantities, the chemical
oxidizes very quickly to chloride which is not toxic.  Also,
chlorine can react with ammonia during the disinfection of
WWTP final effluent to form chloramines.  Chloramines are
as toxic as chlorine but longer lasting in the environment.
Both chlorine and chloramines are reported as total residual


                               4-10
-------
chlorine in a WWTP effluent.  Chlorine is primarily a
problem near effluent outfalls.  Other toxic substances in
sewage efffluent accumulate in sediment, where they are
available for ingestion by bottom-feeding organisms, posing
the potential for bioaccumulation.  Further, the substances
may be resuspended in the water.

4.1.1.3.3  Pathogens;  Pathogens are microorganisms in
sewage that can cause disease in animals and humans.  Examples
are the typhoid bacterium, the polio virus, and intestinal
parasites.  Disinfection of wastewater reduces the number of
pathogens, but does not eliminate them altogether.  The
fecal coliform bacterium  (Escherichia coli) is a harmless
bacterium that exists in human and animal wastes.  Since
this bacterium is easily detectable, it is used as an indicator
of the possible presence of pathogens.  The abundance of
fecal coliforms in a stream or lake may indicate the presence
of inadequately-treated sewage and possibly pathogenic
organisms.

4.1.1.3.4  Nonpoint Source Pollution;  Nonpoint sources of
water pollution include storm water runoff from urban and
rural land, atmospheric deposition, construction activities,
and malfunctioning septic systems.  SEWRPC Technical Report
No. 21, Sources of Water Pollution in Southeastern Wisconsin;
1975 identified sources of nonpoint pollution.In the
Menomonee River and Milwaukee River watersheds, nonpoint
sources were estimated to contribute at least two-thirds of
the total annual loads of all analyzed pollutants except
fecal coliform.  In the Kinnickinnic River watershed, non-
point sources contributed most of the sediment and total
nitrogen, and about one-third of the biochemical oxygen
demand and total phosphorus loads.  Combined sewer overflows
and sewage flow relief devices were found to be major con-
tributors of fecal coliform in all three watersheds.

4.1.1.4  Water Quality in the Planning Area

In the following discussion, the conditions of all streams
and lakes that could be affected by the MFP are described gen-
erally.  Also, the degree to which state standards for water
quality are met is indicated.  Additional details on water
quality may be found in Appendix VII, Water Quality/ and in
Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow.

4.1.1.4.1  Milwaukee River;  Near the location of the
Thiensville WWTP, the Milwaukee River is low in suspended
solids (16 mg/1 during low flow conditions) and high in
dissolved oxygen (.normally near saturation) .  DNR has classi-
fied the river for recreational use and as a habitat for
warm-water fish and aquatic life.  As set forth in Figure
                               4-11
-------
4.2, existing state standards for fecal coliform and dissolved
oxygen are occasionally violated.

Upstream of the Thiensville WWTP, the river is affected by
WWTP discharges and nonpoint source pollution from erosion
and runoff.  Downstream from the WWTP, the river is in-
creasingly affected by sewer system bypasses and combined
sewer overflows.  Table 3-7 of Appendix V, Combined Sewer
Overflow, notes that streams affected by sewer overflows and
bypasses have concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand
which average 40% to 50% higher than upstream concentrations.
The average fecal coliform level in the Inner Harbor is 35
times the standard.  Twenty-three bypass points from the
Metropolitan Intercepting Sewers (MIS) and seventy bypass
points from local collector sewers contribute raw sewage to
the river.  Each year, 62 combined sewer overflow points on
the Milwaukee River from the Village of Shorewood to the
river's mouth also add an average of 2 billion gallons  (7.6
million m^) of storm water and sewage.

These inputs of raw sewage temporarily increase turbidity
and lower the concentration of dissolved oxygen as organic
matter decomposes.  They blanket the river bottom with
sediment which consumes oxygen and generates foul-smelling
gases, such as ammonia or hydrogen sulfide.  In addition,
the sewage contains plant nutrients, such as phosphorus,
which allow algae to grow in nuisance proportions in the
slower reaches of the river and the Inner Harbor.  Any
pathogens in the sewage present a public health hazard.

4.1.1.4.2  Menomonee River;  At Germantown, the Menomonee
River is a very small creek.  An artificial pond was created
at the Germantown WWTP to assure permanent downstream flow.
The dissolved oxygen content of the stream is generally near
the saturation point.  However, the pond may exhibit large
daily fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels due to high
levels of algae.  Suspended solids concentrations are 25
mg/1 on the average, but drop to 10 mg/1 during low flow.
Phosphorus concentrations are relatively high (1 mg/1).

The Menomonee River flows through the most industrialized
section of Milwaukee.  Pollution sources to the Menomonee
River include industrial wastewater discharges and storm
water runoff.  In addition, nonpoint sources from areas
upstream of the CSSA contribute to the river's pollution.

There are 13 MIS bypass points, 90 bypass points from local
collector sewers, and 26 combined sewer overflow points on
the Menomonee River and its tributaries.  The bypasses are
small compared to combined sewer overflows which total 2
billion gallons  (7.6 million m3) a year on about 50 days of


                                4-12
-------
storms. Since the Menomonee River has about 20% of the flow
of the Milwaukee River, the effects of each gallon of
untreated sewage are greater.  Oxygen levels decline, organic
sediments accumulate on the river bottom, algal growth is
stimulated, and fecal coliform counts increase.  Occasionally,
during CSO events, the stream violates the State standards
for dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform.

4.1.1.4.3 Kinnickinnic River;  No sewage treatment facilities
discharge effluent to the Kinnickinnic River, but there are
six MIS bypasses, and about 15 bypasses points from local
collector sewers and combined sewer overflow outfalls.  CSO
is the largest source of pollution to the river, adding
about one billion gallons (3.77 million m3) of combined
sewage each year.  The effects of these inputs are great
since there is so little flow in the river.  The Kinnickinnic
River occasionally violates State water quality standards
for dissolved oxygen and fecal coliforms, especially in its
Inner Harbor portion.  Stormwater runoff from the river's
highly urbanized watershed is also a substantial contributor
to the river's pollution.

4.1.1.4.4 Oak Creek;  The North Branch of Oak Creek has not
been adequately surveyed for water quality.  However, the
indications are that, due to its small size and the pre-
dominantly rural land use surrounding it, the creek is
turbid, rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, and sufficiently
high in dissolved oxygen.  It receives bypasses of raw
sewage about five times a year from a pump station near the
creek's northern end.  These bypasses may temporarily lower
dissolved oxygen levels, raise suspended solids, phosphorus,
and nitrogen concentrations, and greatly increase fecal
coliform levels.

4.1.1.4.5 Root River;  The Root River's tributary in the
City of Muskego, Tess Corners Creek, is intermittent up-
stream of the Muskego Northeast WWTP and permanent down-
stream.  The creek has low levels of suspended solids (about
6 mg/1), moderate levels of phosphorus  (0.5 mg/1), and
moderate levels of dissolved oxygen (6 mg/1).  Much of the
phosphorus comes from the treatment plant.

The Hales Corners WWTP, which presently discharges to the
tributary of the Root River in the Village of Hales Corners,
will cease to operate in 1981 when the Hales Corners Inter-
ceptor is completed.  The abandonment of the WWTP will
reduce phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended solids loadings
to the upper Root River.

When the Root River crosses the Milwaukee-Racine County line
at Caddy Vista, it is slow flowing and turbid with fluc-


                               4-13
-------
tuating levels of dissolved oxygen  (average 8 mg/1, fluctuations
regularly occur between 5 and 10 mg/1). The Caddy Vista WWTP
is an insignificant contributor to the Root River in terms
of flow, but the reportedly frequent overloads and bypasses
at the plant may affect the turbidity and the levels of
oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal coliform in the
portion of the river near the WWTP.

There are approximately 15 local collector bypass points on
the Root River and its tributaries.  Although there is no
information on the extent of bypass pollution, it is pro-
bably small relative to the runoff pollution from new sub-
divisions and agricultural land in the watershed.  These
nonpoint sources add substantial amounts of silt, organic
matter, phosphorus, and nitrogen to the river.

4.1.1.4.6 Big Muskegp Lake; Located in the Fox River Basin,
Big Muskego Lake is large in area  (2,177 acres, 881 ha) but
shallow in depth (average 2.5 feet, 0.76 m; maximum 4 feet,
1.22 m), and it is fringed by cattail marsh.  The waters of
the lake contain concentrations of phosphorus and ammonia-
nitrogen which average about 0.1 mg/1 and 0.04 mg/1, res-
pectively.  In addition, the sediments are rich in nutrients
and organic matter.  Whenever sediments are stirred up by
wind, fish, or boats, they increase the levels of these
materials in the water.

The lake receives large quantities of silt, nutrients, and
organic matter from the Muskego Northwest WWTP and from
agricultural runoff, and it is considered a eutrophic lake.
The residence time  (the time it would take for the full
volume of the lake to be replaced by inflowing waters) is
five months.  The major inflow to Big Muskego Lake is Muskego
Creek, which is the outflow from Little Muskego Lake, located
just upstream.

Big Muskego Lake is well oxygenated in the warmer months at
all depths since it is very shallow and well mixed by
winds, with plants adding oxygen to the water.  In the
winter, when the lake is ice-covered, decaying organic
matter and sediment oxygen demand may consume all the dissolved
oxygen.  A lack of oxygen may be the cause of fish kills
that have been occurring during winter.

4.1.1.4.7 Deer Creek: Deer Creek, a small tributary of the
Fox River, flows intermittently upstream of the New Berlin
Regal Manors WWTP discharge point.  The creek has low levels
of suspended solids  (averaging 17 mg/1) except during wet
weather when runoff from the adjacent agricultural and
residential land probably substantially increases the solids
concentration.  Due to effluent discharges, the phosphorus
                               4-14
-------
and ammonia levels are probably high  C5 mg/1 and 8 mg/1,
respectively), and there are high concentrations of residual
chlorine.

4.1.1.4.8  Lake Michigan;  Lake Michigan is currently classified
as an oligotrophic,or relatively clean, nutrient-poor lake
(.International Joint Commission, 1980} .  However, some
studies have indicated that Lake Michigan is slowly deteriorating,
This trend is evidenced by the appearance of certain species
of phytoplankton indicative of moderately polluted lakes
(Great Lakes National Program, 1978).  Chloride concentrations
have been increasing at an accelerating rate.  DDT and PCBs
have contaminated some fish populations.  Near-shore areas,
including the Milwaukee area, exhibit more nutrient enrichment
than the open waters of the Lake.  Nevertheless, the overall
quality of Lake Michigan is very good and a thorough circulation
system prevents the accumulation of excessive levels of
pollutants in most areas.

Because of its size and extensive currents, Lake Michigan is
able to dilute the effluent directly discharged to it by the
South Shore, School Sisters of Notre Dame Academy, Chalet-
on-the-Lake Restaurant, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company
sewage treatment plants.  However, the size of the lake
gives it a water retention time of 100 years, so additions
of pollution to the lake are essentially cumulative.

The Outer Harbor illustrates the effects of eutrophication.
A breakwater separates the harbor from the main body of Lake
Michigan, and water remains in the harbor six days before
moving to the lake.  The Menomonee, Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers empty into the harbor, which also receives effluent
from the Jones Island WWTP and discharges from two CSO
outfalls.  Water exchange with Lake Michigan also occurs.
These inflows carry solids, organic matter, phosphorus,
ammonia, heavy metals, and chlorine into the Outer Harbor.
Some pollutants undergo degradation in the Outer Harbor and
most particulate pollutants are deposited into the bottom
sediments.  The Outer Harbor has ten to one hundred times
the concentrations of some pollutants as Lake Michigan.

The water in the harbor is more turbid and contains less
oxygen than lake water (although dissolved oxygen levels remain
high).  The Outer Harbor has greater algal growth and
over the years a thick layer of sediment, rich in toxic
substances and nutrients, has accumulated on the bottom.
These sediments frustrate attempts to improve the water
quality of the harbor.  Removing inputs of phosphorus,  for
example, might not lower the ambient phosphorus concen-
tration in the water because sediment decomposition and
resuspension could keep levels high.
                               4-15
-------
Approximately 10% of all the phosphorus added directly to
Lake Michigan from municipal WWTPs located on its shoreline
comes from the Jones Island and South Shore facilities. They
are the sources of 3% of total phosphorus inputs  (.including
runoff) to the Lake Michigan basin waterways (IJC, 1978) .
In addition, the phosphorus contributed by the WWTPs is more
readily usable by algae than many of the other phosphorus
inputs CUC, 1978) .

The WWTPs also have the localized  effect of enriching the
waters near WWTP outfalls.  Elevated levels of suspended
solids, phosphorus, ammonia, chlorine, dissolved solids, and
temperature are found within 1000 feet C300 m)  of the Jones
Island and South Shore outfalls and within 100 feet  (30 m)
of the outfalls of the School Sisters of Notre Dame, the
Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant, and WEPCO sewage treatment
plants.  In general, the waters of Lake Michigan  (except in
the Outer Harbor) consistently meet the criteria set by the
State of Wisconsin.

4.1.2 Aquatic Biota

One goal of maintaining high water quality is to allow the
native plants and animals to exist in area waters.  To
support fish populations, it is important to maintain a
diverse community of aquatic insects, crustaceans, worms,
and zooplankton.  Different species require different habitat
and water quality.  Generally, a diverse biological community
requires good water quality.  Most game fish species require
dissolved oxygen in excess of 5 mg/1, a low suspended solids
content, and an absence of toxic substances.  Some fish have
more specialized requirements:  a large,  shallow, gravelly
river for spawning; a large, deep, well oxygenated lake for
over-wintering; or a special food source.  Poor water quality
may create an environment in which nuisance algae predominate,

Algae float in water or attach to surfaces in shallow water.
Their growth is stimulated by sunlight, warm temperatures,
and the availablity of nutrients.  When the conditions are
conducive, algal blooms or mats occur, creating a nuisance
to boaters and swimmers as well as an eyesore.

Information on the aquatic flora and fauna that may be
affected by the project are from Becker  (1976), DNR  (un-
published manuscript), MMSD (1979), and Mozley and Howmiller
(1977).

4.1.2.1  Milwaukee River

The invertebrate community found in the Milwaukee River
within the MMSD planning area varies.  In the upper reaches,


                               4-16
-------
pollution-tolerant species including some mayfly and caddisfly
larvae can be found.  Near the mouth of the river, there are
only highly tolerant species, such as sludge worms.  Although
the majority of fish in the river are pollution-tolerant
species like the common shiner, sand shiner, and white
sucker, game fish do inhabit the upper reaches of the river.

The Milwaukee River, at Thiensville, has been reported to
support many game fish species including rock bass, green
sunfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, smallmouth bass, largemouth
bass, and yellow perch.  Rare species, like the shorthead
redhorse, the striped shiner, and the longear sunfish, have
also been found in the river.  The fish benefit from the
river's large size, low suspended solids load, gravelly to
sandy bottom, and abundant invertebrate food supply.
Nuisance algae are not commonly found at Thiensville.

Downstream in the combined sewer overflow area, the level of
dissolved oxygen is often too low and the concentration of
suspended solids too high for many of these fish to survive.
In these reaches, goldfish, carp, and suckers are the
dominant fish species.  The high turbidity limits light
penetration and algal growth, although there is a large
amount of algae in the lower Milwaukee River.

4.1.2.2 Menomonee River

The Menomonee River at Germantown supports warm-water forage
fish like white sucker, carp, minnows, and catfish.  The aquatic
biota of the Menomonee River varies.  In the cleaner, upper
reaches, pollution-intolerant species of algae and benthic
organisms dominate.  The impoundment and the slower, down-
stream reaches of the river are laden with nuisance algae in
the summer and fall.

The portion of the river that receives combined sewer
overflows is, like the Milwaukee River, low in dissolved
oxygen and high in suspended solids and nutrients.  Only
non-sport fish live there, and algal growths are numerous,
limited only by the availability of light.

4.1.2.3 Kinnickinnic River

The water quality of the portion of the Kinnickinnic River
affected by CSO limits the types of fauna that exist there.
A survey carried out by the DNR (1979) found no fish at all
in the river near 6th Street. Algae are abundant in the
Inner Harbor portion of the river.

4.1.2.4 Root River Watershed

The benthic community in the upper reaches of the main stream

                               4-17
-------
and tributaries is reported to be typical of good water
quality conditions, although fair to poor conditions are
reported in the lower reaches.

Tess Corners Creek has been reported to have game fish
(bluegill and bass) and forage fish (white sucker).  It has a
low load of suspended solids and a high dissolved oxygen
content.  The shaded areas over much of its length help to
eliminate extensive growths of nuisance algae, except where
openings in the tree canopy occur.  Whitnall Park Pond is
covered by algal mats in the summer.

The Root River, at the Caddy Vista subdivision, contains
pumpkinseed, largemouth bass, white and black crappie,
yellow perch, and possibly other species of fish.  The river
is small, and the populations are not large.  Nuisance algae
and marsh (emergent) plants are present.

4.1.2.5 Oak Creek

The benthic fauna of Oak Creek consists of pollution-tolerant
organisms.  Fish populations also tend to be species tolerant
of pollution such as fathead minnows,  brook stickleback,
white sucker, and sunfish.  Lake Michigan species such as
alewife, smelt, trout, and salmon have been reported from
the lower reaches of the Oak Creek and hatchery salmon have
been released in the creek.

The MMSD surveyed the North Branch of Oak Creek in 1979, but
no fish were found.  Nuisance algae are common in the channelized
portions of the creek.

4.1.2.6  Deer Creek

The fauna of Deer Creek in the City of New Berlin have not
been surveyed, but due to the intermittent nature of this
stream, it is reasonable to assume that very few fish live
there.  The creek is filled with cattails.

4.1.2.7  Big Muskego Lake

Big Muskego Lake has populations of bluegill, bass,  crappie,
pumpkinseed, and catfish; it also receives northern pike and
walleye from the stocking program at Little Muskego Lake
CDNR 1971; DNR 1969).  Because of its shallowness and the
organic sediments, fish that remain in the main part of Big
Muskego Lake over the winter are subject to low oxygen
concentrations, high ammonia and sulfate levels, and possibly
complete freezing.  The fish that overwinter in Bass Bay (a
deep, connected kettle basin to the northwestl have a greater
chance of survival over the winter, but fish kills occur in
both Bass Bay and Big Muskego Lake.

                               4-18
-------
The lake is fringed with cattail marsh, and there are islands
of cattails throughout the lake.  Almost all of the lake is
shallow enough to permit the growth of aquatic plants like
water lilies.   Algal mats are commonly found near the
shores.

4.1.2.8 Lake Michigan

Nearshore Lake Michigan biota differ from the biota in the
open lake.  Phytoplankton are similar to those found in
eutrophic inland lakes.  The zooplankton and benthic organ-
isms in the near shore area are also typical of enriched
conditions.  Some species of cladocera (water fleas) and
copepods reported in the Outer Harbor are characteristic of
eutrophic inland waters and typical of the mouths of rivers.
Also found in the nearshore portions of Lake Michigan and
the Harbor are benthic animals like Asellus, asonbug, and
some species of scuds  (Gammarys and Hyallela) which are
tolerant of low oxygen and higher temperatures.  Pollution
tolerant caddisflies and mayflies as well as fingernail
clams are also found in the area.  Sludge worms comprise a
majority of the macro-invertebrates in the Harbor.

The Outer Harbor, in the vicinity of the Jones Island WWTP,
is heavily silted, enriched in plant nutrients, and laden
with toxic substances.  Many Lake Michigan fish enter the
harbor area, including the brown trout, coho salmon, and
alewife.  Fishing from the breakwater is a common practice.

Attached algae are prolific on shallow surfaces in the Outer
Harbor as a consequence of elevated levels of phosphorus and
nitrogen in the water  (Lin, 1971) .

At the South Shore plant, there is no breakwater and mixing
with lake water is thorough.  The outfall is 1800 feet (549
m) from the northeast edge of the plant site and it is part
of the habitat for trout, salmon, whitefish, cisco, and
other fish.

If deposition of organic sediment occurred near the outfall,
it could result in increased densities of deposit feeders,
which in turn may result in increased densities of fish that
eat deposit feeders.  These fish are eaten by predaceous
fish like salmon.  At each step in this food chain, persistent
toxic substances like PCBs and pesticides are concentrated
and stored.  Fish caught in Lake Michigan and sold commercially
are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration when
sold for interstate commerce, and by the Wisconsin Division
of Health when sold for intrastate commerce.  The PCB limit
for commercially sold fish allowed under both regulations is
5 parts per million.
                               4-19
-------
Wisconsin Natural Resources/ (.19-791 reports;

     "The Wisconsin Division of Health has advised that fish
     consumers avoid eating more than one meal or % pound
     per week of the fish listed below; and, that lactating
     mothers, expectant mothers, and any females who anticipate
     bearing children, not eat any of these fish.  The
     Division of Health also recommends that children ages 6
     and under not eat these fish:

     Carp from Green Bay and Lake Michigan.

     Trout and salmon over 20 inches long from Green Bay and
     Lake Michigan.

     All species from the lower Fox River downstream from
     Lake Winnebago to Green Bay, except perch and northern
     pike in Little Lake Butte Des Morts.

     Bullheads and whitefish in Southern Green Bay south of
     a line from Pensaukee to Little Sturgeon.

     Catfish, carp and white bass in the Mississippi River
     from Prescott to and including Lake Pepin.

     All species in the Fox River from Portage north to, but
     not including, Buffalo Lake."

A biological sediment survey at the Oak Creek Power Plant
site, located a few miles south of the South Shore WWTP
outfall, indicated the presence of amphipods, isopods,
oligochaetes, chironomids midge larvae, snails, and mayfly
nymphs  (WEPCO, 1974).  These organisms are commonly found
along much of the shore of Lake Michigan.

4.1.3 Threatened or Endangered Species

There are three species of endangered animals that could be
affected by the alternatives of this project:  the longjaw
cisco (Coregonus alpenae) on the Federal list, the striped
shiner  (Notropis chrysocephalus), and the longear sunfish
(Lepomis megalotislon the State list.  The longjaw cisco is
a fish that has been reported to live in the deep waters of
Lake Michigan, but its presence is currently in doubt.

The striped shiner is a fish species that is endangered in
Wisconsin.  It is found in the Milwaukee River upstream of
Lincoln Creek and hardly anywhere else in Wisconsin CBecker,
1976) .  It requires a clean, shallow river for spawning.
                               4-20
-------
The longear sunfish has been reported in the upper reaches
of the Milwaukee River as well; it is a threatened species
in Wisconsin, although it is more common in Michigan.  It
also prefers clean, shallow waters.

Several endangered migratory birds (the bald eagle, the
peregrine falcon, the osprey, and the Cooper's hawk) have
been seen flying by Milwaukee on their annual migrations.
They are not known to nest or roost in the study area.

4.1.4 Air Quality

The quality of ambient air is quantified by measuring the
concentration of pollutants it contains.  Pollutants cur-
rently measured and controlled are suspended particulates,
which consist of dust, smoke, and fumes; sulfur dioxide, a
colorless gas; carbon monoxide, a colorless poisonous gas;
nitrogen dioxide, a reddish brown gas; and ozone, another
toxic gas.

The effects of these pollutants on human health were extensively
studied prior to the setting of emissions or ambient air
quality standards.  Although the effects on human health
vary with each pollutant, the increased frequency of cardio-
vascular or respiratory disease is of greatest significance.
The results of long-term exposure to elevated pollutant
levels can include higher death rates in persons over 50
years old, increased absences of industrial workers, and
significant increases in death rate or illness in the general
population.

Specific locations in the MMSD planning area have been
identified as having air quality below the federal standards
Cnonattainment areas).  In portions of Milwaukee County,
suspended particulate levels are high primarily due to
agricultural tilling and industrial dust Csuch as wind blown
dust from stock piles).  Other area particulate sources are
fuel burning installations (such as power plants) and
automobiles.

Sulfur dioxide standards are exceeded in portions of the
City of Milwaukee.  The primary source of sulfur dioxide is
the burning of fossil fuel.  Carbon monoxide, of which the
major sources are automobiles and trucks, is in violation of
standards in some 85 square miles (220 km^) of Milwaukee
County.  Ozone standards are exceeded in the entire study
area.  Ozone is generated primarily from hydrocarbons and
nitrogen dioxide reacting in sunlight.  Common planning area
sources of hydrocarbons are fuel combustion and solvent use.
Nitrogen dioxide standards are not exceeded in the MMSD
planning region.  The majority of nitrogen dioxide in the
region is emitted from autos and fuel-burning installations.

                               4-21
-------
The Jones Island WWTP is located in an air quality non-
attainment area for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and
ozone.  Air quality data as measured less than one-half mile
(0.8 km) from the plant is shown in Table 4.3.

Air pollutant emissions at the Jones Island WWTP are generated
from turbine generators which produce electricity and from
boilers used to create heat for plant processes.  Each year,
the combined emissions from these sources total approximately
8.5 tons (7.1 metric tons) particulate matter, 17.1 tons
CIS.5 metric tons) carbon monoxide, 13.7 tons  (12.4 metric
tons) sulfur dioxide, 87.7 tons (79.6 metric tons) nitrogen
dioxide, and 6.6 tons (6.0 metric tons) hydrocarbons.

The South Shore WWTP is located in an area which has air
quality attainment for particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur oxides.  It is in the ozone
nonattainment area.  Table 4.3 shows existing air quality as
measured near the South Shore plant, or determined by a
computer-simulation model based on available air quality
data.  The table also compares the existing air quality to
the NAAQS.

The sources of air pollutant emissions at the South Shore
plant are the seven digester gas-fueled stationary engines.
From 1978 to 1979, the emissions from these engines averaged
(per year)  46.4 tons (42.1 metric tons) of carbon monoxide,
94.9 tons (86.2 metric tons) nitrogen dioxide, 134 tons
(.121.6 metric tons) sulfur dioxide, and 138 tons  (125.3
metric tons) hydrocarbons  (Environmental Technology and
Engineering Corp., 1980).

An air pollution alert is the initial response to an emergency
pollution episode.  During the June-September period when
ozone levels are highest, ozone alerts typically occur 4-5
times.  During these alerts, all burning operations are
prohibited and certain industrial operations are restricted.

4.1.5  Odors

Odors cannot be quantitatively measured.  The perception of
odors is subjective, and it can change the longer an individual
is exposed to an odor.  Some of the types and sources of
odors associated with sewerage facilities are shown in
Tables 4.4 and 4.5.  To assess any odor problems associated
with the sewerage system of the planning area, the EIS
relied on DNR records of public complaints.

None of the sewerage facilities, except the South Shore
WWTP, has been cited for odor problems.  In an independent
survey by the DNR of odor complaints between January, 1977


                               4-22
-------
                      (d
                      u
                      •H

                      3  u)
                      JS  4J  .
                      U  flm
                   cu  o  id
                   C  4J  T3  '  .
                   O  0  -H   C"
                   N  £  X   3
                  O  ft  O  -'
                  ro
                  CM
                  n
    in
    ro
CO
                      o
                   0)  -rl
                  T3  4J
                      CU
(U
Cn H   ro
0  id
M  3  C  '  .
4->  G  id  en
                                    VO
                                            o
                                            in
                                    O
                                    o















ro

W
J
§
EH

















<
Q
gg
^
EH
CO

>H
E-i
H
t-3
<
D
0(

OS
H
<

EH
2
U
H
§
lCQ

JH
OS
^
*?•
H
PS
ft
J
<
g
O
H
EH
<
S
Q
z
rf
)J
CO
H

CO
w
2
O
^

EH
rf
&
H
iJ
<
D
01
OS
H
<

O
2
H
EH
CO
H
X
w

Q
J3
j^











id
CO
ft
EH
3j
^

1
H-*
CO

33
O
C/3

Q
2
«*)































CU
•O
X
o
•H
Q

^
£j
(^l
H
3
CO

^1
0)
4-1

id
S

0)
T3
•H
^
O
C
0
S

c

Q
^
id
o

D
•H
4J
01
1
4J
•H
jq
1^

H
id
3
C
5



O
•H

4J



•a
0
•H
^
(U
ft

M
3°.-
O g
K \
en
CO 6











(-•

o.
rH









-—^
CO
S
C <
(d en
cu 3
2«

















U
t-

ro
in







                                                      0
                                                      CD
CU
4J
id
rH
3
CJ
•H
4-)
J^j
id
g
0
CU
o

H

                                           3
                                           0
 M  T3

 S  (0
•H  13

S  |

<;  co
ft
                                                             T!  T!
                                                              C  M
                                                              O  (d
                                                                 •H
                                                                 id
<  to
                                                                              •a

                                                                              (0

                                                                              o
                                                                             o
                                                                              in
                                                                              CN
                                                                              4J
                                                                              C
                                                                              OJ
                                                                              •H
                                                                                         (U
                                                                                         J<<
                                                                                         3
                                                            4J  (1)
                                                            C  3
                                                            (d  C
                                                            -M  0)
                                                            3  >
                                                                                      CU
                                                                                         3
                                                                                         O
                                                                                      >  to
                                                                                     •H
                                                                                     s
                                                                                         c  c
                                                                                         CO  0
                                                                                         > -H
                                                                                         
-------







fl
"=•§>
If
2fc
„ ts "3
•f®"^
fl^ u S
o S
^»
•H
0)

"
t3 g £
*! U
>>
Ji
» H—
§2
*£ "S <-^
•|| |
S s -S
at P
f-
lie"
S * a
* S *"•*
D p
S
S"» a
g a
£•


Characteristic Odor




.3
3
0
tfc























0"° 0 N N '*"° S S 2
V *>• tx *f> *)• CO N O CO O


ONncog eo co g £ g
,'>1J;'
£ := .5 .§ .£•-£ £ >•<
OPQaCaa w .

4








^ in 3
^ TH CO 00 Ct
H co *f f ^
H


r £•* oo ?* £
•51 r^ 0






a o u
M N C





^
N O
0 0 1
d d i


^
p
i i 10 c
1 1 d c

u
f
tH rH TH C
MOO C
O O O E
o o a c
S
/s
Putrid, fishy
Decayed cabbage
Irritating above 2 pi
I T 1 f


3
a
3
C,
4


o 2 co

M H? IY? *•
j1 u cj o" c.


i j
& i
« S i
.£ flj '
a *
3 ^1 "
3 0 « °
5 S S 6 c

-24








3 m a tx
3 CO Q3 TH ^*
s 00 tv CC CO


^ 00 CD 03 O
3 « ri CO 1-1
ri 
j g
^i fc, ^i
^ « cs
•I5 ^T* E 2- ^*
3 2 cJcjw


|
i. o
d •a
j *s
^ X
) CJ _O
" 'o e to ^
£ '£'•£ 2 3
= 1 'i,JS ?
h 0. & W C/3







OJ
^»
K*
25352 5
§1" O r-> O
N ri O 0-
i-1 F-I r^ l^

it
a
IB in o o) S
CO O) tv 00 5B
i-l rl ly
K
Cf5
^
i
V,
«*^
~J ?i
O ~
C^ Q
K-» ~
^ z
O UJ
O 0
i * o y
0 1*
-a
(jT'g
O5 f » S
qo o Z
00 Q. <
s s
LL)
oo 3 "
o T-H o o:
o o o o O
d d d d <"


*{ >
1 -S»
3s1"
g-S^S
5 a a a
3 fa 00 -g
•S-S"0" e
c e -r- E
3 3 i: 5
J< J^ 3 «
CO W Oc <




to
a •„
• IZ
CJ CJ "^ ^
»— * » *"«
rt rfa Hrt
»E "T" -- N
CJ y r?0
e
2
a.
a
u
b
01 CO
2 _.S
51 1§
s 8J2-S,
M o a.J=
— 00-5
f^ — • — ,,S
«££ =
f- f_ f- f_


a
c
c
a
0) .—
S <-,
-Q \/^
O —
* 9
co S QJ
a r—
I |tt
S CL [^
>***™*Jlr
jr^^j M IT
/S**\^^B
I ^**. ^•^^F
( /J» r i.^
V^HIr^
^3^^
v^^_^-X














0)
LU
O
z
cn

CD
cy>
C75
ID
O
tr
0
a
0


















a
t c
j LU C
-------





(0
Uj
s*1g
__ 6 S O
J-8 a 4
w 2

la
E's,
Js W
a « •
0 a —
"S ° "a
qB,
£,.5
ll
"3
u _ •
iis
Sit: •§
o3
0
c
0)
1 '5

° 0
s s ,H
co " HI
Q .—-
Uj UJ I_
i 1 00
O oc Oft

/Zs\$£
i V^. ^"^^^
Uj^'O
^^L-^


Q.
3
UJ
>
5
^
^£
CO
o:
O
Q
o
UJ
cc
UJ
X
^
CO
UJ
H
CO

CO

cc
UJ
H
s
UJ
1-
co
1
CO
z
o
LOCATI
5
to 2
UJ Q
CD I- Q
^ Q
-------
and April, 1978, of the 963 complaints that were registered,
the South Shore WWTP received 167, the second highest number
in the survey.  The cause of the odors at the South Shore
WWTP is poor sludge digestion which allows unstabilized
sludge to be pumped to outdoor storage.  Since residential
areas are located to the north and west of the WWTP, odors
from this inadequately treated sludge have been a nuisance.
Also, the two other most frequently-cited (DNR survey)
sources of odors, the Peter Cooper Factory and Hynite Corp.,
are located within one-half mile of the WWTP, and they may
account for some odors attributed to the South Shore WWTP.

The Jones Island WWTP is an older facility and it is sus-
ceptible to odors because technology available at the time
of its construction is now outdated.  Also,  the WWTP receives
a large volume of sewage from animal and grain proccessing
plants, and this type of waste is particularly prone to
creating odors.  However, Jones Island is located near a
heavily industrial area and odors from the WWTP have not
been cited as a significant concern to the surrounding
community. The WWTP is located near a recreational area, the
Summerfest Grounds.  Odors emitting from the Jones Island
facility could potentially disturb activities at this site.

In addition to the treatment facilities, the rivers in the
Inner Harbor area have been cited for odors.

4.1.6 Geology

Wisconsin has a long history of geologic activity attributed
to glaciers.  The most recent period of glaciation in
Wisconsin occurred approximately 22,000 years ago.  The
geology of the planning area is largely the result of glacial
processes, including the erosion of the original bedrock,
glacial deposition of rock and sediment materials, and post-
glacial erosion and deposition by surface waters and wind.
The product of these processes is a surface layer of glacial
drift, which is any rock material, such as boulders, gravel,
sand, or clay that was transported or deposited by glacial
ice or meltwaters.  The glacial drift deposits in this
region vary in thickness from approximately 20 feet (6m) to
200  (60 m) feet.  Underlying the glacial drift are sedimentary
bedrock formations which were formed more than 225 million
years ago, in the Paleozoic era of geological time.  These
upper bedrock deposits are generally dense,  non-porous
dolomite, but also include limestone, interbedded sandstone,
and shale.

The Paleozoic bedrock, together with the Precambrian rock
beneath it, form a dome-like structure to the west of the
City of Milwaukee called the Wisconsin Arch.  From the Arch,
                               4-26
-------
the bedrock dips slightly eastward to southeastward toward a
bedrock depression in Michigan's lower penninsula, known as
the Michigan Basin.  The glacial drift deposits at the
surface follow this sloping contour of bedrock.  Beneath the
Paleozoic rock, the older Precambrian rock is both igneous
(formed by intense heat) and metamorphic  (formed in response
to an environment altered by pressure, heat, and chemical
substances).  This bedrock includes granite and quartzite.
It does not outcrop within the planning area.

4.1.7 Topography

The planning area is characterized by rolling to flat topo-
graphy.  The moderate slopes of the region are the result of
glacial ice which altered the earth's surface through erosion
and deposition.  In the urban areas surrounding and including
the City of Milwaukee, the land generally rises less than
10% from horizontal, which is considered favorable to most
forms of urban development and expansion.  Shallow slopes
present fewer engineering and technical difficulties for
construction than slopes steeper than 12%.  Areas along Lake
Michigan and further out from the urbanized Milwaukee area
contain slopes ranging to 25%.  High-angled slopes increase
runoff and erosion rates during periods of heavy rainfall.

The Kettle Moraine, formed by the geologic processes of
glacial ice, is just west of the planning area.  The greatest
elevation there is 1320 feet  (402 m) above mean sea level at
Holy Hill in Washington County.  The lower elevations occur
near the shores of Lake Michigan and are approximately 580
feet (177 m) above mean sea level.  Within the planning
area, especially in the western portion, elevations reach
900 feet (274 m).

The Milwaukee, Kinnickinnic, and Menomonee Rivers transect
the planning area and drain to Lake Michigan via the Milwaukee
Harbor.  These river valleys range in elevation from 580 to
640 feet (177 - 195 m) above mean sea level.  As a sub-
continental divide crosses the western portion of the
planning area (.generally NW to SE) , the Fox River and its
associated tributaries drain to the Fox River watershed
rather than to Lake Michigan.  The elevation of the Fox
River basin is approximately 810 - 820 feet (247 - 250 m).

4.1.8 Soils

The movement of the glaciers in Wisconsin during the Ice
Ages was chiefly responsible for the types of soil found in
the planning area.  Soils differ by composition, depth, and
drainage ability.  The characteristics of the soils determine
their suitability for certain uses; shifting soils will not


                               4-27
-------
support some kinds of construction and poorly drained soils
are unsuitable for on-site septic systems.   (Figure 4.3
shows areas in the planning area that are unsuitable for
septic systems on lots less than one acre.)

The soils in Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties are underlain
by silt loam and silty clay.  These soils range from being
well drained to somewhat poorly drained, and in low areas,
drainage and flood protection are needed.  Generally, the
soils are poorly suited for on-site septic systems.  Most of
the area has soils well suited for farming.  However, some
of the soils require costly preparation if used for founda-
tions or roads.

Another major soil type in Milwaukee and Washington Counties
is a silt loam or silty clay loam soil on top of sandy loam.
These soils are well drained, but drainage patterns are
irregular, slightly limiting their use for onsite sewage
disposal.  These soils are stable and only slightly limited
for construction.

4.1.9  Groundwater

The area surrounding, and including, Milwaukee is underlain
by three major aquifers (water-bearing geologic formations)
found in the following sequential rock layers:  Surficial
sand and gravel deposits (0 to 400 feet, 0-122 m, thick)
deposited by glaciers, Niagara dolomite  (0 to 500 feet, 0-
152 m, thick), and sandstone formations  (more than 1,500
feet, 457 m, thick)  (see Figure 4.4).

The aquifers in the glacial sand and gravel deposits and the
Niagara dolomite are hydrologically connected within the
study area, and function together as a single, shallow,
unconfined aquifer, although some portions of the Niagaran
aquifer are confined  (under pressure).   (An unconfined
aquifer is one in which the water table forms the upper
boundary.)

The Niagaran formation is mainly dense dolomite and ground-
water is transported through the formation by means of
fissures and bedding planes.  This shallow aquifer is separated
from the deeper sandstone aquifer by a layer of sedimentary
rock known as the Maquoketa shale.  The Maquoketa shale
serves as a barrier and prevents water from passing easily
from one aquifer to the other.  The shallow aquifer is
recharged  (replenished) locally by downward percolation of
surface water, and normal discharge is to wells, streams,
and Lake Michigan.
                               4-28
-------
                                                                                         LEGEND	


                                                                                      STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                                      COUNTY LINE

                                                                                      CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                                      WATER: RIVERS,CREEKS,ETC.

                                                                                      MAJOR HIGHWAYS

                                                                                      SOILS HAVING SEVERE OR VERY
                                                                                      SEVERE LIMITATION FOR RESI-
                                                                                      DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT USIN6
                                                                                      SEPTIC SYSTEM WASTEWATER
                                                                                      DISPOSAL ON LOTS LESS THAN
                                                                                      ONE ACRE IN SIZE


                                                                                      INFORMATION
                                                                                      NOT AVAILABLE
IGURE


    4-3

ATE


APRIL 1981
SMALL  LOT SEPTIC  SYSTEM

           SUITABILITY
SOURCE MMSD and  SEWRPC


PREPARED BY

       EcolSciences
        ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
                    WACOUNTY MILWAUKEE COUNTY
             lOOOi
              800-
           UJ
           >
           UJ
UJ
CO

z

UJ
z


o

UJ
o
Q
Z

UJ

o
m
           UJ
           u.
                                                  u- HOOO
                                                     800
                                                                600
                                                                400
           UJ
           _l
           UJ
                                      %* i. i wiwit •*••»*•-•-•-«*•- •» •
                                      8585SANDSTONES 3&

                                                                       LEGEND
                                                                       GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY
                                                                       (YIELD IN GALLONS PER MINUTE)
                                                                   OVER 300
                                                                   GOOD AQUIFER

                                                                   50-300
                                                                   MODERATE TO GOOD AQUIF

                                                                   5-49
                                                                   POOR TO FAIR AQUIFER
                                                                              NOT AN AQUIFER
                                                                              LITTLE OR NO WATER
                                                          UJ

                                                          UJ
                                                                     UJ
                                                                     CO
                                                                     UJ
                                                                     3
                                                                     UJ
                                                                     CD
                                                                     UJ

                                                                     O
                                                                     CD
                                                                     t-
                                                                     UJ
                                                          UJ
                                                          _i
                                                          UJ


                         mSmmPRECAMBRIAN  ROCK;;
              1600-::!
              1800-S
  2000-^
                                                              HORIZONTAL
                                                                 I      2
                                                                                     SCALE
                                                                                        3
                    4 Ml
                                                    :-ISOO
                                                     .1600
                  VERTICAL  EXAGGERATION 26:1
                                                                2000
FIGURE

    4-4
DATE

 APRIL 1981
        AQUIFERS OF THE PLANNING  AREA
              (A typical cross section)
                                                               SOURCE  U.S.G.S.
PREPARED BY
       EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
The deep sandstone aquifer is confined between the Maquoketa
shale and deeper crystalline rock, both of which are resistant
to water penetration.  Recharge to the sandstone aquifer
occurs primarily by downward percolation at points where the
sandstone formation reaches the surface, west of the City of
Milwaukee.  Groundwater movement is eastward, toward the
City of Milwaukee.  A limited amount of percolation occurs
from the Niagara dolomite through the Maquoketa shale and by
means of wells open to both formations.  The sandstone
aquifer generally discharges through deep wells for industrial,
municipal, commercial, and domestic uses.  In southeastern
Wisconsin, records between 1960 and 1970 show the deep
sandstone aquifer provided 65% and the shallow aquifers
provided 35% of groundwater used.  Recent estimates show
that the deep sandstone aquifer has been accommodating most
of the increased groundwater usage that is occurring.

Groundwater in the planning area is considered to be of
generally good quality.  However, it is very hard and may
have localized high concentrations of chloride and iron.
All three aquifers have similar concentrations of calcium,
silica, magnesium, and dissolved solids.  The deepest
aquifer has the smallest concentrations of chloride, sodium,
and potassium while the uppermost aquifer has the smallest
concentration of sulfate.

4.1.10  Floodplains

The floodplain of a river is a relatively wide area contiguous
to, and often lying on both sides of, its channel.  The
floodplain, which is generally flat or gently sloping, is
gradually formed over a long period of time as the river
meanders through, and slowly erodes, its surrounding area.
Normally, a river or stream will overflow its channel about
once every two years.

Because of high water tables, flood hazards, and limited
soil capabilities, floodplains are not suitable for urban
development.  They often contain valuable wetland, woodland,
and wildlife habitat areas.  Also, floodplains have important
floodwater conveyance and storage functions, and hence must
be considered an integral part of a stream system.

Each community in the planning area has delineated the
floodplain which would be covered by water by the largest
flood expected to occur about once every 100 years (the 100-
year floodplain).  These are shown in Figure 4.5.  To prevent
flood damage, new structures may only be built on the flood-
plain if they are floodproof and if they will not raise the
flood level.  One treatment plant, the New Berlin Regal
Manors WWTP, is located on a floodplain (the Deer Creek
floodplain, a tributary of the Fox River).

                               4-31
-------
                                                                                    LEGEND	





                                                                                  STUDY AREA BOUNDARY


                                                                                  COUNTY JNE



                                                                                  CORPORATE BOUNDARIES


                                                                            —- —•~  WATER RIVERS CREEKS, ETC



                                                                                  WfeJOR HIQHW6TS




                                                                            K.*..^..'.'.'l  100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
                                       V^ OZAUKEE  COlftiTY

                                       1'WtWAUKEE   'COUNTY




                                       i
FIGURE


    4-5

DATE



 APRIL 1981
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAINS
PREPARED BY
                                                  SOURCE  MMSD and SEWRPC
                                                         EcolSciences
                                                         ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
4.1.11 Wetlands

Wetlands  [marshes, swamps, bogs, or peatlandsl are valuable
natural areas, providing habitat for a variety of plants and
animals as well as flood control, groundwater recharge, and
surface water cleansing.  The location of wetlands in the
planning area is shown in Figure 4.6.  The marsh surrounding
Big Muskego Lake, adjacent to the Muskego Northwest WWTP could
be affected by the MFP. The dominant vegetation species on
this marsh are reeds and cattails. Deer are abundant on this
marsh, especially near the surrounding woods.  The marsh
plants take up some of the nutrients that are added to the
lake by the treatment plant and agricultural runoff.  The Root
River Interceptor could affect a small wetland located south
of Morgan Avenue in the City of Greenfield.  The wetland is
described as a former agricultural field currently in a stage
of old field succession.

4.1.12 Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife habitat includes the woodlands, wetlands, and
prairie in the planning area that support various forms of
wildlife.  This discussion focuses on those habitats that
disappear most rapidly with encroaching development.

Figure 4.6 shows the woodlands, wetlands, and prairie in the
planning area.  Most of the habitat is found in the peri-
pheral areas, with some near recent urbanization in New
Berlin, Muskego, Franklin, and Oak Creek.  In addition, much
of the shoreline bluff of Lake Michigan, which is too steep
for development, has remained natural and serves as habitat
for birds and small mammals.  The bluff area north of the
South Shore WWTP is such a habitat.

The site of the proposed New Berlin Southeast Treatment
Plant is an abandoned farm that has old-field vegetation
mixed with young woodlots.  Its chief value to wildlife is
its size  C5500 acres, 2226 ha, of contiguous land).  In
addition, the varied nature of the vegetation and the
potential for the woods to mature over the planning period
contributes to the value of this wildlife habitat.

The Muskego Northwest WWTP is located just off the marshes
that fringe Big Muskego Lake.  These extensive wetlands
support a large deer population as well as a large number of
small mammals and birds.

The floodplain of Tess Corners Creek in Muskego and Franklin
is wooded for much of its length.  It is a valuable roosting
area for birds and travelling corridor for small mammals.
                               4-33
-------
                                                                              LEGEND

                                                                            STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                            COUNTY UNE
                                                                            CORPORATE BOUNDARIES
                                                                            WATER RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC
                                                                            MAJOR HIGHWAYS
                                                                            WOODLANDS
                                                                            WETLANDS
                                                                            COASTAL ZONE
                                                                            PRAIRIE
FIGURE
    4-6
DATE
 APRIL 1981
WOODLANDS, WETLANDS, AND PRAIRIE
      PRIMARY REFERENCE MAP
SOURCE MMSDondSEWRPC
PREPARED BY
      EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
The site of the proposed Muskego WWTP is an abandoned farm
that adjoins a stand of old oak trees.  The stand is only a
few acres, but it has some trees that are in excess of 24
inches,  C61 cm) in diameter.

4.2  MANMADE ENVIRONMENT

4.2.1  Legal and Regulatory Environment

There are many laws, rules, and regulations involved in the
initiation and implementation of the proposed Master Facilities
Plan.  The MMSD must meet the requirements of federal and
state laws and the regulations which implement the laws, as
well as the requirements set forth in two court orders.
Table 4.6 lists the implementing rules and regulations which
carry out the mandates of the legislation affecting the MFP.
Facilities plans must meet the requirements of both the
federal and state rules included in this table.

4.2.1.1  Judicial Requirements

As detailed in Chapter 2 of this EIS, two court orders have
imposed legal requirements on the MMSD.  The U.S. District
Court of Northern Illinois, which was partially reversed by
the Federal Appeals Court, imposed the requirements for
meeting discharge permits limits, eliminating bypassing from
the separated sewers system, and eliminating CSO   according
to a strict timetable.  The Dane County Circuit Court
stipulation requires the rehabilitation of treatment plants,
construction and rehabilitation of relief and interceptor
sewers, solids management, the elimination of overflows and
bypasses in the separated system and the abatement of CSO
according to a timetable less stringent than the Federal
Court order.

4.2.1.2  Major Legislative Requirements

The legislation affecting the MFP most directly are the
Federal Clean Water Act and Chapters 144 and 147 of the
Wisconsin Statutes.  The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
(Public Law 95-217} establishes the policy of cleaning up
the Nation's waters.  The Clean Water Act included, "whenever
attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,  and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water to
be achieved by July 1, 1983."  The Clean Water Act sets
standards for water quality, establishes a permit system for
control of pollutant discharges and areawide planning for
wastewater treatment, requires permits for construction in
navigable waters, and authorizes a construction grants
program to assist municipalities in financing the costs of
pollution abatement.

                               4-35
-------
                           TABLE 4.6
                    LAWS AND REGULATIONS **
Federal

Clean Water Act of 1977
National Historic Preservation Act of 1974
Architecture and Historic Preservation Act of 1974
The Clean Air Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958
Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management
National Environmental Policy Act
Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Noise Control Act of 1972
Federal Soil and Water Resources Act of 1977
Solid Waste Disposal Act (1973)
Water Resources Planning Act  (1965)
Relocation Assistance Act
Executive Order 11593 - Protection of the Cultural Environment
Presidential Memorandum on Environmental Quality and Water
   Resources Management.  July 12, 1978
Wisconsin

*Chapter 144, Wis. Stats.

*Chapter 147, Wis. Stats.


*Chapter 30, Wis. Stats.

Chapter 29.415, Wis. Stats.

Chapter 1.11, Wis. Stats.
NR 1.95, Wis. Adm. Code
NR 3, Wis. Adm. Code

NR 102, Wis. Adm. Code
NR 104, Wis. Adm. Code
NR 108, Wis. Adm. Code

*NR 110, Wis. Adm. Code
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
112,
114,
121,
128,
150,
157,
160,
185,
200,
201,
210,
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Adm.
Code
Code
Code
Code
Code
Code
Code
Code
Code
Code
Code
NR 214, Wis,
Local
Adm. Code
plan approval, PCB, grants,
standards, well approval
discharge permits, monitoring,
policy, effluent limits, public
notice
structures, fills or dredging in
navigable waters including wetland
endangered and threatened species
protection
environmental review
wetland policy
discharge permit, public
participation
water quality standards
water quality standards designatio
general wastewater system
requirements
sewer extensions, plans, design,
disinfection, phosphorus removal,
sludge management
dewatering well approval
operator certification
areawide water quality plans
grants
environmental review, EIS
PCB
federal grant priority list
solid waste management
discharge permit applications
discharge permit fact sheet
effluent limits, disinfection,
monitoring
land disposal of liquid wastes
zoning, building permits
*Permits/approvals required

**This is a partial list of regulations that apply most directly
  to the MFP projects
                   4-36
-------
The National Environmental Policy Act  (NEPA)  (Public Law 91-
190) requires environmental review of proposed federal
actions and establishes the requirement for the preparation
of environmental impact statements.  Chapter  2 of this EIS
explains the requirements of NEPA in greater  detail.

At the state level, Chapter 144 of the Wisconsin Statutes
has established water quality and solid waste disposal
standards, and requires DNR approval of plans for WWTPs, air
emissions, and potable water wells.  In addition, the Wisconsin
Fund Grant Program was authorized to assist municipalities
in the design and construction of wastewater  treatment
facilities.

Chapter 147, Wisconsin Statutes, establishes  Wisconsin's
water quality goals, sets up effluent limits, requires dis-
charge permits, establishes policy and monitoring requirements,
and requires public notice of permits to be issued.

Chapter 1.11, Wisconsin Statutes, the Wisconsin Environmental
Policy Act  (WEPA), requires environmental review of state
actions and establishes the requirement for EIS preparation.
It also is discussed in Chapter 2.

4.2.1.3  Additional Legislative Requirements

Other federal legislation which affects the MFP includes the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, which requires involve-
ment by the Department of the Interior in federal actions;
the River and Harbor Act of 1899, which regulates outfall
structures and other structures in navigable waters; and the
Coastal Zone Management Act.  The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, PL 94-580, requires the EPA to provide regulations
on safe and proper disposal of solid wastes including sewage
sludge.

The National Historic Preservation Act also affects the
facilities planning.  On September 11, 1979,  the West Plant
of the Jones Island WWTP was determined to be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places.  In accordance
with regulations for the Protection of Historical and Cultural
Properties  (36 CFR Part 800), the EPA must avoid creating
any adverse impact to any property on the National Register.
Therefore, the EPA prepared a Preliminary Case Report for
the proposed rehabilitation and expansion of the Jones
Island WWTP.  This report included measures for avoiding
adverse impacts to the WWTP.  The Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation has commented on the Case Report to
ensure that all impacts would be avoided or mitigated in a
satisfactory manner.  After the Advisory Council determined
that the Jones Island WWTP would not be adversely affected,
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)  was developed by the MMSD,


                              4-37
-------
EPA, DNR, State Historic Preservation Officer CSHPO), and
the Advisory Council.  The MOA outlines the actions to avoid
or mitigate adverse impacts to the WWTP and specifies those
adverse effects that would be acceptable.  The MOA has been
signed by the EPA and included in Section 5.2.10 of this
EIS.

4.2.1.4  Permits and Approvals

In order to proceed with the proposed MFP, the MMSD must
obtain permits and approvals from federal and state agencies
empowered to administer the legislative authorities listed
above.  The MFP cannot proceed without these permissions,
and the requirement for some of them initiated the NEPA and
WEPA processes which culminated in this EIS.

The MFP must be approved by the EPA and DNR according to the
provisions of the Clean Water Act and Chapter 144.  This
approval will make the MMSD eligible for design and construction
grants from EPA and DNR under the CWA and Wisconsin Statutes.

Discharge permits for WWTPs must be issued by the DNR, both
under the authority of Chapter 147, Wisconsin Statutes, and
delegated federal authority.  The effluent limits set by
those permits are imposed to meet the water quality standards
authorized by the CWA and Chapter 144 as implemented by
federal and state regulations.  Sewer system improvements
and certain aspects of treatment (sludge management and
solid waste landfills) also require permits and approvals by
DNR under the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Federal and State permits are also required for Master
Facilities Plan projects involving dredging or filling
navigable waters and wetlands, locating outfall structures,
or construction involving stream crossings.  The Army Corps
of Engineers issues the Federal permits which are outlined
in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Chapter 10 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1899.  The DNR issues a separate
permit which is described in Chapter 30 of the Wisconsin
Statutes.

4.2.1.5  Other Agencies

Other state agencies have regulatory power over aspects of
the MFP.  The Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer
Protection requires agricultural impact statements for
projects affecting agricultural lands.  The Department of
Industry, Labor and Human Relations regulates plumbing and
worker safety  (the Federal Occupational Safety and Health
Act) .
                              4-38
-------
4.2.1.6  Other Environmental Concerns

4.2.1.6.1  Wetlands;  To protect the Nation's wetlands,
Executive Order 11990 was issued in May, 1977.  This order
encourages Federal agencies to take the leadership in pro-
tecting wetlands.  All federally sponsored or funded programs
shall minimize the destruction of these valuable areas.

4.2.1.6.2  Floodplain Management;  In recognition of the
importance and sensitivity of floodplains, Executive Order
11988 was issued in May, 1977 to encourage all federal
agencies to avoid construction in floodplains, whenever
possible.  In addition, Chapter 87.30 of the Wisconsin
Statutes regulates the construction of wastewater treatment
of conveyance facilities in the floodway or flood fringe.
Treatment plants in the flood fringe must be protected from
flood waters and be accessible by road from high ground.
Sewers in the flood fringe must be water tight.  Construction
activities in flood fringes require special precautions.

4.2.1.6.3  Threatened and Endangered Species;  The United
States Department of the Interior lists species of animals
and plants that are in danger of extinction so that steps
can be taken to protect them.  The DNR prepares a similar
list of endangered species in Wisconsin.  Both lists include
two classifications:  threatened species and endangered
species.  Endangered species are those that might soon
become extinct.  Threatened species are those that might
soon be endangered.  Species on the Wisconsin Endangered and
Threatened Species list are those whose existence in Wisconsin
is in jeopardy.  Species on the Federal list are in danger
in all or a significant portion of their range (DNR Pub 1-
1520 80).

4.2.1.6.4  Recreation;  Although EPA sewage treatment funds
cannot be used to fund recreation projects, the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) provides funding
for recreational facilities through its Land and Water
Conservation Program CLAWCON) and Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Program.  The Wisconsin DNR funds recreational
projects, including multiple use projects in some circumstances,
through the Outdoor Recreation Act Program (ORAP) and administers
the Federal LAWCON funds for the State of Wisconsin.  The
Block Grant Assistance Program under the Department of
Housing and Urban Development may also be a source of funding
for recreational programs associated with water pollution
control.

Recreational grant programs have eligibility requirements
which a community must meet before specific projects can be
funded by HCRS or the state.  These federal and state grants


                               4-39
-------
will enable a community to enhance their local recreational
programs.  Communities interested in general information on
LAWCON Programs and dual use facilities should contact the
Heritage Conservation and Recreational Service, Lake Central
Region in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  For further information on
the eligibility requirements for LAWCON or ORAP funds, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in Madison,
Wisconsin should be contacted.  Also, for information on
block grants, contact Community Planning and Development, in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

4.2.1.6.5  Air Quality;  The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency established national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for five criteria pollutants in 1971 (see Table 4.7).
Primary standards were determined to protect public health
and secondary standards to protect public welfare (the en-
vironment) .  Some of the secondary standards are the same as
the primary standards.  The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
placed emphasis on attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

4.2.1.7  Regional Planning Considerations

The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC) is the designated planning agency for the areawide
water quality (208) plan for Southeastern Wisconsin.  The
SEWRPC Region comprises seven counties:  Kenosha, Milwaukee,
Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha.  The
MMSD planning area lies within the SEWRPC Region and com-
prises all of Milwaukee County and adjacent portions of
Waukesha, Washington, Racine and Ozaukee Counties.

In compliance with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, the
water quality management plan sets forth general recommendations
to abate nonpoint sources of pollution to a level which
would allow recommended water quality standards to be achieved.
Prior to implementation of a nonpoint source control program,
the water quality management plan recommends that a detailed
nonpoint source control plan be prepared by local government
management agencies.

4.2.1.7.1  Land Use;  The quality of waters in the planning
area is affected by the type, intensity, and distribution of
land uses.  Agricultural runoff has different characteristics
than runoff from urban areas.  Industrial wastewater may
differ from residential wastewater.  Densely populated areas
have greater capacity sewer systems than undeveloped areas.
Thus, to evaluate the impacts of any alternative considered
for the MFP, it is necessary to analyze existing and planned
land use.
                               4-40
-------
                                           TABLE 4.7
POLLUTANT

Particulate Matter
   (PM)
Sulfur Oxides  (SO '.
   (measured as
   sulfur dioxide)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Hydrocarbons (HC)
   (nonmethane
   measured as
   methane)

Nitrogen Dioxide
   (NO )
Oxone  (0 )
         x
Lead
                       SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
                      ISSUED APRIL  30, 1971, AND REVISED SEPTEMBER  15,  1973
                                      AND FEBRUARY 8, 1979

                                                            CONCENTRATION
                                             (weight of pollutant per  cubic meter of ambient ai
                                             corrected to 25 C and  760 millimeters of mercury)
PERIOD OF
MEASUREMENT
OR CALCULATION

Annual
(geometric mean)
24 hour

Annual
(arithmetic mean)
24 hour

3 hour
                                            PRIMARY STANDARD
75 micrograms ,
260 micrograms
                          SECONDARY STANDARD
60 micrograms
150 micrograms
80 micrograms             —
(0.03 part per million
365 micrograms
                       b
(0.14 part per million)   1,300 micrograms
8 hour

1 hour


3 hour
(6 a.m. to 9 a.m.)  (0.24 part per million)'
10 milligrams
(9 parts per million)
40 milligrams         .
(35 parts per million)

160 micrograms
Annual
(arithmetic mean)

1 hour
                        3 months
100 micrograms
(0.05 per million)

235 micrograms
(0.12 part per million)
              b
1.5 micrograms
(0.5 part per million)

Same as Primary

Same as Primary


Same as Primary
Same as Primary


Same as Primary


Same as Primary
 Concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year.

 Formerly expressed as photochemical oxidants.

 Concentration not to be exceeded more than one hour averaged over any consecutive
 three-year period.

Source:  40 CFR 50:  National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.
                              4-41
-------
4.2.1.7.2  Existing Land Use:  Figure 4.7 shows the location
of existing land uses in the planning area.  In 1970,
1,170,022 persons resided in this 418 square mile  (.1083 Km2)
area.  More than one-half (54%) of the land in the planning
area is developed: 26% for residential use and the rest for
transportation routes, industry, commerce, or recreation.
The remainder of the land is undeveloped, and the majority
(31%) is used for agriculture. The rest  C15%) is water,
wetland, woodland, or unused land.  Table 4.8 shows the
amount of existing land use by type, in the MMSD planning
area.

For further information about land use, see the MMSD System
Plan-EA, Chapter 4.  Section 3.13 of the CSO Appendix to
this EIS discusses land use in the Combined Sewer Service
Area in greater detail.

The original source for the statistical information on
existing and planned land use is the SEWRPC Planning Report
NO. 25, Volumes 1 and 2.  This report is one element of the
SEWRPC Regional Water Quality Management  (208) Plan for
Southeastern Wisconsin.

4.2.1.7.3:  Land Use Planning;  In addition to preparing an
inventory of existing land uses, SEWRPC has developed a
recommended land use plan for the year 2000, shown in Figure
4.8.  This plan allocates future land use within each county
of the Region based on forecast population levels.  The year
2000 plan advocates altering the recent trend of urban
sprawl, and returning to a centralized pattern of medium
density, contiguous development in planned neighborhood
units.

The design of the year 2000 plan incorporates three general
guidelines:


     New urban development should occur at medium density in
     planned neighborhood units in areas readily provided
     with essential urban services such as sanitary sewers,
     water supply, and mass transit.


     No urban development should take place on land desig-
     nated as a primary environmental corridor  Cwetlands,
     woodland, 100-year floodplain, or wildlife habitat) .
     New urban development should not be allowed in areas
     delineated as prime agricultural land.
                               4-42
-------
                                                                                                        LEGEND
                                                                                             ——  STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                                             — —  COUNTY LINE
                                                                                             	  CORPORATE BOUNDARIES
                                                                                             —	  WATER'RIVERS.CREEKS, ETC.
                                                                                               19     MAJOR HIGHWAYS
                                                                                             P	1  LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0.2-2.2
                                                                                             I	J  DWELLING UNITS PER NONRES ACRE)
                                                                                                     MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(2.3-69
                                                                                                     DWELLING UNITS PER NET RES. ACRE)
                                                                                                     HIGH DENSITY RESIOENTIALI70-I7.9
                                                                                                     DWELLING UNITS PER NET RES. ACRE)
                                                                                                     MAJOR PUBLIC OUTDOOR
                                                                                                     RECREATION SITE
                                                                                                     PUBLIC AIRPORT
                                                                                                     MAJOR INDUSTRIAL
                                                                                                     MAJOR RETAIL AND SERVICE
                                                                                                          60OO   I2OQO
                                                                                                          •n—pr"
                                                                                                      SCALE IN FEET
                      Ur
IGURE
    4-7
ATE
APRIL 1981
EXISTING LAND  USE - 1975
SOURCE MMSD and SEWRPC
PREPARED  BY
        EcolSciences
         ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
          Use

Residential
Transportation/Utilities
Recreation
Government/Institutional
Industrial
Offstreet Parking
Commercial

Total Developed

Agriculture
Water/Wetlands
Unused Lands
Woodlands
Extractive

Total Undeveloped

Planning Area Total
                                TABLE 4.8
                           PRESENT AND FUTURE
                                LAND USE
                            MMSD PLANNING AREA
1975
Acres
69,741
41,384
12,211
9,180
6,073
4,255
3,685
146,499
82,151
15,008
13,059
10,061
1,254
%
26%
15
5
3
2
1
1
(53%)
31
6
5
4
1
121,533 (47)%

268,032 100%
1985
Acres %
73,577
42,775
12,577
9,246
7,128
4,605
3,792
153,700
77,336
13,054
12,690
9,972
1,253
114,305
268,005
27%
16
5
3
3
2
1
(57%)
28
5
5
4
1
(43%)

2000
Acres %
84,211
46,257
12,905
9,538
8,291
5,095
3,940
170,237
65,072
13,056
9,678
8,709
1,253
32%
17
5
4
3
2
1
(64%)
23
5
4
3
1
 97,768 (36%)

268,005
Source:  MMSD System Plan EA Table 4-13A
                                   4-44
-------
                                                                                                           LEGEND



                                                                                                        STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                                                        COUNTY LINE

                                                                                                        CORPORATE BOUNDARIES

                                                                                                        WATER RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC

                                                                                                        MAJOR HIGHWAYS
                                                                                                        SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (02-06
                                                                                                        DWELLING UNITS PER NET RES ACRE)


                                                                                                        LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (07-2 2
                                                                                                        DWELLING UNITS PER NET RES ACRE)


                                                                                                        MEDIUM DENSITY RESIOENTIAUZJ-S 9
                                                                                                        DWELLING UNITS PER NET RES. ACRE)

                                                                                                        HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (70-179
                                                                                                        DWELLING UNITS PER NET RES ACRE)
                                                                                                       PRIMARY ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR



                                                                                                       PrtlME AGRICULTURAL LAND



                                                                                                       OTHER AGRICULTURAL C RURAL LAND
IGURE

    4-8

ATE

APRIL  1981
LAND USE  PLAN  2000
SOURCE  MMSD and SEWRPC

PREPARED BY

         EcolSciences
         ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
The year 2000 plan calls for the maintenance and expansion
(as necessary) of existing urban areas.  The plan specifically
discourages scattered (leapfrog) development, and emphasizes
the need for filling in those remaining pockets of undeveloped
land contiguous to existing development.  Forecast 1985 and
year 2000 land use for the MMSD planning area is shown in
Table 4.8.
Land use planning is also conducted on a local level.  In an
effort to implement the year 2000 land use plan, SEWRPC
encourages all communities in the region to prepare local
land use plans. To date, 16 of the 29 communities in the
MMSD planning area have established such plans.  Table 4.9
outlines the planning practices of communities in the
planning area.

4.2.1.7.4  Land Use Controls;  There are various mechanisms
for implementing land use planning within a municipality.
Some of the major mechanisms include zoning codes, sub-
division regulations, sewer moratoria, and septic tank
regulations.

Zoning is a power granted to local government by state
legislation.  By adopting a zoning code, a municipality can
regulate land use, as well as the type, location, height,
coverage, and bulk of structures on the land.  Zoning is,
perhaps/ the most effective mechanism for implementing local
and regional land use planning.

Subdivision regulation is another method that allows local
government to guide land use.  Most municipalities enact
this type of legislation which requires that developers
submit subdivision plans for approval by local government
before construction can begin.  All of the communities in
the planning area, except West Milwaukee and Whitefish Bay,
have adopted subdivision regulations.


Because of inadequate sewerage facilities, the DNR ocasionally
imposes sewer moratoria or allocation systems to suspend or
limit further sewer connections.  A moratorium limits the
availability of sewered land.  From May, 1976 to 1977, the
DNR imposed a sewer moratorium on the MMSD.  Following the
moratorium, the current wasteload allocation system was
developed.  This system limits the amount by which each MMSD
community may increase its annual wastewater volume and BOD
and suspended solids concentrations.  The 1979 allocations
are shown on Table 4.10.
                               4-46
-------





















i
f-H
2
3
a.

H
en
D
a

rtj

o
J
01
c
rH
0) •
!H 01 4J
O 13 C
f -rl 01
in in g
>. a
C fl 0
Id (O rH
Cn 01
•rl >1 >
JS 5 01
U T)
•H U
£ C rl
01 O
JU g^HH
Id O 13
J rH 0)
0) C
Ol > O
C S N
0 13
rH 01
fl rH -r|
id
0 4J O
13 C, 13
•H U -H
iJ 13 rl
O 01 O
O 01 O
V4 •
rH H TJ
C
0
•H
4-1
a
•rl
rl
O
to
S
3U Id i-H
0 4J 0)
C «H C 'H
o) 0) IH
2 oi 2 o
0 C 0 0
M 0 >H rl
•H M -H flQ
K* ^
U -rl U J3

in
4-1
0 O
01 a.
rH 2 C
 01
fl id
3 3
o) e.
13 fl
0 rH
O O4
Cn 11
c c
•H -H
C O
S3






0] 01
01 0)
X X



in
01
X
horeline
t by
•O tn c
01 01
c c e
O fl A
N Ol 0
•H rH
>iX! 0)
rH O >
rl -rl 0)
S,*'0
O 0) rH
rl .« fl
ar33
4J C
§ §-3
O -H
01 rH 01
•H fl 0)
14 M
O O (H
T3 TJ O
•H -H *4
rl W
M JH 'O
000)
0 0 g
rH H N
4J 4J 01
C C -H
01 0)
0 0 rl
rl >H O
•H -H fl

C C rH
U W ~-



0
2

in tn
01 01 0
X X 2



01 01 01
oi 0) oi
XXX
4-> 00
C f
01 Ol
0) Q rH
o o c
13 rH -H
•ss
rl 01
O 13
O
rH 0
fl 1W
4J
C 13
Ol 01
i §
0 N
n
•rl 01
> M
C fl
01
in
. 13
*o c
C fl
Id rH
rH
fl 2
H rl
45 ?
rH C
3 O
o e
• -rl
4J H rl
C en 01
•rl fl A
0 4J
O4 01 O
a
x -3 -a
0 M C
b O. fl







0
2



01
01
X
I
Ul

<4H
O
01
O
istan
tn
n
fl
j!j
4J
4-1
•H
T)
• 0>
C 04
•rl 0
rH rH
X 0)
C >
fl 01

Cl4
in
£3






in
01
x



in
01
X
esidentia.'
•s
i

01
• rl
rl
0
3
14
U
0
O

rH
id
4J
C
O
0
u
§
0)
u
01
05

4-1

S






in in
01 O 01
X 2 X



01 o) in
01 01 01
XXX
I
•3
rl 13
Q4lH
3
C O
0 3
4-1 C
C fl
01 rH
a*
rH 01
O W
01 a
13 O

W Of
o
>4H 01
01 £
0
rH •
H 13
fl C
fl
DlrH
c
C fl -H
0 rl .C
4-1
C 3 O

yi -H i-i
Q) 14 -«J
a! fl 8



tn
01
X
tn \
0) O
X 2



01 01
01 01
X X
y agency
egional
0 0)
01 4-1
JS
4J 4J
a
in o
-H 13
§ >
•H rH
01 rH
01 fl
*H S
1 0

0
£*
1 I
fl id
2 g,
01 -rl
X S
3 id
1 *
•rl 01

4J C
0) fl







tn
01



tn
01
X
C 01
0 14
4-1 S
o
oi in
in 01
13
C 3
14 rH
01 U
A C
4J -H
0 4J
C -H
•U 01

si
^ o
•8
c •
in S
•iH 3
4J U]
C
in
O 01

01 UH
> 01




o
z
X
01
X-



01
01
X
zoned
01
fl
o
0,
2
w
c
JS
rl
3
1
C
. 8
U 01
S "
W 01 4J
Ul 4J C
fl 0)
CCS
fl Ol El
.C -H 0
4-> 01 rH
Cn 01

01 fl
U 01 M
fl a £







z



01
0)
X
fl
rH
*3
01 c
01 01
Si
o
X H
S1r,-
•O 01 0)
fl 01 -rj
oS*
2 tr\ a)
3 C .V
U -H 3
tn 4J a
o 3
C 01 rH
01 0 S
3 rl
4J a 01
O
C U D<
0 C
•n c o
4-1 0 rH

'2 .3 M
> o -a

o) a n

O 0 0






01
0) 0
X 2



in tn
01 01
X X

4J
§
in
•rl

IH
£
•H
IH
8
O
rH
fl
4J
C
01

o
•H
>
§
G
id
Cn

0 01
-H 4J
S a
01

X O
as,






01
O 0)
2 X



01 01
0) O
X X


4-1
0
c
01
fl
in
I

M
O
U
rH

C
01

J^J
•g
c •
01 T3
01
>i 4J
>H U
id 0)

•S O
14 14
04 a






01 01
01 O 01
X 2 X



in in in
01 01 01
XX X


o<
 13
C 01
01 C
o
>, N
M ^
S rH
*H M
Q^ ^
o

g CL
10 -H



0
2
X.
in in
01 0)
x x



tn tn
01 01
x x




























tn
01



0]
01
x
13
C


0
z







01
13
•H
01
I

01
Ul
rH




13
rH
01
•H
<4H
J^
0
o
a

\D
O 0^
Z ^




M
01

Q
IH
§01
rH
0 4J
rl 3
n is
01 —
3 C
C fl
D rH
O4
Ul
01
•8 S
4-1 tN O
fl PS (rt
Q 01 K



fl
•U
tn

^

^,
13
13
5


O 0
z z





01

0
>i IH

fl
•0 B
3 W


g





4J
S
•H
0
04

X
g

03 ^
r» r-
01 Ol
rH i-H




rj
3
C 0 0<
•H 4J rH
rH C fl

"s i "c
fl rl 01
rl 0) rH
b O O

rH
Ol
rH




13
rH
01
•iH
UH
C
Oi
0)
s

fT)
O Oi
Z rH
in
rH
Ol rH
14 fl
01 b
C
IH 01
0 01
u c

01 S
HI 0
rH C
id 01
X S
rocess
04
C
M








c
0
3
I
rocess
0,
c
M





01
01
i£
3
id
3
rH
•H


01
01







O
en
01
j*;
in
3
S


in
01
X




c
•rl
rH
^
01
m

z

n
p- tn
01 0)
rH X



tn
rH
X rH
01 "H
01 I

CJ M
01
o'ol

ro
Ol
rH



tn
•rl
o
c
fl
IH


4J
U]
rocess
o.
c
M





(«

Q
5
0)
IH
O
in


O 0
z z
01
0)
3
fl 01
3 H
rH rH
•H -rl
S >
in
X C
4J 01
3 -rl
0 JS
CO c*

00






fl
01
0
4J
fl
3
3
fl
3


%




01
•H
rH
rH
<

4-1
01
01
3


01
O 0)
Z X

01
s %
3 m
fl
3 JS
rH 01
•rl -H
S UH
01
4J 4J
0) -H
li
                           4-47
-------
                           TABLE 4.10
                    1979 SEWER ALLOCATIONS

                         1979                 1979
Community                Allocation (GPP)     Used (GPP)      % Used

Bayside                   12,942                  861           7
Brookfield                40,226               48,575         121
Brown Peer                27,318               37,826         138
Butler                     2,551                5,745         225
Cudahy                    50,400               36,808          73
Elm Grove                  8,692                6,314          73
Fox Point                  9,048                   0           0
Franklin                  45,194              562,435       1,245
Glendale                  37,170               27,682          74
Greendale                 25,384                4,018          16
Greenfield               100,659               50,608          50
Hales Corners             13,230                2,296          17
Menomonee Falls           51,168               45,719          89
Mequon                    72,394               68,374          94
Milwaukee              1,275,058              791,354          62
New Berlin                85,215              129,602         152
Oak Creek                149,917              173,304         116
River Hills                4,595                9,184         200
St. Francis               22,762                   54          0
Shorewood                 14,343                   0           0
Wauwatosa                 75,287               53,333          71
West Allis               102,644              106,235         103
West Milwaukee            35,070                   0           0
Whitefish Bay             15,330               15,330         100

TOTAL                  2,276,797            2,244,667          99%
                               4-48
-------
When sewer service is unavailable, the use of on-site sewage
disposal  Cseptic tanks) becomes-more attractive.  Septic
tank use is regulated by local and State health codes on the
basis of soil quality.  Soil surveys and analyses are used
to determine the suitability of an area for on-site sewage
disposal.  When sewer service is limited or unavailable,
septic tank limitations can become an effective land use
control.  Figure 4.3 shows the areas in the MMSD planning
area that are suitable for septic tank use on lots of less
than one acre.

In addition to land use controls initiated by municipalities,
legislation from State and Federal government has established
goals for the control of land use.  Legislation concerning
floodplains, the coast of Lake Michigan, and prime agricultural
land are examples of this type of land use control that
apply to the MFP.

4.2.1.8  Funding Programs

Federal and State funding for municipal sewage treatment
projects, such as the MFP, is controlled and allocated by
the Wisconsin DNR on the basis of a formal priority list.
This list, the Project Priority List (PPL) is prepared
according to Wisconsin's federally-approved priority system,
which is set forth in Chapter NR 160 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code and EPA regulations.  The PPL is used to
determine the distribution of funds from two sources:  the
Federal Construction Grants Program and the Wisconsin Fund.
The priority system assigns priority values and ranks projects
on the basis of a six factor formula described in NR 160.
The 1980 PPL priority values and rankings for MFP projects
are shown in Table 4.11.  Not all of the component projects
of the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program have been
submitted for funding.


Federal funds are administered by the EPA and appropriated
to the state as part of the Construction Grants Program of
the Clean Water Act of 1977.  This program authorizes up to
75% federal funding to all eligible projects.  It has been
the policy of the Wisconsin DNR to allocate these funds to
all Step 1 (planning)  and Step 2 (design)  projects regardless
of their priority values and ranking on the PPL.  Therefore,
a certain percentage (approximately 62% in 1980) of the
total available federal grant money designated for Wisconsin
is set aside for Step 1 and Step 2 grants.

Approximately 25% of the 1980 federal grant money is available
                               4-49
-------
     O
     H

     PS


0

(3
O
•H
4-1
a
•H
CJ
co
CU
Q

£3
O
•H
4J
O
CU
P)
C
O
CJ







^*>
£j
•H
U

M
4J
O
CU

O

PM
O
00
CU
AS
CO
3
a
Filters and Dryers
letion, J.I. Exp.
P.
« e
• 0
4J CJ
6
oo pi
a co
rH
CO PM
•H •
rH O
O cfl
CO Pw







Q Q
co co
a a

cu cu
cu cu
AS AS
3 3
cfl cfl
Ds a
rH rH
•H -H
a a
a'
cu
CO
4-1
CU
•H
H
CU <1)
O
W 43
Z CO
** pfi
W 4J
Z 3
O
C CO
0
•H •>
4-1 CO
o c
3 0
M -rl
4-1 4J
CO -H
C T3
O T3
CJ <3







Q Q
co co
a a

cu cu
cu cu

3 3
cfl cfl
{5 ^
rH rH
•H -rl
a a
H
I-H
o
00
CU

CO CO
3 V-i
a cu
c
•» M
C 0
•H CJ
t-H
AS CO
C CU
Cfl rH
rl Cfl
fa 33







Q Q
co co
a a

cu cu
cu cu

3 3
cfl cfl

rH rH
•H -H
a a
CU
43 a
4-t 
o
CU !^
£3 TJ
C T3
O CO
CJ CJ
cu
00
cfl
rH
r-H
•H
^
Q

 0
iH O
Pd IS
4J CU
O *"3
o a
OA =)







Q Q
CO CO
a a

CU 0)
cu cu

3 3
cfl cfl
S S
rH rH
•H -rl
a a



s
CU

CO
>>
CO
^
CU

CU
co







Q
CO
a

CU
cu

3
cfl

rH
•H
a

CO
A
CN
« W
H Z

0, C
CU vH
4J rH
CO AS
c
O CO
CO M
CJ fn







Q Q
CO CO
a a

CU CU
cu cu
AS AS
3 3
CO cfl
J5 £t
rH rH
•H -H
a a


H W
Z co
rH
CU
AS 00
CU T3
CU -H
rl rl
CJ 43
4-1
AS M
CO O
0 Z







Q Q
CO CO
a a

CU CU
cu cu
A! AS
3 3
cfl cfl
> ^
>> &
rH rH
•H -rl
a a

£-4
z
C H
O
•rl AS
4J CU
O CU
3 rl
rl CJ
4->
CO C
C OS
0 >.

CU
CU
C
0
g
o
C Q
CU CO
a a

cu cu
cu cu
AS AS
3 3
cfl (0
a s
rH rH
•rl -rl
a a
a
tJ
CQ
EH
U
H
ID

§
     o
     00
               n  cu
               O  3
               •H rH
               rl  Cfl
               Pk >
                              rOCNCvlCSCNCNCSICNCNCNCNCNCSICNCNCNOlrHrHr-l
            c  &.
            3  0.
           Pu  <

             •  O AS
            CO  4-1  C
           iH      cfl


           3  C'*
           O  CU 4J
           00  4-1  CO
           (T>  C -H
                                            o
                                            CN
                                        in o\
                                     CN
                                            00
                                                                            I   I
                                                                            vo
                                                                           M m
                                                      cn
                4-1
                 a
                 cu
                    4J  Cfl
                    rl
                O  O  4J
                OO  -H  CO

                
-------
for Step 3  (construction! grants and the use of these funds
is allocated to eligible projects according to rank on the
PPL.  The remainder of the federal money Capproximately 13%}
is set aside for various other funding requirements.  The
DNR estimates  CHarder memo, 2/2 0/19-8 Q) that it would be
unlikely for Step 3 projects below number 16 on the PPL to
receive federal funds, although a few projects in the 16
to 30 range might receive some funding.

The Wisconsin Fund, which is available to municipal projects
that are not federally funded, is authorized to fund up to
60% of eligible municipal sewage treatment project con-
struction (Step 3) costs.  Those projects too far down on
the PPL to be in the fundable range for federal grants,
would be able to apply for Wisconsin Fund grants.  To be
eligible for Wisconsin Fund grants, the municipal project
must be on the PPL and the municipality must submit an
Intent to Apply by the end of each year.  At the beginning
of the following year, those municipalities submitting
Intents to Apply are placed on a new list which is used to
allocate the Wisconsin Fund grants.  This list is based on
the priority system, so the projects will be ranked in the
same order as on the PPL.

4.2.1.9 •The CSO Program

Planning for a solution to the CSO problems was also speci-
fically governed by federal, state, and court-ordered
requirements.  The EPA issued Program Requirements Memorandum
(PRM) 75-34 which established guidelines for the determination
of the fundable size of CSO abatement projects.  In order
for a CSO abatement project to be eligible for EPA funding,
it must be shown that marginal costs are not substantial
compared to marginal benefits.  The monetary, social, and
environmental costs should be compared to the beneficial
uses to be protected by the project.  The fundable CSO
abatement solution may not, however, be the solution required
to meet water quality standards.

Based on the Dane County Court Stipulation and the Wisconsin
State Statutes, the Wisconsin DNR requires that all MMSD CSO
abatement alternatives result in the achievement of applicable
water quality standards.  The DNR will use the data developed
in the MFP and in this EIS to assess the type of CSO abatement
alternatives required to achieve applicable water quality
standards.

The Dane County Court Stipulation has established a time-
table for the construction of facilities for the abatement
of CSO.  The stipulation set July 1, 1993 as the compliance
date for the achievement of water quality standards, provided
                               4-51
-------
that Federal and State funds are available to finance eligible
costs.  If such, funding is not available, the MMSD must
still commit at least $13 million  (.in 19-76 dollars! annually
towards the abatement of CSO until the project is completed.

4.2.2  Population

Metropolitan Milwaukee, including Milwaukee, Ozaukee,
Washington and Waukesha Counties, is studied as the Milwaukee
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area  CSMSA).  The SMSA is
the primary study area for this population analysis.  The
entire MMSD Planning Area  Cwith the exception of Caddy Vista)
lies within the Milwaukee SMSA.

Table 4.12 shows the population trends of the nation, state,
SMSA, SMSA counties, MMSD Planning Area, and planning area
communities from 1900 to 1978.  From 1900 to 1960, the pop-
ulation grew steadily in the Milwaukee SMSA at a rate approxi-
mately 1.5 times that of the nation.  During this period the
greatest amount of growth occurred in the City of Milwaukee
and adjacent communities.

This trend began to change from 1960 to 1975, when the Milwaukee
SMSA population grew only 11%, in comparison to the national
rate of 19%.  During this time, population growth shifted out-
ward from the central city.  In addition, from 1960 to 1975,
the City of Milwaukee declined in population from 741,324 to
670,663, a drop of 10%.  Several of the older suburbs which
had been growing rapidly in the first half of the century also
lost population, especially West Milwaukee  (-25%), Shorewood
(-10%) and Whitefish Bay (-12%).  Yet, communities such as
Germantown, Greendale, Greenfield, Menomonee Falls, Mequon,
New Berlin, and Oak Creek underwent rapid growth during this
period.  By 1975, the MMSD planning area comprised 81% of the
SMSA population  (1,141,211 persons).

The trend of dispersed population growth continued from 1975
to 1978.  The population of the SMSA declined by 1%, from
1,416,793 persons to 1,399,289 persons, as migration out of
the SMSA began.  'Twelve communities in the MWPAP planning area
had declining populations during this period, as a result of
migration to newer SMSA  (suburban) communities and migration
out of the SMSA entirely.  For a more detailed discussion of
population trends in the Milwaukee area, see the MMSD System
Plan EA Chapter 4.

4.2.2.1  Population Forecasts

There are four major sources for population forecasts for
the Milwaukee SMSA:  the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
the Wisconsin Department of Administration  (DOA), the Milwaukee


                               4-52
-------









00
01
rH
1
OJ Ol
TABLE
>OI*ULATION TWiN




tange
ilation
Oa
«• a.

CO
s
e
o
a -H
o u
10 rH
S |
)
o
o
o
fN
rH
in
1
m
cn
o

CN

P-
in
o
rH
01
PJ
in
O
rH
o
0
rH
01
rH
Ol
in
CO
T
O
CO
rH
o
0

rH
ffl
00
o

Ol
in
Ol
CO
<£
rH

•q-
r-l
CN
O
Ol
Ol
m
n
CN

CO
CN
CO

rt
d
*
^•a; i I i 1-4 ui d i d 4 i d i i d I r* i i I ivfld rt
02 ^O
(H
rH 03 in rt rt ap
in «: ) i i i (N i i i i i ( i ( i yuijiiiitrtid
O \ 03
^•2 (N
O* rt
1 1
rH cn
O^ r*i
p* kn
\O ni
CN cn
rH *P
1
^ rt
•«• o
^d p^
<3\ r*
•a
d in
5? o

r»
in .
u
1
u
0
it
3
a
rH
—I
s
County
?
Jo
6
.on County
i County
+* "3
C? JS
C "1
•r4 0
"3 D
rj rj
3 3
id
H)
•T4.
e
c
z
< a
2 03
03 2!
73
rH
0)
o -H
2. 8
u
01
4)
c
L4
C u
0 4J
U 3
a a
3
1
u
c
0 N
73 ^
™ P
o 0

§
U
£
JJ
C
0
X
0
rl4

C
i—4
Ll
EJU
i.
O 01
JJ rH
C f"
1 §
'O O
ia
«
•8 C
rH « 0
15 •-. O
C C W
S 0 =
a
rH
rH
id
a
1 1

tn
e -H
O rH t) -r4
j« o u o r
fl 5 S3 O u
3 ^ O
••» 3 5) -J H
•J]
••H
c "3
5 i
CK J
• 0
4J «
03 03
Llwaukee
lie
- 2
5 2
« e-
"5
0
4J
n
3
19
0
as
in u)
c< a
>.
ca
-H
tt)
—I
4-53
-------
Department of City Development  (DCDl, and SEWRPC.  All of
these agencies have made population forecasts for the years
1985 and 2QQQ, shown on Table 4.13.  However, all these
projections differ, and estimates of the actual 19-79- pop-
ulation indicate that they all may be high.

In conformation with EPA regulations, the MWPAP and EIS
have used the SEWRPC forecasts for their studies.  The SEWRPC
population forecasts indicate that the decreasing population
trend of the past decade will end.  SEWRPC expects Milwaukee
County, which suffered population declines in the 1970s,
Csee Table 4.121 to increase in population throughout the
remainder of this century.  By the year 2000, the population
would approximately reach its 1970 level.  Waukesha County
would experience the greatest numerical increase, but Ozaukee
and Washington Counties would grow by greater percentages
(109% for Ozaukee County and 124% for Washington County).

4.2.2.2  Households

A household is defined as the people living in one housing
unit.  Public services are allocated based on the number of
households in a community.  In the Milwaukee SMSA, the
number of households increased from 1960 to 1978, and even
during the time from 1975 to 1978, when population was declining,
Table 4.14 presents the number of households and average persons
per household for the planning area.

The increase in the number of households is due to population
increases in some communities, but also to a decrease in
average household size (persons per household).  In Milwaukee
County, population declined from 1960 to 1978, but the number
of households steadily increased.  In the other three SMSA
counties, the decline in average household size was not very
great, however the number of households increased due to
population increases.  SEWRPC forecast the numbers and size
of households through the year 2000.  These estimates are
also presented in Table 4.14.

4.2.3  Economy

To assess the economic climate of the Milwaukee area, industry
has been divided into two groups:  exporting and non-exporting.
Exporting or basic industries produce goods and services which
are sold outside of the economic area; non-exporting or non-
basic industries produce and sell goods and services locally.
Basic industries provide the flow of income into an area which
is necessary to create and to support non-basic industries.
Therefore, both income and employment in the are are independent
on basic  (exporting! industries.
                               4-54
-------
                            TABLE 4.13
            POPULATION FORECASTS FOR THE MILWAUKEE  SMSA
                     AND FOR THE PLANNING AREA
Milwaukee SMSA
Source
1970
1985
2000
OBERS (U. S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis
1977}                     1,408,675*

DOA  (Wisconsin
Department of
Administration 1975)      1,403,688C

SEWRPC (1978)             1,403,688£

DCD  (Milwaukee
Department of City
Development 1977)  ^      1,403,688s
                  1,499,300
                  1,451,500
               1,591,100
                  1,555,990      1,766,240

                  1,528,300      1,727,200
               1,569,700
Planning Area

SEWRPC (1978)
1,146,725
1,164,600
1,264,200
"estimated

 actual;  from 1970 census (U. S. Department of Commerce 1971).
 The actual 1978 population of the Milwaukee SMSA was 1,399,300.
 (DOA 1978)
                                 4-55
-------
  CO

  3
  o

  S3
  C/l
s§
 • H
<* CO

  3H
  O
  a
  tti
  a








CU
4-1
01
flj
o
0)
rl
0



































































O
01
01
3
O
I

a)
RJ
rl
CU
2



K
|
z
•D
C1J
C
C
0.


































































c
'
0)
N
in



to
rH
O
S
in
3
0
^
O



N
•H
cn
t3
H
0

0
10
3
J£

rt
«
I)
>









































_
in
c
O
CO
rl
V
Ou

o
o
o
CM






O
o
o
CN
•H



rH
O
.C
CU
3
0
X

8

cn
§
01
o
a.











to
•0
I
11
III
3
S

IU
0
rl
3



























vO
in
CN






O
0
^
4J

8

0)
4)
•3
(0
fl ^
0) i-l
Vj *H
< £









CO
•^r
m






O
0
in
CM

en

CO


{£j
l£
(^





m
10
ro






cn
O
o
CM
O
CM





pr,
in
r~
^T
rH




f^

rr
o
•H



>,
4J
c
3
0
U

0)
0)

3
O









^r
rn
m






O
O
m
CM

in

m


m
in
cn





^i
ID
cn






o>
o
o
in
q.
CM





in
CO
cn
r-
rH




CN
cn
in
CN
rH

>,
4J
C
3
8

c
o
on
c
•r*
in
is
S









C cn
m t-
cn CM






O 0
0 O

l> CM
rH in
CN CO
in cn
cn CM


UD t-
*& rH
cn 
cn ^o
rH CM
iO cn
T



•» X
CTl rH
cn CN
CN O
Tf m
cn

>i
jj
o
U

10
01
0)
X <
§S
S W









X'S'OLncN^^rcoOfNOcncncnmmLnrHcnoco^DO^DinmcnrHO
xiOOvi)iDxiDXOinocncncn^D'TLnvDvoocoxinx'3'r~inmin
(NcnnrncncNmcNcnc-icncMCMcMmcncNcncncncNCMCNCMmcNCMCMCM






^.rrcn-H cncNXCnr-i^rcnr^cncNOrHXinco^rcNcnxin'3'LnxT

CNXcnm cnr-^minr-cncni^vOrHxcncMTrHrHXXojkOXtnx
rHrHin XrHcNcNxioincNcNiDrHcninininrH^rtrr-rHXinrH^
CN

rH'i)cNX^o3criirtcoro

m rH CN
CN


in
^« ^« r\j \o CD P1* o\ r^ ro n^D^3*rHOP*corN) r** \o ^* m co CN o p* r*- ^

OOOQO\^rjfNO^rfP^CO^OTrP-fN(TiCN(-nrrirn^j'vO\£t^cornco<^
IH(N (Ntn(-4CMCN2O4»-lsai*-t^tfNO(NmfN (Ninm LnOrHLO
m rH (N
O4

cn a;
rH (1) 0)
cn ^ ^  >i
)-t td 3 r« CO
DCu cnwrOQ) 3m
T3iJ C T3C CrH-HSrHCnrO
rHO) tj 0)JJ > OJrHWO) cco3)'H(iJO i— 1 fl -H O C XOrJl)Z(T3O-C>OrH'H-f-t

01 O S <—t HJ fQ CSC1)OJU033-X 
-------
4.2.3.1  Manufacturing

The manufacturing sector has the greatest influence on the
economy of the Milwaukee area.  This sector contains the
vast majority of the exporting industries in the area and
the greatest percentage of employment.  The next largest is
the service sector, including finance, insurance, and real
estate.  In 1970, manufacturing employment stood at 201,339
(35% of the total employment that year), and contained all
of the major exporting industries in the Milwaukee SMSA.
Table 4.15 compares the main industrial sectors  (by employment)
for the Nation, the State, and the Milwaukee SMSA.  Table
4.16 lists the major exporting industries of the Milwaukee
SMSA.

Machinery manufacture is the largest manufacturing industry
by employment in the area, and it is an important exporting
industry. A number of other manufacturing industries also
employ great numbers of people in the Milwaukee area:
primary metal, fabricated metal, electrical equipment,
transportation equipment, food and kindred products, print-
ing, publishing, paper, and chemical and allied products.
Tables 4.15 and 4.16 illustrate the^number of people employed
in these areas in the Milwaukee SMSA and compare these
numbers to those for the State of Wisconsin and the Nation.

In recent years, the rate of employment growth in Milwaukee's
basic industries has fallen below the national rate.  From
1960 to 1973, employment in the City of Milwaukee declined.
This decline in the City, as well as the slowed growth in
the SMSA and State, can be attributed primarily to the
employment declines of the manufacturing sector.  The result
has been a loss of jobs in the City of Milwaukee and fewer
new jobs in the SMSA and the State.  Table 4.17 illustrates
the changes in employment in the Nation, State, and SMSA.
In the SMSA, the manufacturing employment growth rate from
1960 to 1970 was 5.5% while for the State it was 6.0%.
These rates are considerably below the national average of
15.2% for manufacturing employment during the same period.

While many employment sectors are experiencing declining
growth rates, manufacturing is continuing to lead the
overall economic trend of declining employment growth. This
does not mean that growth in the entire manufacturing sector
is declining.  There are a few manufacturing subsectors with
increasing growth rates, such as fabricated metal and chemical
and allied products.  However, the declines of the electrical
equipment, transportation equipment, food and kindred products,
and other manufacturing subsectors more than offset the
gains made by metals and chemicals.  The decline in employment
in the area implies that the economic environment has become

                               4-57
-------




















cn
w
H
0
o <
w cn
EH a
<; cn
u
« w
D B
cn EH
U/~N
Q
2 2
H rfj
intf
rHD -
.En 2
-tfCJ H
f< cn
H En 2
SDO
CQ2 U
<;< cn
.T^ w i 	 i
^s
>*
« -
2
EH O
2 H
W EH
a <
>i 2
O
r-4"
CU

W



































<
cn
a
cn













G
•H
CO
G
o
o
co
•H
5














G
O
•H
-P
rd
2


































0
r^
cn
H





O
vo
cn
iH







O
r»
(T\
Wl
rH







O
vo
1
M
O
c>
CU
-p
(d
o
XJ
3
cn
vo
m
00
*,
rH
A



O
O\
*f
+4
CN
A





rH VO
oo r>-
cn cn
VO t^
rH





cn o
cn cn
00 »*
cn oo
rH






CN i-p
rd i fd
"HO
CU fd -H
C g SH
0-H XJ
4-> U rd
cn di fa
00 CN
rH 00
r- r-
*> v
cn m
00 rH
A


CN cn
r» CN
cH cn
v ^
VO rH
r~ CN
A




** CN iH
00 CN in
H m -^
cn o o
o m **
rH




cn m oo
VO CN rH
cn CN CN
f- rH rH
oo in in






CN r^ cn
00 rH cn
cn en r*-
•H rH rH






cn r~- 
r~- vo vo
•<* ^r in
iH rH rH






— 4->
U G
•H CU
rH g
•p -P a
O G -H
CU 0) 3
H e tr
CU CuW
1 -H
c a c
O O1 O
G ca -H
>_x 40
rH (d
>i fd -P
V4 O M
(U -H O
G >H a
•H 4J CO
X! 0 G
o CD  vo m
cn cn ^
CN r>
*k *.
r- **
rH rH



•* 0 1
cn CN I
oo •<* I
- •> i
iH cn i
rH rH





CN vo cn
m in CN
cn oo H
T O
CN in





oo vo m
oo vo in
oo cn ^*
r* m
CN VO






vo cn cn
00 00 00
00 P>
rH






i* O i*
*d* cn cr>
r^ r^
rH







CO
-P
O
3
CQ >d
rd O
O i-1
O CU
o
•d
cu cu
r-l r-l
xj -d
rd G
!H -H
3 «
Q O
<* o
iH 0
CU -d rd
X3 O XJ
4-> 0 O
O fa EH
vo
r-
m
^
^J1
A



VO
in
vo
*
•*!•
A





o cn m
rH O VO
cn T* CN
vo fv in
r~





cn in in
cn cn ^*
rH rH in
t-» oo in
vo






vo vo oo
in vo o
cn cn oo
rH rH






•**  (d
X ft*
cu
CO EH *
4-1 Oi
0 T3 G
d cu -H
•O -P fi
O fd co
M O -H
CU -H rH
rH XI
rH X> 3
rH rd CU
•H fa
a
* tr
CU rH G
rH Q) -H
•H >H 4J
4J rd G
x a-H
CU a rH
EH < CU
cn CN
oo m
vo r-
«. •>
Cn rH
rH rH
A


in rH I
cn cn i
m co f
* •• i
CN •** 1
rH rH
A




vo CN cn
in O rH
in m oo
H m CN
H CN





^P CN VO
cn cn vo
o r* o
oo m rH
CN






Cn rH 1
•SP rH 1
0 H 1
rH rH






OO ** 1
CN in I
oo cn i









>i
M
4->
•d w
CU CO 3
•H Q) -d
rH rH G
rH XJ H
 C -H
rH U O O
rd d 2 cu
W a
•H o s-i cn
g rH CU I
CU di X3 G
£ 4-1 O
U O2
cn
cn

U
(d
U-4
3
G
rd
a

rH
rd
4->
O
EH







•
vo
t-
CU cn
XJ rH
4->
»»
M-4 ,H
O -H
rd
CQ iH
U CQ
••4
•n
4-1 (4>
co
-H 4J
M 4J
(U OJ
1 1 ( t
4-> H
U rH
rd rd
M m
rd
43 Ti
CJ G
rd
^
CO 0
d r-
CQ cn
G iH
CU
u 'd
G
CU rd
XJ
4J 0
vo
4-4 cn
O -H
r^ t i
7 M
rd O
0) 4_|
M
3 «•
pa G
•H
- CO
0) G
0 O
V4 U
n\ m
CU uJ
6 -H
S S
O
U T(

"4-4 rd
o
•
-P cn
G •
rj) D
g
4-1 *
M G
rd O
a-H
0) 4-1
Q fd
H
• 3
cn a
• o
D CU

• c
CU
o
rH
3
0
cn






























































Q)
CO
a
rd
rH
rH
O
o

CO
cu
•H
M
O
en
cu
4J
rd
o

II

A
4-58
-------
                          TABLE 4.16
                  KEY EXPORT (BASIC) INDUSTRIES
                     MILWAUKEE SMSA
                              Percentage of Total
Sector                        Manufacturing Employment

Food and Kindred Products               9.3

Printing and Publishing                 6.6

Leather and Leather Products            3.7

Primary Metals                          6.4

Fabricated Metals                      14.3

Machinery except Electrical            26.4

Electric Distribution and
  Electronics Equipment                17.3

TOTAL                                  84.9%
                             4-59
-------
W CO
w
4J
C
CU
U
t ,
H
0)






0)

id
fi
U




4J
c
0)
o
ti
M
ft



c
•H


c
42
U




f^J
CO
s
CO

pj
•H





CU
0"i
G
rrt
(U
u



c
•H
03
c
o
to
•H
S




0)
tn
C
U






c
0
•H
4J
id
2


in
CU
•H
^j
0
tn
cu
i i
nj
i i
c
1
0
rH
(i

H


CO 1
1 1
• 1
rH
CN




^3*
r--

CN* 1
o
rH






^^
& CO
r~ '31
rH ro
^— *



^1^
ro ^j*
CO CN
rH (Tl
CO CO
in in
CN —





X-H
m m
S «
•«•"*

*
0 0
0 0
0 0
CO rH
cn \&
O CN

ArH
w o
•H
rH (H

0
EH


. ^D
1C
i m



-
7k
& in
f^» ^*
^ ro
ro









cn r-
0 rH
H





v^O C**
CN in
ro
CO







^x
V£> CN
iH H
^^^

*^
o o
o o
o o
cn \o
co en
**^ ^











ction
3
C -P
•H CO
a s
•H 0
s u




in
in





CN
f^
 m
cn CN
rH r>
ro r~-








CN en
CN O
rH ro



0 0
O O
O O
cn ro
CO CN
^3* in
ro




cn
0)
-H
-P cu
•H *d
H id
•H £
4-> EH
D
CU
0 rH
°r4 
ro
i—^







>-J
O
m



o
o
o
CN
CO
rH
•*"



•a
0)
4J
iH
0
Of
0)
Pi
-P 4J
C 0
 CO
0 3
O T3
c
H
tn
0
•H
-P
tn
•H
n
Cl)
4J
O
rd
M
rd
£
O

«b
3
tn
c
0)
u

0)
£
-p

MH

3
rd
0)
3
ffl

•b
(U
O
aS


0
u
MH
0

4J
C
1
^1
id
Q

•
. w

e <"
•S ^
|1

•P ..
S g
ro b
«* °
* CO


•
^
•H
id
rH
«

>a

id
i j
«4^
4->
(U
rl
M
id
n

•d

rd

Q1
r~
cn
H
'd
c
id

o
VD
rH

^
0

1>
c
•H
CO
C
u
co
•H
S
•g
-------
unfavorable for some manufacturing subsectors, and some
industries are moving out of the area.

4.2.3.2  Other Sectors

The manufacturing sector is not the only sector with declin-
ing employment growth rates.  The SMSA growth rates for the
wholesale and retail trade, the government, and the con-
struction sectors are also below the averages of their
national counterparts.  Only the service sectors  (.finance,
insurance, real estateI have an employment growth rate
higher than the national average.  Table 4.17  also compares
growth rates for these sectors.

Representatives of the Public Works Improvement Program and
the Laborers Union for Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and
Waukesha Counties confirm that the growth rate for the
construction industry continues to decline in the Milwaukee
area.  The Public Works Improvement Program represents about
55 firms in the Milwaukee area.  The Laborers' Union represents
2,500 active laborers, 800 of which are experienced in
sewer related construction.  These sources state that there
is an extensive local labor pool in the construction industry.
Also, there are some firms experienced in tunnel construction,
although not specifically experienced with construction of
the depth and magnitude required for deep tunnels.

4.2.3.3  Locational Trends

The locational trends of industry and employment in the
Milwaukee area have been much the same as the trends in
housing.  Industries have been moving out of the City of
Milwaukee to suburban and rural locations.  A report prepared
for the Office of State Planning and Energy in June, 1977
shows that there have been numerous plant relocations in the
SMSA.  In the period from 1964 to 1974, 1,041 firms left the
City of Milwaukee and relocated in suburban Milwaukee,
Racine, and Kenosha.  Fifty-three firms moved from the City
of Milwaukee to areas outside the SMSA, yet still in the
State of Wisconsin Cfirms that left the State entirely were
not considered in the study).  Of the relocating firms, 19%
were service sector firms, 17% were wholesale and retail
trade firms, and 17% were manufacturing firms.  Manufacturing
firms, however, comprised approximately 50% of the relocating
employment. Based upon employment, the majority of the
relocating firms were small.  Approximately 57% of the firms
had 10 or fewer employees, and 92% had 50 employees or
fewer.  There was only one relocating firm that employed
more than 1,000 people.
                               4-61
-------
These locational trends have caused significant commercial
and industrial growth in Waukesha County and suburban
Milwaukee County/ much of which is evident in large shopping
centers and industrial parks.  There are several reasons for
movement of industry:  outdated plants and buildings; lack
of necessary space at locations in the City; pick-up,
delivery, and parking problems; high land costs (property
taxes); and the desire to follow the movement of residential
development Cparticularly in the case of service industries).

Nationally, the locational shifts of industry have been to
the South.  This is especially true in the manufacturing
sector.  The Midwest and the Northeast have been experiencing
declines in manufacturing employment while the South is
enjoying growth in those sectors.  From 1965 to 1975 manu-
facturing employment declined 6.8% in the North and Midwest,
but it increased 44.2% in the South.  There are several
possible reasons for this shift of manufacturing firms to
the South:  proximity to new markets, better labor markets,
available land, lower land costs, reduced energy costs, and
preferential tax structures.  These national and local
trends could contribute to the slow growth of manufacturing
in the Milwaukee area.

4.2.3.4  Employment

Even with the recent trend of declining employment growth in
the Milwaukee area, the unemployment rates have been con-
sistently below those of the State and the Nation.  In 1950,
the seven county SEWRPC region had an unemployment rate of
3.4%, considerably lower than the 3.8 % level of the State
and the 5.3%,  level of the Nation.  By 1972, the regional
unemployment rate had risen to 4.7%, yet it was still below
the 5.0% levels of the State and the 5.6% level of the
Nation.

The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce has
compiled data on unemployment in the Milwaukee SMSA from
1968 to 1978 (presented in Table 4.18).  As is shown in that
table, the trend of low unemployment has continued. The
Milwaukee area has been experiencing lower levels of unemployment
than the national average, although these levels parallel
the pattern of the national rate.   Like the nation, the
SMSA reached its highest level of unemployment in 1975, when
SMSA unemployment reached 8%.  By 1977, it had declined to
4.3%.

4.2.3.5  Income

The recent shifts in industry and employment have resulted


                               4-62
-------
                   .SABLE 4.18
                 SMSA EMPLOYMENT
                                   Unemployment
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Employment
601,000
613,000
613,000
607,000
602,000
635,000
624,000
616,000
637,000
646,000
680,000
Rate
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
5.0%
4.4%
3.8%
4.1%
8.0%
6.3%
4.3%
4.3%
Source:  MMAC
                       4-63
-------
in long-term losses of potential income for the Milwaukee
area, mainly due to the decline in employment in the manu-
facturing sector.  This loss in the manufacturing sector
contributes to the overall income loss in two ways:  the
first is a decrease of business receipts to the area from
the exporting industries; the second is a loss of disposable
personal income due to declining employment.  The rise in
employment in the service sector has not been able to offset
the decline of the manufacturing sector.  Service industries
provide little, if any, inflow of income to the economy
since they rarely produce exportable services.  In addition,
the personal incomes of service employees are generally
lower than those of manufacturing employees.

From 1970 to 1976, the manufacturing sector in the City of
Milwaukee lost 24,000 jobs and $69 million in potential
wages.  The service sector gained more than 35,000 jobs, but
added only $49 million in wages and income.  Table 4.19
lists the 1978 average household income (before taxes) by
community for the planning area.  These household incomes
are derived by multiplying the 1978 per capita incomes  (as
published by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue) by the
persons per household figure for each community  (MWPAP, EA,
1980) .

4.2.3.6  Affected Industries and Firms

The MFP may affect industries by increasing property tax
rates for capital expenditures and by raising user charges
for operation and maintenance costs.  The 20 firms with the
highest equalized property value (which determines property
tax rates) and the 20 firms with the highest user charges in
Milwaukee County were chosen as those most likely to be
affected by the MFP.  The list includes 31 firms since some
of the firms were in both categories.

The 31 firms were grouped into three categories for com-
parison: heavy manufacturing (16 firms); malt beverage and
dairy products (5 firms); and food processing, paperboard
products, chemical, and leather tanning (10 firms).  Table
4.20 identifies the companies on this list.  The 16 heavy
manufacturing firms generally have high taxable property
values and low wastewater discharge.  The other firms have
average to low taxable property values with high wastewater
discharge (.see Table 4.21).

The income generated for the local economy by the 31 selected
firms is shown in Table 4.22.  The value added Cfinal price
less cost of materials) by the firms is shown both in dollars
and as a percent of the value added.
                               4-64
-------
                       TABLE 4. 19
     1978 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOMES BY COMMUNITY*
 1.  River Hills
 2.  Fox Point
 3.  Elm Grove
 4.  Bayside
 5.  Brookfield
 6.  Mequon
 7.  Whitefish Bay
 8.  Hales Corners
 9.  Thiensville
10.  Glendale
11.  New Berlin
12.  Greenfield
13.  Greendale
14.  Menomonee Falls
15.  Butler
16.  Germantown
17.  Muskego
18.  Wauwatosa
19.  Franklin
20.  Oak Creek
21.  Brown Deer
22.  South Milwaukee
23.  Shorewood
24.  Caddy Vista
25.  Cudahy
26.  St. Francis
27.  West Allis
28.  Milwaukee
29.  West Milwaukee

30.  Planning Area Weighted Average
$89,000
 52,000
 51,500
 51,500
 37,000
 36,500
 33,500
 29,500
 28,500
 28,000
 26,500
 26,000
 26,000
 26,000
 25,000
 25,000
 24,500
 24,500
 23,500
 23,000
 22,500
 21,000
 20,500
 20,500 * Estimated
 19,000
 18,000
 17,500
 16,000
 12,000

 20,500
Bureau of the Census 1978 Milwaukee SMSA Estimate = 21,896
*Incomes rounded to nearest $500

Source:   1978 Wisconsin Department of Revenue Per Capita
         Income by Community multiplied times the Average
         Household Size by Community
                         4-65
-------
                                  TABLE 4.20
                 FIRMS MOST LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE MWPAP
Heavy Manufacturing

Paints & Allied Products
  1.  P. P. G. Industries

Primary Metals
  2.  Babcock & Wilcox

Fabricated Metals
  3.  Ladish
Brewing and Dairy Products
Malt Beverages
  17
  19.
  20.
Miller Brewing
Pabst Brewing  1
Schlitz BrewingJ
Froedtert Malt
Dairy Products
  21.  Borden
Machinery Except Electrical
  4.   Allis Chalmers
  5.   Briggs & Stratton
  6.   Rexnord
  7.   Harnischfeger
  8.   Cross s Trecker
  9.   Falk

Electric S Electronic Equipment
 10.   Allen-Bradley
 11.   General Motors
 12.   General Electric
 13.   Cutler-Hammer

Transportation Equipment
 14.   American Motors
 15.   A. 0. Smith
 16.   Harley-Davidson
Other Manufacturing

Food Processing Excluding Beverages
and Dairy Products
  22.  Universal Foods
  23.  Krause Milling
  24.  Patrick Cudahy
  25.  S. E. Wisconsin Products

Paperboard Products
  26.  Wisconsin Paperboard

Miscellaneous Chemicals
  27.  Peter Cooper

Leather Tanning
  28.  Pfister-Vogel Tanning
  29.  Cudahy Tanning
  30.  Flagg Tanning
  31.  Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning
Source:  MMSD, 1980
   One of the six wet industries.
                                      4-66
-------


































H
C^
•

X Q
< 2 X
C_j i j

^ W
E~* M
fxj 2
W ffi
ft EH
O
05 Pi
ft O
CM
W
U
£
W
3
W
to

fi
tn
4J
tn
0
U

tu
Cr>
id
M
cu

0)
CO

cn
r-
tn
rH
0
•H
dP
O
o
rH

•M
O
MH

T)
0)
4J
tn
3
•m
•O
fifl
4-)
ft
g
cu

H

X

EH

<

tu
C!
•H
j






^1
4-1

(U
ft
0

fXt







tu
tn
D






r\
±>
•H
3

in
4J
tn
0
U

0)

«J

is
CU
CO

cn
i>
cn
rH

X

o  o in

    ro ro
c
o
•H
4J
ft
•H
^|
O
tn
cu
Q
housands
EH

C
•H

tn
4-1
tn
o
u
tu
cu
o
•H
j^i
ft

o
00
en
rH

4->



<

PI
3
o

CD




0)

ft

0

O




u

ft
3
0

O




g
                      *  df  <&
                      O  O  O
                      O  O  O
                          O
                          O
                                     o
                                     ro
                                                    #
                                                    VO
                          &>  *
                          VO  O
                            dt>  dP
                      en  vo  cn
                      m  cn  cn
                          CN
                          en
           4-1
           tn
           8
           eu
                              (U EH

                              tn MH
                              (0  O
        tu
        tn <
                                         CQ  U
tn 
HJ
M
T3
IS
tn
3
0
4J
C
•H

tn
4-1
*3
O

rd

^
(0
rH
rH



• •
(U
4J
0
2
were exempt from taxation.

in

4J
•H

<


•H
CU
tu
A
•0
rH
3
in
4-1
tn
0
0
tu
CP
(C
M
tu
CU
in
o
r-
en
rH
rj
4J
4J
1


in
3

in

4J
C
eu
g
4-)
in
3
•n
id

(U
,£
EH

CO
cn
rH
a
3
U
U
0
•H
tn
4-1
•H
(U
10
0)
4-1
0
o
•H
4-1
§•
(U
X
eu
rH
H
3

,
4J
ft
i


D
td
MH
3
C
fTj
s

M
(U
«£j
4-1
0

1

U
               4-67
-------
                       TABLE  4.22
           VALUE  ADDED  FOR SELECTED.INDUSTRIES
                        (  x $1000)
Description

Meat Products
Dairy Products
Grain Mill Products
Malt Beverages
Misc. Food Prod.
Paperboard Prod,
Paints & Allied
Misc. Chemicals
Leather Tanning
Foundries
Metal Forgings
Engines & Turbines
Farm Equipment
Construction Mach.
Metal Working Mach.
Industrial Mach.
Electric & Electronic
Transportation Equip.

Total

All Manufacturers
 Value
 Added

   $78,000
    61,300
    17,600
   398,000
    26,900
    66,500
    28,100
    35,100
    70,400
   182,000
   232,100
   453,800
   193,600
   500,000
   152,300
   286,200
   735,100
   397,300

$3,914,300

$5,855,700
 Selected
 Industries
 Estimated
 Value Added1

   $36,660
    43,520
    10,560
   390,040
     7,800
      *
    20,230
     7,720
    26,750
    36,400
   164,790
   331,270
   193,600
   225,000
    62,440
   226,100
   433,710
   353,600

$2,570,190
  *Ratio of selected industrial employment to total
   industry employment is too low to estimate value
   added.

  •'•Value added is the final price of a product less
   the cost of materials

   Value added for selected industrials estimated by
   the ratio of a firm's employment to total
   employment in its Standard Industrial Code (SIC)
   category and applying this ratio to total value
   added in the same SIC category.

Source:  U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the
         Census.  "1976 Annual Survey of Manufactuers"
                          4-68
-------
Employment in the 31 firms represents a large percentage of
total Milwaukee County employment in their respective industries,
Table 4.23 shows 1977 Milwaukee County employment for the
represented industries as well as the percentage of employment
provided by the selected firms.  Total Milwaukee County
employment in these industries was 96,345 persons, 65,470 of
which were employed by the 31 selected firms.  Total Milwaukee
County employment in 1977 was 421,280.

Since Line A property items  (including manufacturers' materials
and finished products, merchants' inventory, and livestock),
are being exempted from property taxation  (and will be fully
exempt by 19811 the taxable property of the 31 firms has
declined.  In 1979, their taxable property, with a 50% Line
A exemption, was approximately $1.016 billion.  The taxable
property of the same 31 firms will decline to $615 million
(1975 dollars) by 1981, assuming that there are no changes
in property.

The sewerage costs for the 31 selected firms are shown in
Table 4.21   There are six wet industries among the 31 and
these have the greatest flows and wasteloads.  They also
have the highest user charges, totaling  approximately
$5.093 million.  The total user charge for the remaining
firms is $2.232 million.

4.2.4  Municipal Revenues and Expenditures

The Milwaukee area has long had a reputation of being a
heavily taxed metropolitan area.  (Figure 3.13 of the CSO
Appendix shows the average annual tax assessment for single
family houses in the Combined Sewer Service Area.)  Table 4.24
compares estimates of the state and local taxes paid by a
family of four in Milwaukee and seven other large midwestern
cities.   At all income levels, the percentage of income
devoted to state and local taxes is much higher in Milwaukee
than in the other cities.  It is also much higher than the
average for 30 of the nations largest cities.

At an income level of $22,500, a family of four in Milwaukee
will be taxed 13.2% of their income by state and local
government.  In comparison the 30 city average is 9%.  At
the other end of the spectrum in Nashville, Tennessee, the
same family of four will be taxed only 4.2% of their income
by state and local government.  At a $22,500 income level,
only New York, Philadelphia, and Boston  residents pay a
higher proportion in taxes than Milwaukee residents.
Although the City of Milwaukee has the highest taxes in the
area, the gap between city and suburban tax levels is nar-
rowing due to the rise in suburban tax rates.
                               4-69
-------
                            TABLE 4.23
                 EMPLOYMENT IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES
                AS A PERCENT OF INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT
                        IN MILWATJKEE COUNTY
                                              Selected Industrials
Meat Products
Dairy Products
Grain Mill Products
Malt Beverages
Misc« Food Prod.
Paperboard Prod.
Paints & Allied
Misc. Chemicals-
Leather Tanning
Foundries
Metal Forgings
Engines & Turbines
Farm Equipment
Construction Mach.
Metal Working Mach.
Industrial Mach.
Electric & Electronic
Transportation Equip.
 1977
 Employment

  2,110
    420
    375
  8,080
    615
  2,575
    625
  1,030
  2,680
  4,954
  5,895
 12,155
up to 2,500
 10,475
  3,930
  6,535
 20,195
 11,935

 96,345
1977-78
Employment
1,000
300
225
7,935
180
70
450
230
1,015
1,000
4,200
8,905
5,895
4,685
1,610
5,160
11,955
10,655
% Of
Industrial
47%
71
60
98
29
3
72
22
38
20
71
73
*
45
41
79
59
89
                                           65,470
Note:  Manufacturing employment in 1977 in Milwaukee County was
       154,000; total employment was 421,280.  Employment in the
       selected industrials represents about 42% of manufacturing
       employment and 16% of total county employment.

*      Reason for discrepancy between SIC total and reported
       employment for selected industrial cannot be determined.
       Assume 100% for purposes of analysis.

Sources:  U. S. Department of Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.
          "County Business Patterns, 1977, Wisconsin"  Wisconsin
          Department of Natural Resources.  NRlOl Summary Data
          File. 1978. on industrial discharges.  MMSD User
          Charge files. 1979.  MWPAP, 1980,
                                 4-70
-------
  «
  s
  tn
  >> r*
  i4 cn
  b

  <
  ><
  CO
  a u
-28
  in H
  Ed
  X S"
§ ij tn"
E-i < ta
    EH
    M
    U
  W Cl

  S3
  EH W
  w in

  a z
  gM
  H
  EH
  CO
  U
01

O
U
c
H
O
o
o

o"
tT)
11
1
c
H
1
«
0
w
0)


c
H
o
o
0
<*
o
ro
0)
§
c
H
o
o
in
H
CN
CN

01

fl
c
H
0
o
o
^
in
rH
v>

01
§
U
o
c
H
O
o
in

r»








jj
c
01
o
01
ft,


rH
(8

g
c
o
a
o.
rH
18
JJ
0
EH
JJ
C
o>

01
cu


rH
18
JJ
O
JJ
c
01
u
01
0,


rH
10
0
EH
JJ
e
01
o
0)
o>


rH
18
JJ
0

C
HI
o
01
0,


rH
a
jj
o
H







01

D
O
IU C
0 H



rn
SB
* s,
01
§
o
"8 rH

*U
X — ,
18 (8
EH 0,
01

0
O
0 H



•O
X -H
(8 ra
EH 0,
01

O
O H



rrj
X -H
CO co
EH 0,
a

S
u
"S H



"3
X -H

* o2
01

b
o
O M



t3
X -H
CO CO
EH 0,






•H


m
ro
I-H


f^.
ro
Is-
£

CO
ro
rH
VO
rH
in
in


co
ro
rH


CN
ro
rH
S

CN
ro
iH


in
r*.
en
Si


m
CN
rH


cn
10
CO

rH


ro
O
rH



en
10
r-





0)
wauke
rH
-iH
S


vC
iO



^
CS
ro
ro

O
r»

CN
CO

CN


rH
r-



CN
ro
H
CN

O
r^



ro

in



o
r-



X

o

rH


T
p.




rH
in
in





"O
velan<
0)
rH
O


0
10



0
H
O
ro

CN
IB

CN
cn
•a-
CN


ro
10



CN
CO
CO
rH

rH
1C



O
r>
ro



0
10



in
cn
CO




CN
vo




Ul
lO
^t






urn bus
H
O
U


ro
CO



in

H
'

in
CO

X
r^
ro
ro


X
X



^i
^»
k£
CN

X
X



*4*
CO
cn



*!•
cn



cn
o


rH


en
cn




N
tr





•H
0
a
10
§
•H
•s
H


•H
p..



^jt
in
in
ro

ro
P.

^
O
*
CN


*r
r-



^
rH
CN
CN

CN
r-



X
CN
10



H
r*



CO
vO
o

rH


en
vo




X
rH
in

O
£

>,
•H
U
01
cfl
01
I


in
T



r^.
LI
CN
CN

O
in

<*
rH
O
CN


in
in



CN

vo
rH

X
in



r^
0
ro



VO
vfj



ro
cn
cn




rH
X




^*
O







01
•H
£
a.



CN
ro



cn
rH
a>
-1

VD
ro

VO
^
rf
rH


C?
ro



X
VO
rH
rH

ts
9



ro
in
a\



cn
«r



ro
m
P*




CN
«3





eo

cn
r-

ro


O
cn



vO
Cl
v£>
CN

01
X



^
cn
°l
rH


ffl
X



f*4
ro
ro

rH


&
a>




o
r*
vo





n
•H
I
in


o
Oi



ro
O
in
'

CN
en

ro
co

ro


CN
cn



0
r^
r*-
CN

O
OT



cn
CN
O
CN


O
cn



X

m

rH


r*
X




O
in
^0

01
en
CO
01
rt
jj
•H
U
1
O
ro
f.
O rH
•H fO
j: o
* rH

"c TI
01 C
>H r8
•a
rH i
M rH
a
- a
U CO
01
C 01

n] M
11 5 .
Oi * JJ
O JJ r8
1M -H 4J
O in
MH 01
0 0
•H rH
>i to
rH 01 01
•H 0) H
§>
•H T)
IH rH C
18
01 TJ
Cn C -
(8 co O
IH JJ
HI 01 3
> £ <0
10 0

sis

•O 0 O
01 C
in in -H
3Z m.

18 01 01
JJ f| 'H

a o ra
„
01
jj
o
z




cn
cn
rH


•*
01
0)


JJ
in

•a
0)
jj

c
D
0)
£
JJ

UH
O

JJ
O
CO

JJ
in
J3
rt

rH
c8
O
•H
JJ
01
•H
JJ
CO
JJ
in

*
01
3
01
c
111

01
JS
JJ

lU
0

3
«J
01
Ll



U)


a

*•
u

g
U]
                        4-71
-------
Table 4.25 shows 198Q budgets and revenue sources for the
MMSD planning area communities.  Table 4.26 shows the
property values and property tax rates for each community.
Average home values have been determined for each community
in order to estimate future household capital charges for
sewer improvements.  The property tax is assumed to finance
debt service or directly pay for capital improvements to the
sewerage system.

4.2.5 Sewerage System Charges

4.2.5.1 User Charge System

In order to be eligible for funding through the Federal
Construction Grants Program, the MMSD has developed a User
Charge System.  The system, put into effect on January 1,
1979, is a method to distribute the annual operation and
maintenance expenses incurred by the MMSD to the users of
the sewerage system.  Each municipality in the MMSD and each
contract community is billed for its residential, commercial,
and industrial use.  The charges are based on four parameters:
volume of flow, biochemical oxygen demand CBOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), and number of connections to buildings
A unit cost has been developed for each parameter and is
used to determine individual charges.  The 1980 unit costs
are $0.1061 per 1,000 gallons  ($0.0280 perlOOO liters) of
flow, $0.0175 per pound of BOD ($0.0386 per kilogram of
BOD), $0.0887 per pound of TSS ($0.1955 per kilogram of
TSS), and $28.45 per connection per year.  The community
distributes their charges by any formula they deem appropriate,

The residential portion of each community's bill is based on
the average flow and quality (BOD and TSS) of domestic
wastewater, the average number of people per household, and
the number of households in the community.

The commercial charge to the municipality is for those
users, other than residential, that discharge primarily
domestic wastewater, including commercial, governmental, dry
industrial (.e.g., machining or assembling operations),
institutional organizations, and multi-family apartment
complexes.  All commercial users are assumed to discharge
wastewater of the same strength (BOD and TSS) as domestic
wastewater, but not the same volume.  The flows are deter-
mined for each commercial user on the basis of metered water
consumption or, if the business pumps water from a well, by
the estimated average, hourly employee discharge as estimated
by commercial activity (see the MMSD User Charge Program for
further details).
                               4-72
-------
                             I960
        TABLE  4.25
BUDGETS  AND  BUDGET SOURCES
Communities
Milwaukee
Bayside
Brookfield

Brown Deer
Butler
Cudahy

Elm Grove
Fox Point
German town
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
t
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls
Kequon

Muskego
New Berlin
Oak Creek
River Hills
gt. Francis
jshorewood
p. Mil'/auree
FThiensville
Wauwatosa
West Allis
W. Milwaukee
whitafish Bay
Adjusted
1980
Budgets
$320,561,722
1,137,875
8,943,760

3,535,720
724,586
5,743,792

1,792,654
2,474,122
3,179,117
5,017,130
3,768,361
7,921,429
1,688,927
3, 398,607
4,613,839

2,969,311
5,293,433
6,393,601
1,120,839
2,999,226
4,570,352
6,252,915
840.290
13,496,172
25,431,924
2,606,265
3,793,289
% Change
Over 1979
11.6%
6.0
3.3

11.1
9. 7
6.6

10.6
10.5
12.6
9.6
7.9
13.0
9.5
16.3
7.6

10.0
17.1
10.7
14.1
7.5
5.0
9. 5
10.0
7.6
9.1
1.0
2.4
% of Budgets Financed by
Net
Property
Taxes (:}
19%
50
42

30
36
28

45
46
NA
47
35
28
34
37
35

25
31
26
60
32
JO
27
39
40
35
20
40
State
Tax
Credits <2)
6%
7
6

6
13
11

6
6
NA
15
7
5
6
-J
6

3
7
12
11
7
7
3
6
11
9
19
6
Other
State
Sources (3)
34%
23
30
Federal
Sources
20%
2
3
|
35 | 3
Other
Local
Revenues (4)
21%
13
19
Municipal
Expenditures
Total 1979
Per Person
Costs
S459
230
232
j
26 : 223
28* 4 19
40
5 16
I
28 j 4
21
NA
23
36
31
37
32
29

40
40
41
14
43
22
39
30
22
30
38
26
2
NA
3
3
2
2
5
2

3
3
4
1
7
4
4
2
5
4
5
->
314
255
I
19 i 202
25 ' 223
NA 291
12 334
19
34
194
2 32
21 173
19
28
220
253
I
19
19
17
14
11
27
22
23
22
2 1
13
26
177
161
388
618
272
307
252
190
316
349
733
234
(1) Net property taxes are  after subtraction of estimated state tax credits on general and personal property.
f2) Estimated  state tax credits on general and personal property applied to municipal taxes.
(3) "Other State Sources" include state  aids, shared  revenues,  state reimbursement for exempt  tiarufacturers'
   machinery  and equipment, and personal property tax relief transfer payments.
(4) Other local revenues include:  special assessments, fees and fines, licenses, interest in  investments,
   accumulated surplus, etc.
Source:   Citizen's Governmental  Research  Bureau.
                                              4-73
-------
                lu  o
                0  O
                    C
                <*>  H
                 04 ^«  m co
                 ft 01  in 04
                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                             «3"
                3
                o

                1  s<

                1§
                 01 o  Ol O
                 VO CT1  rS l>
                           «3 co
                           O Ol
                                                                m  o
                                                                r^Ol
             (U
             in  t)
                §rH  s
                o  13
             x  .c  o
                                                                                                             03  in co
                                                                                                             u0  m m
                 oi fl
                 Oi O

             s   m jj
             ta  x;  a)
             O  O S
                 0)  a)
                 JJ  JJ

                 2  3

                 JJ  JJ  O  «
                 IB  a)  JJ JJ
                                               ID
                                               JJ
                    2         2222
                                                      4J4JjJjJO>aia>
                    ID     JJIBIBIBQJJJJJJ
                    rH     OlrHrHrHrHOIOlOl
                    fc.     Sftjd.Cijfc.ESS
                                                      H         u     XI  M  0) *
                                                      DJJJJ  3  JJ  CD  0  ft
                                                                       m  a)
                                                                    >< rH  JJ
                                                                    JJ
                                                                    M
                                                                                            01
                                                                                           JJ
                                                                                                                       = *
            TS

             O  -H
            J3  Hi  < >,
    JJ  jj
I
>,
jj
    1)  D  (J)
    Q4 flj  Qi

    O  O  0
                              o o  o o
                              o o  o o
                              o o  o o
                              m 01  04  01
                              rH QO  10  in

    01
N JJ
JJ  (Q
J«4 CG
. JJ
jj
u


I-
0  HI
1-1 i-l
a. b,
                                                                       XXMX
                                     jj  jj  jj
                                     U  >J  k4

                                     aaa
                                                                              vO
                                                                              CO
                                                                                                     cocococo
                                                                                                     XXXXX
                                                                                                     f^  fO  fTj  fl  (tj
    ai  ai

tiS  2
JJ 4J  4J  JJ  JJ
H  i-l  Li   U  1-1
                           oooaooaoooooooooooo
                           oooooooooooooooooco
                           inininininoominoinoooooininin
                               &  u
                                  0)


                               18  O
                               rH  VJ
                                                                                                                                 (8  IB
4J JJ
L4  rJ
01  H)
P]  Qj

O  0
14  14
Cu A
                                                                                     O O  O  O O
                                                                                     O O  O  O O
                                                                                     in o  o  in o
                                                                                                                       o o
                                                                                                                       in ai
                                                                                                                                    ai

                                                                                                                                    §<
El
                                                                                                                                                CO


                                                                                                                                                 in
U  cu
•o -a
•H -H
in  in

    IB
                                 rH  0)

                                  01  01
                                 •rl  Q
                                        4-1
                                         3
                                   «
                                  JJ
                                   Ul         0)  JJ


                                  >         O  -rt -rl
                              0Q 03.  CO P3
                                  •0

                                  3
                                                       in
                                                       14


                                                   s  s

                                                   •H CJ
                                                                    in  in     IB
                                                             C     r-l -H     3
                                                       01     -H £t  rH  U T-j  rH

                                                       01     H  0)  -H  C  O  -H
                                                      ^u
                                                      u a
                                                                              18
                                                                              in
                                                                              0
                                                                              jj
                                                                              H!
                                                                              3  JJ
                                                                              3  in

                                                                              Ss
                                                                               01
                                                                               01  >1

                                                                              ^a

                                                                               SrC
                                                                              rH  in
                                                                              •H -rl
                                                                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                                                             in  o
                                                                                                                                             01  o
                                                                                                                                             •H


                                                                                                                                             '5§
                                                                                                                                             3 M-l
                                                                                                        JJ
                                                                                                        O  ••

                                                                                                        V4  O


                                                                                                        II
                                                                                4-74
-------
Industrial users include wet industries such as tanneries,
breweries, food and kindred products, and veterinarian
services.  Industrial users are charged according to their
actual water use.  However, because the wastewater from
these users has greater strength than domestic flow, they
are charged according to average domestic flow plus a
surcharge formula to account for the strength of their
discharge.

Currently a flat fee is charged per connection for infil-
tration and inflow into the system.  This practice will be
reviewed upon completion of the Sewer System Evaluation
Study and the rehabilitation program that follows.

4.2.5.2 Capital Financing

According to Wisconsin law  (Chapter 59.96, Sec. 7), the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Commission shall place the
amount of funds required for financing capital improvements
in the budget.  The County Board of Supervisors is required
and directed to provide for this amount by tax levy, by
issuing corporate bonds, or by a combination of the two
methods.  If bonds are issued, they are limited to a maximum
maturity of twenty years.  In order to pay for the debt
service on the bonds, "there shall be annually levied by said
county board a direct tax upon all taxable property in said
district sufficient to pay the annual interest thereon, and
also to pay and discharge the principal thereof at maturity."

The present method of financing improvements within the MMSD
conforms to these Statutes.  The 1980 tax rate levied by
Milwaukee County on all property in the County (except tax
exempt property) to pay for debt service on MMSD capital
improvements is $-0.86 per $1000 of state equalized property
value.  Based on this tax rate, the EIS consultant has
estimated the approximate dollar amount the average house-
hold in each Milwaukee County Community would be assessed.
Commercial, industrial, and institutional property in the
County is also assessed at the rate of $0.86 per "$1000. To
determine any property tax assessment for MMSD capital
improvements in 1980, the equalized value of a property is
multiplied by 0.00086  (see Table 4.27).

4.2.5.3 Contract Communities

Service to the seven municipalities outside of the MMSD
boundaries is provided on a contract basis.  Up until the
institution of the User Charge System, operation and main-
tenance charges were included in the contract formula Cthey
are now included as part of the User Charge Program).  The
contract formula distributes the charges for MMSD capital
expenditures.  The distribution is carried out in a two-part

                               4-75
-------
   •u  a
   •o        o
   (I)  >,    O
   N iJ     O
   •H  l<  C    -
   *H  0)  O  O  (U
18  tj  fl>    in  n
   3  O  X  «•  3
   !7  Vj  (8      0
   H d.  6"   «!  S

              X

             5
          o       en
       a
       Cd
       N
       90
   o  o
E-i 00  H
   a*  «-
   rH
       a
       U
       cu
                     11
                     01
                     IS
                     u
                 a  o
                 in  2
                 •S  
                 ja
              
              r* x  4J
              Ji fl  M
              ^H f4  0)
                              OQOO     OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
                              OCOOCT*     cftr*-O*c^pocoi^»'yl»^OP*iOt*»Otr>OcO'Hir»r*'COr^'3'in
                                                                                                                                    0)
                                                                                                                                   •o
                                                                                                                                   •H
                                                                                                                                    U
                                                                                                                                   4J
                                      4-76
-------
formula, reflecting allowances for reasonable return on
investment  [approximately 7.5%) and annual depreciation
C2%).

The contract communities contributed 3,013 million gallons
(11.4 million m3) of sewage to be treated in 1979, at a cost
of $177.67 per million gallons ($6,940.55 per million m3).
The 1979 MMSD billing to each contract community for capital
costs is outlined in Table 4.28.
                          TABLE 4.28
MMSD

Brookfield
New Berlin
Mequon
Elm Grove
Butler
Bayside
Menomonee Palls
4.2.6  Noise
Population
Served

998,200

 13,867
  9,088
 12,817
  7,850
  2,105
  N/A
  N/A
Capital
Charges-1979

$10,229,368

$   129,273
    110,638
    152,311
     91,427
     50,496
      2,161
      8,081

$   544,387
Cost
Per Capita

$10.25

$ 9.32
 12.17
 11.88
 11.65
 23.99
                                                Source:  CGRB
Noise is measured on a scale of "decibels"  (dB).  The scale
runs from zero dB, the threshold of human hearing, to 130
dB, the level at which sound becomes painful.  A change in
noise level of five dB or less is generally unnoticeable.
The noise levels of some common activities are shown on
Table 4.29.

Noise is categorized into three types:  constant, fluctu-
ating, or intermittent.  Constant noises are continuous and
non-varying, such as the hum of a motor.  Because they do
not vary, constant noises are the easiest to adapt to and
the least offensive.  Fluctuating noises vary on a somewhat
regular basis and the level of fluctuation is not extreme.
Traffic is an example of fluctuating noise.  This type of
sound is somewhat irritating, but generally not considered a
nuisance.  Intermittent noises are sharp, loud sounds which
occur at irregular intervals.  These noises are often loud
enough to be painful, and they are hard to adjust to.  A
common example of an intermittent noise is blasting or use
of heavy equipment for construction.
                               4-77
-------
                            TABLE 4.29
             WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE
Sound Source
Jet takeoff at 200 feet

Discotheque,
Riveting Machine

Jet takeoff at 2,000 feet
Shout (0.5 feet)

Heavy diesel truck at 50 feet

Food blender
Garbage disposal
Loud radio or hi-fi

Freight train at 50 feet
Cash register

Typical large store
Automobile (average) 35-40 mph
Air conditioning unit at 20
feet

Residence

Quiet conference room
Living room

Bedroom
Whisper at 5 feet
Rustling of leaves, broadcast
studio
Faintest possible sound
dBA

130


120


110


100

 90



 80


 70
 60
 50
 40
 30

 20

 10

  0
Trend of Response

Painfully loud.
Limit amplified speech.

Maximum vocal effort
Very annoying
Annoying
Complaining possible
Acceptance

Quiet



Very quiet



Just audible

Threshold of hearing
Source:  MMSD Appendix 4k
                                 4-78
-------
In evaluating the effects of noise on the surrounding en-
vironment, the background or ambient noise level must also
be considered.  Ambient noise depends on land use and time
of day and year.  A fluctuating noise at a certain decibel
level that might not be disturbing if located in an industrial
area/ might be a nuisance if located in a residential area.

The noises associated with the operation of wastewater
treatment facilities are usually constant.  These noises are
caused by pumps, blowers, compressors, generators, and other
mechanical equipment.  Table 4.30 describes the effects of
noise from the existing WWTPs on surrounding communities,
based on land use in the surrounding area, the sensitivity
of the area to disturbances from noise, and the relative
ambient noise levels.  Presently, noise has not been cited
as a problem at any of the WWTPs in the planning area.

4.2.7 Public Health

Sewage treatment plants disinfect effluent before discharg-
ing it to watercourses to protect people who may come in
contact with the water from dangerous microorganisms. Sewage
can contain microbes (pathogens) that can cause typhoid
fever, cholera, dysentary, skin infections, and hepatitis
(Wullschleger et al.,  1974).  Disinfection kills enough of
these pathogens to reduce the public health risk to an
acceptable level.

At each point where untreated sewage is discharged into
surface waters, whether by bypasses, overflows, or diver-
sions from storm sewers, there is a greatly increased risk
of disease to anyone who comes into bodily contact with that
water.  Fecal coliform bacteria are often used as an indicator
of the presence of untreated sewage.

4.2.8  Transportation,  Traffic and Access

There are 239 miles (385 km)  of freeways in the seven county
SEWRPC region.  SEWRPC forecasts an additional 106 miles
(171 km) of freeways by the year 2000.  In Milwaukee County
(in 1978) there were 64 miles (103 km) of freeway, with an
additional 22 miles C35 km)  planned by the year 2000. There
are also 734 miles (1181 km)  of arterials in Milwaukee
County with a planned year 2000 increment of 41 miles (66
km) .

General Mitchell Field is the largest airport within the
area, comprising 2,080  acres (842 ha).   In 1977, 234,904
flights were generated and a total of 1,310,534 passengers
were served by this facility.  Other airports in the area
include, Timmerman Field, a 477 acre (193 ha)  midsized
                               4-79
-------
                                   TABLE 4 „ 30
                      SENSITIVITY TO NOISE NEAR LOCAL WWTPs
Facility

Jones Island WWTP
South Shore WWTP

School Sisters of ND WWTP
Chalet on Lake WWTP

Thiensville WWTP

Germantown WWTP

South Milwaukee WWTP

WEPCO.  WWTP

Caddy Vista WWTP
Cleveland Heights GS WWTP
N.B. Regal Manors WWTP

Muskego NE WWTP
Muskego NW WWTP

Muskego Rendering WWTP
Hwy. 100 Drive-in WWTP

St. Martin's Rd. Truck Stop

N.B. Mem. Hospital WWTP
Major Area
Land Use
H. Industrial
M. Res./ M. Ind.
L. Res.
L. Res.
M. Res./Conun.
M. Res. /Open
H. Res. /L. Ind.
L. Res. /Open
M. Res. /Open
M. Res.
M. Res.
L. Res. /M. Res.
L. Res. /Open
Open
M. Res. /Op en
M. Res.
M. Res.
Relative Ambient
Noise Levels
High
Low to Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low to Moderate
Moderate to High
Moderate to High
Low
Low to Moderate
Low to Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Sensitivity to
Expected Levels
Insensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Very Sensitive*
Slightly
Sensitive
Slightly
Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Insensitive
Very Sensitive
Very Sensitive *
Moderately Sensi
Very Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Insensitive
Slightly
Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
Moderately
Sensitive
*Close proximity to educational institution.  Sensitivity varies as
 to whether school is in session.  If not in session - moderately sensitive.
 L - Light          Res. - Residential
 M - Moderate
 H - Heavy
Ind. - Industrial
Coram. ••> Commercial
                           4-80
-------
general utility airport, and three small general utility
airports located in western suburbs.

4.2.a  Archaeological and Historical Sites

An extensive culture history and tabulation of historic and
cultural resources was prepared for the MMSD planning area.
It is located in the Summary Support Data File of the
MMSD Wastewater System Plan - Environmental Assessment.

Its findings concluded that there are a total of 218 known
prehistoric archaeological sites in the planning area con-
sisting of campsites, burial sites, village sites, and
artifact caches.  Archaeological remains recovered indicate
that the planning area has been occupied by various cultures
over the past 12,000 years.  There are also 34 known historic
archaeological sites of either Euro-American or historic
tribal origin.

More than 860 structures were identified possessing historical
architectural, or local significance.  According to the
National Register of Historic Places in Wisconsin, November
1980, there are 50 sites of national, state, or local
significance listed on the National Register in Milwaukee
County.  Also, in Milwaukee County there are another 21
sites that are eligible for listing.  In the City of Brookfield
and the Village of Menomonee Falls in Waukesha County, there are
4 sites on the National Register which have local and state signi-
ficance.

Of major historical significance in the planning area is the
Jones Island (West Plant) WWTP.  It was the first large-scale
application of activated sludge wastewater treatment in this
country, and has been designated a National Historic Civil
Engineering landmark.  The West Plant was determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places on September
11, 1979.

4.2.10  Recreation

Recreational areas in Milwaukee County include playgrounds,
parks, golf courses, zoos, campgrounds, and picnic areas. In
1970, Milwaukee County contained 9,924 acres (4016 ha)
devoted to recreational use, which is approximately 6.4% of
the County.  As of 1974, 12,211 acres (4942 ha) of land
within the MMSD planning area were designated for recreational
purposes.  (See Figure 4.9).

Water is, or can be, a primary recreational resource. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500) recognize the importance of water for
recreation by setting a national goal of fishable and

                               4-81
-------
                                                                      LEGEND
                                                                           PUBLIC SITE
                                                                           NON-PUBLIC SITE
                                                                      —•- PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                           COMMUNITY LIMITS
                                                                      ..... MMSD LIMITS
                                                                                    I
                                                                              0          12.000
                                                                               SCALE IN FEET
                                                                       St. Francis
                                                                           South
                                                                           Milwaukee
                                                         Caddy Vista
FIGURE
    4-9
DATE
 APRIL 1981
PARKS  AND  OPEN  SPACE  SITES
                                                        ttnuarf MILWAUKEE COUNTY PARK
                                                        SOURCE           MMS[)
PREPARED BY
       EcolSciences
       ENVIRONMENTAL  GROUP
-------
swimmable waters by 1983.  However, the lower portions of
the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers are now
restricted for recreational use to limited or no body
contact.  Also, Lake Michigan beaches in Milwaukee County
have to be closed on occasion due to the addition of pollutants
from combined sewer overflows.  The Bay View and South Shore
Park Beaches were closed an average of 27 days per year from
1969 to 1976.

Although sport fishing is a popular recreational activity in
the planning area, the lower reaches of the rivers, where
water quality is degraded, do not support extensive or
diverse fish populations.  Thus, fishing is limited. Also,
because of the toxic chemicals in the waters, some of the
fish living in the planning area contain chemical residue in
their edible portions in excess of the recommended standards.

4.2.11  Energy

Milwaukee County is the largest consumer of energy in the
planning area.  In 1978, energy use in the County was
estimated to be 317.5 trillion BTU per year.  If future
growth occurs as predicted, the energy demand should sub-
stantially increase.

In 1978, a survey of energy use at the Jones Island and
South Shore WWTPs and at each local treatment plant was
conducted by the MMSD   (Tech Memo 3/1/79).  The results of
this survey are shown on Table 4.31.  As the table shows,
the wastewater treatment facilities in the planning area
rely heavily on electricity and natural gas.  Electricity is
the major, or only, power source for most of the WWTPs.  The
Jones Island WWTP consumes a great quantity of natural gas,
primarily for power generation and sludge drying.  The South
Shore WWTP relies heavily on digester gas, a byproduct of
the facility's solids handling system, as a source of energy.

4.2.12  Resources

A treatment plant survey conducted by the MMSD  in 1978
collected data on chemical consumption used for wastewater
treatment.  The results of this survey are shown in Table
4.32.  AS can be seen from that table, large amounts of
chlorine, pickle liquor, and ferric chloride are used at the
treatment plants.

Chlorine is used as a disinfectant usually as the final step
before the effluent is discharged.  Pickle liquor and ferric
chloride are used to control phosphorus.  Pickle liquor is a
waste product of metal processing plants, numerous of which
are located in the Milwaukee area.  Polymer and alum are
used to thicken and settle sludge during the treatment and
solids handling processes.
                               4-83
-------
NTS
P
AT
ro EH

^ CJ
   H
   h4
3
§
   H
   to
   D
    w
             4J
              C
              CJJ
             •H  O
             H
              03  w
             •P  D
              O  EH
             EH  ffl
             W *-
                 -P
                 C
                 rd
                 rH
                 ft
                                 H   CN
                                      CM
                                                H   r~   co   ro
tn
fd
U
M

O
0)
03
C
8
01


0)
43
EH

<»••«!
01
C
O
H
•H
a




x*.
w
£
^
0)
pC
EH





*— v
x:
s


1 1
1 t




o
o
1 O
1
CN







1
1

rtj
2
o o
O 0
CO 0
CN CN
rH CTl
in



1
1




o
CO
en
«.
m







t
i



o
o
CN
VO
r>




i
j




o
0
r-
*
CO
m

o
o
CO
*,
VO
vO
en
•b
rH
CN
O
O
CO
VD
CN
rH
»


1
1




O
n
m
i»
^







i
i



o
o
0
rj,
00
in



I
I






i
i








I
I



o
o
in
in
CO
rH



1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1




O
O
i i i cn
iii«
CN







1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1



0 O O O
o o o o
m -3< r> o
CN tO O O
m H iH r>
C^* oo ro vO
»
O
o
^
rH
m
00
Hi
H



1
i






o
o
p^
«b
iH
cn
CO
o
o

•H
ro
m
•>


1
1








<
2






1
1



o
o
CN
o
<£>
CN

                                                                   CN
CN
03

J3
CO
-H

^i
r^J
r^
fd
u

-
^
s
C

g
J^
Q)
o
^1
0)
^J
8

03
0)
rH
id
33
2
lls-Riverside
2
Ils-Parkview
r^
C
rH
03
H

03
0)
C
0
I'D
id
fa
0)
(U
C
0
g
0
C
Cl)
a
id
fa
(U
0)
o
g
§
C

a
jj
03
rd
0)
43
4J
0
S
0
tn
ey
*>
01
3
a
hwest
+J
O

0
tjl
(U

03
3
a

01
0
C


H
id
tn

3
0
to


0)
o
to

J3
4J
3
0
to


(U
rH
rH
•H
>
01
C
0)
•H
43
EH
                                                                                       CN
                                                                                        •

                                                                                       CN
                                                                                       CN
                                                                                       m
                                                                                       m
                                                                                       00
                                                                                       cn
                                                                                       o
                                                                                       00
in
oo

in

CN

CN
                                                                                       co
                                                                                       CN
                                                                                                 00
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 CO
          *

          
                                                                                       C
                                                                                       0)
                                                                                       •H
                                                                                        3

                                                                                       W
                                                                                                 S
          4J
          C
          (U
          U

          0)
          ft



































e
V
rH
^Ct
id
rH
a!

fd

4J
0
fi
03
ft
EH

S
0)
4J
id
>
•H

ft

M
0
0
•H
41
fd
1
0

C
H
-1
















t
1
•H
VI
a

en
C
•H
C
C
(d
rH
ft
0)
,C
-P

O
4J

^
0
•H

ft
•O

C
o
•o
C
JS
fd

•o
0)
0)
'C
-H
03
C
o
u

.p
C
(d
^J
f"1
.p
C
0)
1
fd
0)

EH
CN
Q
CO
0)
43
4J
£
•o
-------
 0)
•o
•H
 M
 0
H


U .


 O
•H --
    O
    O
    O


I    O
I    O
    m
                         o
                         o
                         o

                         o"
                         o
                         in
                                  i    o
                                  i    o
                                      in
ro
                         o
                         o
                         m
                                     o
                                     o
«
w
EH
<
(N EH
PO CO
• <
*• 3
H pj;
3 H
P3 2
fn
2
H
Z
O
H
EH
CM
s
p
en
s
0
u

8
rt
D
o
en
>i en
i-H J3
0 rH
A ^




0
•rl
tJ

0) x-.
rH •
M i-H
0 (0
•H cn
P-t **" *






0)
n
•H
M "-
O en
rH X3
-C rH
U «-
        o
        o
        n-
                CN
Chlorine Pickle Liqi
Plant (Ibs) (qal.)

4-1
C
0)
J3
(0
0)
£
i
2
•P
en
•H
>

t!

8
O
0
ro
O
in


0
43
C,
g
M
0)
o
o
ro
i-H
CN
O
O
w
•
2

0
SP
J^
cn
|
o
o
CN
0
O
CN
ro
s

a

0
0)
^
CO
1
1
1
o
CN
en
k
0
C

g
rH
w
,C 0
o
to
1
1
o
o
0)

iH
•H

10
C
OJ
•H
x:
Electric

c
•H
CO
C
o
u
CO
•H
s
I
o
0
i-H
i-H
1
Q
U

M
1
0
04

O
o
0
H
O
O
O
m~
CN
00
c
rS
rH
CO
H
CO
CU
G

O
r-
^D
^O
rH
rH
O
ro
in
c-
0)

0

cn

^J
3
O
cn
                         o
                         o
                         o
                         CN
                         U3


                         CN
                         O
                         o
                         o
                         O
                         O
                         o
                                                                           $

                                                                           CN

                                                                           CN

                                                                            II

                                                                           •O
                                                                            C

                                                                            0
                                                                            ft
                                          CU

                                          4J

                                          •H

                                          rH
                                          0
                                          cn
       4-85
-------
         CHAPTER 5




ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
-------
5.0  INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the EIS describes the environmental impacts
of the four final system-level alternatives and the five
alternatives for the storage of combined sewer overflow
(CSO) and infiltration and inflow.  These alternatives were
described in Chapter III.  The discussion of environmental
consequences is organized by the criteria used to screen the
alternatives.  These criteria represent aspects of the
natural and human environments that could be affected by the
MFP. or its alternatives.  The criteria are reiterated below.
Natural Environment

Water Quality
Aquatic Biota
Threatened or Endangered Species
Air Quality and Odors
Groundwater
Floodplains
Wetlands
Wildlife Habitat
Prime Agricultural Land
                                    Man-Made Environment

                                    Future Development and Land Use
                                    Indirect Fiscal Impacts
                                    Cost
                                    Fiscal Impacts
                                    Economic Impacts
                                    Noise
                                    Public Health
                                    Safety
                                    Access and Traffic
                                    Archaeological and
                                      Historic Sites
                                    Recreation and Aesthetics
                                    Energy
                                    Resources
                                    Engineering Feasibility
                                    Legality

It was determined that no alternative would require construction
in scientific study areas.  Therefore this issue is not
discussed further in this chapter.

Each criterion is discussed in a separate section, including
the effects of the No Action, Local, Regional, and Mosaic
(MMSD Recommended) Alternatives.  For most criteria, the
four final alternatives are discussed separately.  However,
when two or more alternatives would result in the same
impacts, they are discussed together.  Where insufficient
information exists to assess specific impacts, the alternatives
are grouped together for discussion.  Also/ where adverse
environmental impacts are identified, possible mitigating
measures are presented.

Both the MMSD Recommended Plan and EPA's Preferred Alternative
are very similar to the Mosaic Alternative.  The environmental
impacts described for the Mosaic Alternative would also
occur with the MMSD Recommended Plan and the EPA Preferred
Alternative unless the text specifically states otherwise.
                              5-1
-------
As was noted in Chapter 3, the EPA Preferred Alternative
includes the Modified Total Storage Alternative with a level
of protection of two to five years.  If the U.S. District
Court Order is not overturned by the Supreme Court, this
alternative would not be implementable.

5.1  NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

5,1.1  Water Quality

The EIS has analyzed the impacts of the final alternatives
on water quality in the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River,
Kinnickinnic River, Root River, Deer Creek, Tess Corners
Creek, the Inner Harbor, the Outer Harbor, and Lake Michigan.
The following section presents the effects of the four Final
System Level Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives and the
five Combined Sewer Overflow Alternatives.  Existing water
quality is described in Chapter 4.

The effects on water quality of future alternative wastewater
treatment plant configurations are discussed in detail in
Appendix VII, Water Quality.  The water quality impacts of
combined sewer overflows and alternative methods of abating
these overflows are set forth in Appendix V, Combined Sewer
Overflow.

5.1.1.1  Inland Wastewater Treatment Plants

The EIS evaluated the downstream existing and future water
quality of each stream that receives WWTP effluent within
the MMSD planning area.  The analysis assumed stream low
flow conditions.  The water upstream of the treatment plants
was estimated from SEWRPC (1978L) and the MMSD  (1980).  The
analysis of the impacts of alternatives assumes the implementation
of the reductions of nonpoint source pollution which are
recommended in the 208 Plan.  Thus, the waters upstream of
the WWTPs are assumed to meet 208 recommendations for fecal
coliforms and phosphorus.  These assumptions are discussed
in greater detail in Section 3.1.1 of revised Appendix VII,
Water Quality.

In addition to direct impacts on water quality  (described
below), the action alternatives would allow the expansion of
the MMSD service area, and thus the elimination of some
failing septic systems.  As a result, this pollution to
groundwater and surface water would be reduced.

5.1.1.1.1 Caddy Vista WWTP;  The Root River now violates the
DNR standards for fecal coliforms, dissolved oxygen, residual
chlorine, and the 208 recommended standards for fecal coliforms,
dissolved oxygen, residual chlorine, and phosphorus.  With
                              5-2
-------
the implementation of the 208 Plan, the fecal coliform
standard would be met under all final alternatives.  Table
5.1 sets forth downstream, low-flow water quality conditions
for each final alternative.

With the No Action and Local Alternatives, the Caddy Vista
WWTP would continue discharging effluent to the Root River,
and flows would increase by 55%.  With either alternative,
the 208 recommended standards for residual chlorine and
phosphorus, and the DNR chlorine standard would continue to
be violated.  The No Action Alternative would increase
downstream pollutant concentrations for all pollutants
evaluated except fecal coliforms.  The Local Alternative
would increase the concentrations of all pollutants evaluated
except fecal coliforms, total nitrogen, and total ammonia-
nitrogen.  Neither alternative is expected to cause violations
of the DNR standards or 208 recommended standards for dissolved
oxygen.

With the Regional and Mosaic Alternatives, the Caddy Vista
WWTP would be abandoned.  As a result, the low flow of the
river would be reduced by 40% and all pollutants evaluated,
except un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen, would be reduced by 38%
or more.  The un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen level would increase
slightly because the water's pH would rise, and at higher pH
levels, greater levels of ammonia become un-ionized.

5.1.1.1.2  Germantown WWTP;  The Germantown WWTP discharges
effluent to an impoundment on the Menomonee River.  Downstream
of the WWTP, the river now violates both the DNR and 208
recommended standards for residual chlorine, dissolved
oxygen, fecal coliforms, and un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen.
Water quality under low flow conditions is set forth in
Table 5.2 for all the final alternatives.

With the No Action Alternative, the water quality of the
Menomonee River would remain very similar to existing conditions.
It is not expected that the Germantown WWTP would cause
violations of the dissolved oxygen standard for the Menomonee
River, although some violations occur within the impoundment.

With any action alternative, the facility would cease dis-
charging effluent to the Menomonee River.  As a result, the
concentrations of all pollutants evaluated would be substantially
reduced.  All DNR standards and 208 recommended standards
would be met.

5.1.1.1.3  Muskego Northeast WWTP;  The Muskego Northeast
WWTP discharges to Tess Corners Creek.  Table 5.3 shows the
existing and future conditions of Tess Corners Creek.  The
creek now violates DNR standards for residual chlorine and
                              5-3
-------
H






















w
s
0
H
EH
H
Q
3
0
CJ

H
^>
H
EH
rij
s
W
j
i^e

in
0
o
CN

05
^
w
*






















































CD
Cn
c
id
Xi
o

4-1
C
CD
0
!H
CD
ft




rH
id
C
C
•H
tn
CD
05



CD
Cn
C

•H
4-1
id
c
rH
ID
4-1
rH
<

vD
in
,
cr.
m

l





J-i
CD
> 0
•H rH
&
rH
-P
O
0
CK







tn
c
O
•H
4-1
•H

C
o
u
CD
>
•H
^j
id
g
CD
4-1
rH
g£




CM
CN
«
0

1





^
CD

•H r-
05 CN
4-1 iH
O
0
os





in
c
o
•H
4-1
•H
^
C
0
u
-H
4-1
id
c
M
CD
4J

<
id


Cn
C
•H
1 1
tn
•H
X
H




















tn
C
0
•H
4J
•H
TD
G
O
U




n
^0
•
CN
rH


4>


CD

•H in
05 O
,
4J CN
0

05

!H
CD

•H CN
05 CO
,
4-1 rH
o
o












M
CD
4-1
CD
S
id

id
ft
^
CD

id
S -.
tn
Cn fa
G U
•H --'
J>
•H ^5
CD 3
0 0
CD rH
W fa

rH rj- r~
r~ r~ CN

CO CN C<->
n in ^T

l l l







in cr>
o ^ m
• • •
*£> n o











CN CO O
*3* ^ O
• c e
m in in
rH CN
+ i +








o
ro cn i^)
rH \Q rH
rH







m ^o CN
rH PO »Ji
• t •
O rH CTl
m m


+ + +




m
r^« ^j» ^j
• « •
^d* r** i — i
rH






cn <*
r~ ro o
• • •
cn r- rH







tn
3

— 0) 0
r-t cn — x:
\ O rH ft
Cn w \ tn
g 4-1 cn o
— -H Q XI

4J
rH rH rH
3 id 
e c i
O VO CN
m r»
+ i +








V^ rH
0 t-
o o r~
o
CN






o r>- cn
O CN M
• • •
O {Q CN
in r»
rH
rH
+ 1 +




cn
in \o
e v
a o f~~
o
CN





^ rH
O in
• •
o co r~
Tf
co


^^
tn
4->
•H



- — • Cn 0 rH Tj
rH g UH g }H
\ — ' -ri id
Cn I-H o T3
E CD O 0 C
~- C O i-l id
•H \ 4-1
i-i rH o tn
o id s —
rH O -^
xi CD a
O fa ft

^f CN
rH CN

rH CN
in CN

i +






rH
CN H
m o
* t/
O O











cn co
^r m
i «
>^0 I^O
rH CO
1 +







r- CN

in o
o o








cn ^
rH ^
* •
in -y
•*


i +



r-t n
CN rH
^o o
• ,
0 0





in
m cn
m o
^o o
0 •
o o



s
1
id
•H
G
2 0

id E
•H •— • •* i^
C rH
0 '^ T3
g Cn CD
g g N
rij ^-^ -H
c
H 0
id -H
4J 1
O G
EH D





























































































^^
rH
V^
Cn
g
'*-'•






CD
•H
4-1
0
05
CD
X!
-*-1
0
4-1
tn
en
id
0
tn
•ri
t5
_
EH
1
4-1
in
m
CD
XI
•*y
o
z
Muskego
0)
§

,
S '
•H
05 ft
EH
4-J 2
0 5
0
K id
4-1
CD in
XI -H
4J >
O >i
4-1 Tj
t3
tn id
CD O
cn
SH CD
id XI
XI 4J
o
tn i id
rH CD
-p in
C JJ
CD tn
r4 ft
iH 3
3
cj ,x
CD
ft a;
EH M
2 U
tn
id M
4J CD
in c
•H SH
•o tn
TD in
id CD
0 EH
CD id
X! -H
EH >



.
EH
3»
>*
CD
4-1
0
H
U-l
CD
Cn
id
u
in
•H
CD
tn
id
-Q

rH
-H
id
TJ
average
X!
40
tn
3
rH
a
river

A
4-1
Q_j
0

*""'*
[

s

0
4-1
.
s
o
rH
SH
id
CD
^i
l
0


^
id
'O
1

CD
tn
CD
T>
3
rH
U
c
M
                              5-4
-------
                                        TABLE 5.2

                    WATER QUALITY UNDER LOW FLOW CONDITIONS IMMEDIATELY
                             DOWNSTREAM OF THE GERMANTOWN WWTP
                                               YEAR 2005 ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS
Parameter
                     Existing    No Action
                     Conditions  Alternative  Conditions
Percent Change  Local, Regional   Percent Change
from Existing   and Mosaic        from Existing
                                                              Alternatives
                                                                                Conditions
Receiving Water
Menomonee
River
Flowb (CFS)
BOD 
-------
 I
in

w

m
     H
     Q 0<
     W EH


     S S
cn cn
2 <;
O w
H 33
EH EH
H OS
Q O

O
U O
  a
S W
o «
HH cn

^i

o w
i-l X
  EH
OS
W fa
Q O
     >^ W
     EH «
     H EH
     I-H cn
     < 2

     ao
        Q


     W
     EH




























cn

O
H
EH
H
Q

O
U

w

H
EH

3
(X
w
EH

f£

m
o

o
CN

05
•^
W




































-P
q CD
CD Cn
•O C! £
SH rd O
CD X! M
& U fa1

rH
(d
c
0
•H
cn
CD
05

...
rH
rd
O
0









4->
C 0

OC S
r-l rd O
CDX: SH
AttJ fa






















































Oi
c
•H
-p
en
•H
X
w






o
•H
rd
en
O
2

T3
C








Cn
C
-rH
-P
en
•H
X
w










c
o
•H
1 i
+J
u


o
3








en
c
.p
cn
•H
X
fa1



















en
C
o
H
-p
•H
•o
c
o
u




en
CD
>
•rH
-p
rd
C

Q)
4->
rH
<





cn
c
o
•H
4->
•H
'd
c
o
u








CD

•H
4-1
rd

SH
m
4-1
H
fjj





tO
en
C
O
•H
I 1
-H
•H
T3
C
0
O










SH
CD
4->
CD
E
id

rd
0-4













en
SH
CD
G X
SH CD
O CD
U SH
U
en
en
CD
EH






















en
SH
CD
C _^*
SH CD
O CD
Ui,
H
U
cn
en
CD
EH




en
SH
CD
C

O (D
Un\
CL)
SH
en u
en
CD
EH




^
CD
4->
rd
S

Cn
C
•H

•H
CD
o
CD

ro
^* r** co r"O <^ CD c^o
.......
co CN i — ^ o o m
O^i ^* CO O*t O CN
1 1 1 1 rH | +











rH CN O
O O ^O rH CFi
• • • • •
O CT\ rH O O O 1~~
o
CN











•^r r--
t^ vo in o
i • • •
VD O O O O O O
CN CN
+ + + 1










CO
co in cFi
c~- oo fi r~» rr m

o m m rH o o r-
rH rH O
CN









00
i — 1 "*3* Cn
(& r~ n r» ^r in
o in co rH o o r-
H rH m
CN


*-*,
en
4J
en -H
3 — C
C SH rH g 3
CD 0 \ SH ~
Cn X! Cn O rH t3
^ o a s *H e SH
cn ^ SH/-tn^— -H rd
ft, ,_! .p^Q,—! rHOT3
u \ -H\x;\(i) ooc
• — ' CJi SCndiCnC OrH(d
e e e -H \ 4->
Xi ^- H^-rH^-iH rHQUJ
S n3 rd O (d 3 ' —
O Q 4-> 4J rH 0 •—
rH O O O XI CD EC
fa CQ EH EH U fa &

us ro
c .
CTi *=*
^^ r— 1
1 +










00
in o
CN O
• «
O O













o
CN
•
O O

4^










r- r-
(T\ O
^3* ^^

o o











^D IS-
cn o
^3* C3
O 0



3
1
rd
•H
C
3 O

rd g
•H <
fi
O ^^ 'O
6 rH CD
S \ N
*5« Cn -H
g G
rH— O
rd -H
4-) 1
O G
EH D









•
J4
CD
CD
SH
U

en
SH
(D
C
S-i
O
U

en
en
CD
EH

rd
•H
^

SH
CD
>
-H
PH

4-J
O
0
05

O
4J

en
CD
in
SH
rd
X!
Q
cn
•H
T3

>i
i — i
4-1
C
CD

in
p
O

&
g
2

4-J
en
rd
CD
x:
4J
S-l
o
3

0
Cn
CD
,i4
en
3
2

CD
X!
EH









a<
EH
2
J5

4-1
en
rd
CD
X!
4-)
SH
O
3

0
0"!
CD
44
M
3
S

m
O

e
rd
(D
SH
4-)
en
a
3

44
CD
CD
V-|
U

en
SH
CD


0
U

en
en
CD
EH

O
4J

en
CD
?
rd
X!
U
en
•H
T3

>i
rH
4-1
C
CD
SH
SH
3
U

P-i
EH
S
J3

O
3









I
en
•H
T3

CD
en
rd
X!

>-,
rH
•H
rd
•0

CD
Cn
rd
}H
CD

rd

CD
x;
4J

cn
3
rH
a

r-l
CD
>
•H
SH

CD
X!
4-1

^


e
o
SH
14-1

CD
Cn
SH
rd
X!
O
















































































H
W
cn
w


••
CD
U
SH
3
O
cn
                                              5-6
-------
fecal coliforms and 208 recommended standards for residual
chlorine, total phosphorus, and fecal coliforms.

With the No Action Alternative, Tess Corners Creek would not
change markedly.  The violations of DNR and 208 recommended
standards would continue.

With any action alternative, effluent discharges to Tess
Corners Creek would cease.  As a result, the low flow would
be reduced from 0.6 cfs to 0.01 cfs.  In addition, the
concentrations of all pollutants evaluated would be greatly
reduced.  All standards would be met with an action alternative,

Low levels of dissolved oxygen are not expected with any
final alternative.

5.1.1.1.4  Muskego Northwest WWTP;  The Muskego Northwest
WWTP now discharges to Big Muskego Lake.  The Lake's existing
conditions and its conditions under the final alternatives
are set forth in Table 5.4.

With the No Action Alternative, the water quality of Big
Muskego Lake would not change greatly.

With any action alternative, the Muskego Northwest WWTP
would cease discharging effluent to Big Muskego Lake.
Actual improvement of the water quality of Big Muskego Lake
is highly dependent on the amount of bottom sediments which
continue to be resuspended by wind action.  However, the EIS
analysis indicates that abandonment of the plant and im-
plementation of 208 recommended nonpoint source pollution
controls could reduce the nutrient concentration by up to
83% and increase the water clarity by as much as 10 times.

5.1.1.1.5  Regal Manors WWTP;  The Regal Manors WWTP now
discharges effluent to the Fox River via Deer Creek.
Downstream of the plant, the DNR standards for fecal coliforms
and chlorine are exceeded.  Also, the 208 recommended standards
for fecal coliforms, residual chlorine, un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen, and phosphorus are violated.  Low flow water
quality conditions for Deer Creek are presented in Table
5.5.

With the No Action Alternative, flows to the Regal Manors
WWTP would increase, causing the low flow of Deer Creek to
increase by more than 300%.  Otherwise, the water quality
would be very similar to existing conditions.

With any action alternative, the WWTP would cease discharging
effluent to Deer Creek, and the low flow would be greatly
reduced.  There would also be a substantial reduction in the
concentrations of all pollutants evaluated.

                              5-7
-------
                                     TABLE 5 . 4

                   PREDICTED TROPHIC STATUS OF BIG MUSKEGO LAKE
                UNDER ALTERNATIVE MUSKEGO NORTHWEST WWTP CONDITIONS
            Parameter
WWTP Phosphorus Load
  (pounds/year)

Total Lake Phosphorus Load
  (pounds/year)

Steady-State Lake Phosphorus
Concentration3- (mg/1)

Average Summer Chlorophyll
-a Concentrationa (mg/1)

Average Summer Secchi Disc Deptha
  (water clarity)   (feet)
              b
Trophic Status
Existing
Conditions
and No Action
Alternative

   10,600
   21,300
    0.115
   70.3
    0.87
Eutrophic
(very
 nutrient
 rich)
Local, Regional
and Mosaic
Alternatives

       0
     3,700
     0.020
     5.7
     9.70
  Mesotrophic
  (moderately
   nutrient-
   rich)
Percent Change
from Existing
Conditions	

   - 100.00
   -  82.63
   -  82.61
   -  91.89
   +1215.00
  Determined by application of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources  lake
  model, NEWTROPHIC, using the Dillon and Rigler  (1974) technique.

  Based on Trophic State Index presented in Carlson  (1977).

  Assumes nonpoint source controls are implemented, as recommended in the areawide
  water quality management (208) plan.
SOURCE:  ESEI
                                        5-8
-------














m
I
m

w
1-1
CQ
<
EH







































EDIATELY
2 ft
2 EH
H 2
*5
CO
2 co
O PS
H O
EH 2
H n CO
EH 2
H 2
J 0
< Q
D
O

PS
W
EH
<
2




















CO
2
0
H
EH
H
Q
2
O
U

W
>
H
EH
•<

P*
W
EH
h3
<

in
o
o
CN
PS
<
w
>H


































Percent
Change
Local /Regional From
and Mosaic Existing
s Alternatives Conditions
•c
en o
-P G -H
G CD -iH -P
CD Cn -P -H
U C E en 13
SH (0 O -H C
0) XI SH X O
ft CJ fa W U








CD
>
G -H
O -P
•H it)
-P G
Uti
M
< 
i
S
(0
SH
(0
ft
in
vo
CT>
1
,*
CD
0)
SH rH
U o
S-l 0
0)
CD
Q


•
•f
m
CO
+











X

•H XJ
CD s
U 0
CD rH
« Pn
CN CO rH
• •00
U3 CO CTi O
r- cr> co o
1 1 1 rH
CN O
O U3 rH
CN rH 0 O
rH
oo o r*- CN
(Ti CO CN rH
• • • •
rH CN CN CO


+ H- + +













CN in

E G g
rH — O —
rd -H
-P I
O C
EH D
*
ft
0 EH
52 S
• CO
^ S-l
CD O
CD G
SH (0
0 2
SH -H
CD tO
CD Cn
Q CD
PS
(0
•H CD
> XJ
4->
SH
0) MH
> O
•H
OS S
(0
X 0)
0 SH
fa 4-J
en
CD a
x; 3
4J
CD
0 Cn
4J SH
CO
en X!
CD O
DV M
S-4 -H
/rt rr^
U3 TJ
XJ
O (0
tn CD
•H SH
"O tO

en
>i G
rH -iH
4J G
C G

SH -H
0 S
C
(0 en
2 -
ft
H EH
(0 2
cn2
CD
« S-l
0)
CD X!
XJ 4-1
EH 0
tO
average daily base discharge

CD
X!
4-1

en
3
rH
04

M
CD
>
•H
SH

CD
x:
4-1

4H
o

o
rH
!->
O


5
5
rH
m

S-i
to
CD
>i
0
^H

•k
>i
(0
•o
1
r- •
ft
CD EH
X! 2
4-1 2

CO CD
0) XJ
T3 4J
3
H S
O O
C JH
M UH
X!

















































H
M
CO
M


*•
CD
U
SH
3
O
CO
5-9
-------
It is expected that dissolved oxygen levels may be low
occasionally with any alternative as a result of the oxygen
demand exerted by rich organic sediments.

5.1.1.1.6  Thiensville WWTP:  The Thiensville WWTP is the
only public wastewater treatment plant in the MMSD planning
area which discharges to the Milwaukee River.  However,
twelve relatively small public wastewater treatment plants
located upstream of the planning area discharge to the
Milwaukee River or its tributaries  CSEWRPC, 1979).  Table
5.6 sets forth the water quality conditions for the Milwaukee
River.  The DNR standards for residual chlorine and fecal
coliform and the 208 recommended standards for residual
chlorine, phosphorus, fecal coliforms, and un-ionized ammonia-
nitrogen are slightly exceeded under existing conditions.
With any alternative, the low flow of the Milwaukee River
would increase by 76% to 78% due primarily to increased
flows from upstream WWTPs.

With the No Action and Local Alternatives, the Thiensville
WWTP would continue to discharge effluent to the Milwaukee
River.  However, with the increased low flow, pollutant
concentrations can be expected to decrease slightly.  All
standards except the 208 recommended standard for phosphorus
would be met with either alternative.  Discharges from the
Thiensville WWTP would not cause dissolved oxygen problems
in the Milwaukee River.

With the Regional and Mosaic Alternative,  the Thiensville
WWTP would be abandoned.  As a result, the concentrations of
all pollutants evaluated would be reduced to a slightly
lower level than is expected with the No Action or Local
Alternative.  All standards except the 208 recommended
standard for phosphorus would be met.  The violation of the
phosphorus standard would occur with any alternative due to
discharges from upstream WWTPs.

5.1.1.2  Combined Sewer Overflows and Bypasses From
         Separated Sewers

The impacts of the MFP to the water quality of the Inner
Harbor and the Outer Harbor  are discussed in regard to CSO
Abatement/Peak Flow Attenuation Alternatives  only.  Implementation
of the Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternatives for the
inland wastewater treatment plants would have very similar
effects on the Inner and Outer Harbors.  With the Regional
and Mosaic Alternatives, all local WWTPs in the MMSD planning
area would be abandoned  Cexcept South Milwaukee which dis-
charges effluent to Lake Michigan).  With the Local Alternative,
only the Thiensville WWTP would discharge effluent to a
river in the MMSD planning area.  Since effluent from the


                              5-10
-------
vo
W

m
                  CO

                  §
                  H
                  EH
                  H
                  Q

                  §
                  U

                  w

                  H
                  EH
O
O
CN

PS


W
CD
en
c
ITJ
g

4J
c
CD
o
^
0)
Cu




rH
(tj

O
•H
Cn
£
cu
C
ITJ
rj
u

4-1
C
CD
O
^
cu
04











cu
en
G
ITJ
f-j
CJ

4-1
G
CD
O
i-l
CU










































Cn
C
•H
4-1
tn
•H
X
H

S
O
J-l
u-i


O
•H
(0
en
0
S

T3
G
IT)

C
•H
4J
tn
•H
X
H

g
0
M
4-1






rH
rd
0
Q
J

cn
C
•H
4-1
tn
•H
X
a

g
0
iH
^

C
o

4->
0
<

o
2


tn
c
0
•H
4->
• H
rs
c
o
o
tn
CD
>
•H
4-1
(TJ
C

CD
4->
rH
<



tn
c
0
•H
4-1
•H
T3
C
O
U
CD
>
•H
4J
(D
G
i-l
CD
4-1
rH
<




cn
c
o
•H
4-1
•H
T3
G
0
0
CD
.^
4J
ITJ
C
rl
cu
4-1
,—1
<
(TJ


Cn
C
•H
4-1
tn
•H
X
w




















in
c
o
•H
4J
•H
T3
C
0
U














0)
CD
M M
3 CD
(d >
3 -iH
rH PS
•H















CD
CD

3 CD
(TJ >
3 -H
rH PS
•H
S















cu
cu
K> J_|
3 CD
(TJ >
3 -H
rH OH
-rH
2


CD
CU
0| ^l
3 CD
ITJ >
3 -H
rH DS
•H
S











M
CD
4-1
O
£
(0
^
Ifl
cu

^1
CD
4-1
rrj
3

Cn
G

^
•rH
CJ
O
S
&


<*o CN 1*0 ro O
U") O CO O O
• • * • I
LO r** Q ^ f1^
^T i-H LO r-f fO
• • • • •
CO ^ CO CN ro
r^» ro
+ 1111




CN CO
co r^ r^ o
c*o ro 1^0 CN o
• • * • *
CN Cft CN O O
^31






CO CN
CO CN P-* H
r°*"* vo o^ CN co
*****
C"") CT^ CN O O
CN






W
3 ji—ni
C rH rH
— CU O \

— \ 0 rH ft rH S
co cn M \ tn \ —
fa E 4-1 Cn 0 Cn
CJ — -H E 42 E CD
— 2 — ft — G
4-1 -H
ft rH rH H S-l
3 3 (T! (tj 0
O Q 4J 4-1 rH
rH O O O £
fa CQ EH EH U


m
r-
.
"31
^

1










0
o
CN




m
p^
•
TTJ4
•rj*
1










0
o
CM






m
i — .
.
'd1
^rjl
1








O
O
CN









CN
vD
ro







E
Vl
0
U-l
•H
rH
o
u

rH
ITJ
O
CD
fa


ID
CT.
•
0


+







CO
ro
•
CO






^1
CN
•
0

-f-







CN
CO
•
co








^j*
CM
.
O

^.





CN
ro
.
CO








o
ro
(
00




x-v
tn
4-1
•H
c
3
^^
rH ^
E M
ITJ
o n
O G
rH (^
\ 4-1
O tn
2 —

33



r-
ro
•
rH
CO

i







(*D
O
*
O






r--
^Ji
•
^Ji
ro
1






rH
rH
CN
•
O








H
r^
•
in
ro
i




r-
0
CN

O







CN
CN
ro
,
O








2
1
(0
•H
C
Q
C
P
r5

rH
(TJ
4-1

EH


O
O
•
**O
r^

i






{Q
O
o
•
o






o
o
•
CN
ro
1






r^-
r-i
o

d








o
o

CN
ro
1




r^
rH
O

o







in
CN
0

o



2
1
(TJ
•H
C
0
p
£•
,— •* r5J
rH
""x "T3
CT1 CJ
E N
— -H
C
O
•H
1
G
D

























































































-— ^
rH
\^
cn
S







harges
u
tn
•H
ITJ
CD
S-l
rtj

C
•r-l
C
C
td
r-i
ft
CD
("]
4-1

G
•H
4J
•H
3

EH
*
S-l
0)
r]
4-1
O

0
2

•
CU
.,_(
PS
cu
CD
"3
IT)
3
•H
S
CD
A
4-1

O

in
CD
en
A
U
tn
.,_!
rrj

>1
4-1
G
CU
M
^1
3
U

CM
EH
S
S
CD
rH
rH
•H
£>
tn
G
cu
•H
.C
EH

CU
£
rt)




























































,
eu
£-t
g

CD
rH
i-l
•H

tn
c
0)
•H
r*|
EH
CU
4-J

U-l
0

g
(C
CV

4J
tn
§<



*
e
|

0)

4J
e
0

U-l

cu

m
A
0
cn
•H
T3
CD
ra
(TJ
X!
rH
•H
(TJ


CD
Cn
(TJ
M
0)

(T!
CU
4-1
07
3
ft

CJ
^»
-H

-------
Thiensville WTP constitutes less than 2% of the low flow of
the Milwaukee River, it can be assumed that the flow entering
the Inner Harbor would be very similar with any action
alternative.

During rainfall events, combined sewers which contain storm-
water runoff and sanitary wastes discharge their contents
into the waterways in the Milwaukee area.  Because of the
high concentrations of pollutants in these combined sewer
overflows (CSO), these discharges result in severe "shock
load" effects on aquatic organisms; in high levels of fecal
coliforms and pathogens; in the scouring and resuspension of
organic sediments; in the accumulation of particulate organic
and inorganic matter within the river channels, Inner Harbor,
and Outer Harbor; and in the acceleration of eutrophic
conditions in the near-shore areas of Lake Michigan.

The streams and portions of Lake Michigan affected by combined
sewer overflows are illustrated in Figure 5.1.  The overflows
affect about 10.9 miles of streams, or 7.3% of the total
stream miles within the planning area.  The combined sewer
overflows which discharge to the rivers and directly to the
Lake also affect the water quality of the Inner Harbor,
Outer Harbor  and,to a lesser extent, Lake Michigan.

In addition, bypasses, overflows, and diversions of wastewater
from the separated sewer systems occur in every community in
the planning area.  There are at least 263 permanent bypasses
in the planning area, in addition to portable pumps used to
prevent backups of sewage into basements.  The pollutant
loads to the rivers of the planning area from bypasses in
the separated sewer area are detailed in Table 5.7.

5.1.1.2.1  The Inner Harbor:  Pollutant loadings to the
Inner Harbor affect the water quality of the harbor itself;
the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
its bottom sediments; and the water quality and sediment
characteristics of the Outer Harbor and Lake Michigan.

The pollutant loads to the Inner Harbor were quantified,
based on flows and pollutant concentrations from the combined
sewer service area  (CSSA) and from the drainage areas located
upstream of the CSSA.

Loadings were estimated for water volume suspended solids,
total phosphorus, ultimate biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia-
nitrogen, lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, and fecal coliforms.
Table 5.8 presents estimated loadings to the Inner Harbor
under existing conditions and the No Action, Complete Sewer
Separation, Inline Storage, Modified CST/ Inline Storage,
and Modified Total Storage Alternatives.
                              5-12
-------
                                                                     LEGEND

                                                                     HIGHWAY

                                                                     STREET

                                                                     LAKE, RIVER, OR CREEK

                                                                     SURFACE WATERS

                                                                     AFFECTED BY CSO
                                                                       I
                                                                       IN
                                                                       a
FIGURE
   5-1
DATE

 APRIL 1981
  SURFACE WATERS  AFFECTED
BY COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
                                                SOURCE  MMSD
-------
Direct to
.ke Michig.
million
tallons
0
o
0
o
0
in
ro
o
0
o
CN
o
CO
o
in
CN
rH
                         O  tn
                                                                          ro
                                                                          CO
                                                                                       X

                                                                                       r-
«a

Cd EH
J 2
03 r<
< EH
EH D
   J

   O
   CM
      CQ
   J OS
   r< W
   D S
   2 W
   2 cn

      g
      H
      03
SH
0)
>
2

.p
0
s
c
o
•H
rH
rH
•H
e

in
CN


U3
0
rH
rH
(8
tn



0
0
H
^
r-



0
in
r^
^
rH



0
O
O

rH
ro



0

O
*
ro
                                                                    CO
                0)

               •H
  a;
  a;
  c
  o
  c
X)
 •H
 A

  0)
  0)
                (8
                O
               •H
               4J
                tO
                r-l
               4J

                (1)
                U

                0
               U
                11
                4J
                18
                eu
                                                                                CO
                                                                                O
                                                                                04
                                                                         o
                                                                         rH

                                                                         x

                                                                         CO

                                                                         in
0
•H
rH
rH
•H
£

in
CN
c
0
•H
rH
rH
•H
g
0
O
rH


C
0
•H
rH
rH
•H
e
o
o
ro






1








0)
p
(8
S
03
C
0
rH
rH
18
Oi



03
C
O
H
(8
tn






03
C
0
rH
(8
tn





















0
o
rH
•.
[^




0
o
o
en
o
ro





0
O
o

v£>
CN
!
X
o
rH
id
o
ochemi
•H
03




































QJ
-P
1C
e
-H
-P
i-H
D
1
rrt
Deman


^ ro
, ,
O CM CO
^ ^D
0

ro



.
O O ro
O in ro
CN CN
CN*
rH







o o o
o m o
in [^ rH
^
ro



vO ro o
*cj* ^^ C5
rH




fl
(U
en
O
M
4J
•H
S
1
" 1
c .3
0 T3 g
g (0 T3
S (1) 18
r§ J U
r>» rH
o
rH CO rH
^* O
CN X

(rt
co


vfl
r~- Tj" rH
vO ro o
rH CO rH
X

^
ro
CN



^O
O O rH
O O O
in in rH
CN" X

ro
O
r>
CN O kO
O
O rH rH
X
CN
ID





0
>H
•H
rH
0
o
0) rH
a u <8
a c o
O -H OJ
U N fa




.
rH
e

o
0
c^
a
u
fa
fa
s
c
•H

0)
r-l
(8

JS
O
•H
•§
S
M
0
-------
                                                         *!
                                                         Q~u-
                                                                                           e*      o     irt
                                                                   O      to
                                                           TJl

                                                             S|      r*      <«     *
                                                             |      -t              co
    OS i-f Z
    U E- <
    Z «* J
    2 Z 0.
    M o:
       U EH
    W E-i Z
    H iJ W
    « < 2
    D    U
    < Q E-
    3 Z <
    J < CQ
    IH    «:
cr  S w
 I      Z 2
10  U O O
    X M J
W  EH H d.
.-)     M K
a  O Q u
«:  EI z >
E"     O O
   U)  U
   O     OS
   <  U C4
   O  Z 3
   J  1-1 U
       EH CO
   El  CO
   2  IH Q
   <  X U
   E-I  a z
   D     i-t
   j  os n
   JUS
   o Q  o
   o.  z  u
      D
   Z
   Z
                                                                 r-     r-      m
«• Ul     -H
   s      s
   SI     2

u
4J
3
C
O
KJ
0»
0
o
'"'
-* 01
0 tj
«1 C
TJ
3°0
3
tfl
0 —
I1
o"
0 -
*J
£t
V 1
00
01
C
f
D

a
1
C 0
!~
n at
•a -a
c c
a ti
v- T-
q — -a —
a
1
u^
jg o
0
o
•a
c
£
o
c —
H
e
0
o
u
u
V
Cu
O
o 	 ,
U 0
O -H
:«. x
*"
-------
                                                     1      -
                                                     3      2
                                         «      -«      —i      to      m
                                                  ic
    K
    O
    CO
    x a
       >  en
    K H  2
    U f<  «C
    2 <  >j
    z z  a,
    M a:
       w  EH
    w E-I  2
    w j  a
— W <  E
T3 3     W
 o «: Q  EJ
 a a z  «:
 C h) <  03
 r-t M     «^
 •U E Ul
 c    z  a
 o M o  O
 o a: H  J
    O Q  W
oo  f-t Z  >
 I     O  O
in  en u
    Q     X
a  < o  td
J  O Z  2
    fn in
    2 M  a
    < X  td
    fr< W  Z
    D     l-l
    ij os  m
    >-) U  2
    O Q  O
    0. Z  CJ
                                 m      in      tn       in
31     2
                                                         o      -4      »n
    Z
    2
                                                  o  -»      »
                                                            O      ^   irt
                                                                                                     —      „      —      —    6  S
                                                                        a   otr
                                                                                                                                                                      u
                                                                                                                                                                      
-------
The CSSA now contributes to the Inner Harbor about 15% to
60% of its total load of most pollutants and over 98% of its
fecal coliform load.  The No Action Alternative would include
implementation of the Areawide Water Quality Management
(208) Plan upstream of the CSSA and the elimination of
bypasses from Metropolitan Interceptor Sewers  which occur
within the CSSA.  The implementation of the 208 Plan would
reduce total loads to the Inner Harbor to 77% to 88% of the
existing loads.

With Complete Sewer Separation, loads of suspended solids,
lead, and copper from the CSSA would not increase or would
increase only slightly, since these pollutants are largely
contributed by street runoff.  Loads of total phosphorus,
biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia-nitrogen, cadmium, and
zinc from the CSSA would be reduced to about one-third to
two-thirds of the existing loads.

The EIS evaluation which assumes that rooftop storm runoff
is relatively unpolluted, shows that  with the Inline Storage
Alternative, total pollutant loads to the Inner Harbor and
loadings from the CSSA would be only slightly lower than
loadings with Complete Sewer Separation.  Hence, although
the Inline Storage Alternative would provide treatment for
some stormwater runoff, it would offer little improvement to
water quality compared to the Complete Sewer Separation
Alternative.

With the Modified/CST Inline Storage Alternative, loadings
to the Inner Harbor from the CSSA would be reduced to 0.1%
to 36% of existing loads.  Total loads to the Inner Harbor
would be reduced to less than 75% of existing loads.  The
largest reductions in total Inner Harbor loads would occur
for lead, zinc, and fecal coliforms.

The Modified Total Storage Alternative would achieve the
highest reduction in pollutant loads to the Inner Harbor.
Pollutant loads from the CSSA would range from 0.05% to 13%
of the existing loads.  Total loadings to the Inner Harbor
of ammonia-nitrogen, lead, zinc, and fecal coliforms would
be one-half or less of existing loads.  The fecal coliform
total load would be reduced to only 0.6% of the existing
load of 1.75 x 1017 fecal coliform counts per year.

Most CSO events occur from April through October.  Seasonal
(April-October) Inner Harbor pollutant loadings were quantified
to estimate the impacts of CSSA discharges during the period
when they are most likely to occur, and therefore provide a
comparison to annual loadings.  The seasonal analysis,
presented in detail in Section 5.1.6.4 of Appendix V,
Combined Sewer Overflow,  indicated that CSSA loads comprise
                              5-17
-------
up to a 50% greater portion of the seasonal total Inner
Harbor loads compared to annual loadings.

Water quality in the Inner Harbor is determined by annual
pollutant inputs, by the deposition of some of the pollutant
loads in harbor sediments, and the removal of some pollutants
by biological or chemical processes.  To determine the
average pollutant concentrations within the harbor, the
annual pollutant loads which are not deposited or removed
are divided by total annual water flow to the Inner Harbor.
Pollutant concentrations for the Inner Harbor are presented
in Table 5.9.

Due to differences in upstream loadings, stream reaches
within the Inner Harbor are affected to varying degrees by
CSSA loadings.  For example, because of its small upstream
drainage area, the Kinnickinnic River is more greatly affected
by CSO than the Milwaukee or Menomonee Rivers.  CSSA con-
tributions of pollutants represent a two to three times
higher proportion of the total load to the Kinnickinnic
River, compared to total Inner Harbor loadings.  A storm
event analysis was conducted to assess the impacts of CSO
events as they occur.  The analysis, presented in Section
5.1.6.5 of Appendix V, indicated that pollutant concentrations
during a storm event may be up to five times higher than the
average annual concentrations.

It has been demonstrated that CSSA pollutant loads are more
likely than upstream loads to settle out in the Inner Harbor
(Meinholz, et al., 1979b).  Thus, the alternatives considered
for CSO abatement would have less of an effect on pollutant
concentrations in the Inner Harbor than they do on pollutant
loads (see Table 5.9).  For example, while Modified Total
Storage would reduce the existing biochemical oxygen demand
load to the Inner Harbor by about 45%, the average biochemical
oxygen demand concentration would be reduced by only about
30%.  Hence, differences between the alternatives are less
obvious when considering pollutant concentrations than when
considering pollutant loads.

5.1.1.2.2  The Outer Harbor;  The primary sources of pollutant
loads to the Outer Harbor are the Inner Harbor, the Jones
Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, two combined sewer overflow
outfalls which discharge directly to the Outer Harbor, and
Lake Michigan inflow.  In analyzing the impacts of CSO
abatement alternatives on water quality in the Outer Harbor,
it is assumed that with the Inline Storage, Modified Total
Storage, and Modified CST/Inline Storage Alternatives, all
CSO would be treated at the Jones Island WWTP.  Loadings
deposited into the Inner Harbor bottom sediments are not
included as loads to the Outer Harbor.
                              5-18
-------
 CD
•H
    (TJ

    -P
QJ
Cn
(0
M
O
0  O  -P
S EH  cn
                 o
                 
H
EH
2
04
W
EH
^
-------
Table 5.10 presents estimated pollutant loads to the Outer
Harbor under existing conditions and with the No Action,
Complete Sewer Separation, Inline Storage, Modified GST/Inline
Storage, and Modified Total Storage Alternatives.

The CSSA contributes less than 1% of the water and between
3% and 90% of the total pollutant loads to the Outer Harbor.
More than 10% of the total Outer Harbor loads of phosphorus,
lead, zinc, and fecal coliforms are contributed from the
CSSA.  Because most CSSA particulate substances are deposited
within the Inner Harbor and because of the impact of the
Jones Island WWTP discharges and Lake Michigan inflow,
pollutants from the CSSA have a less direct impact on the
Outer Harbor than on the Inner Harbor.  With abandonment of
Milorganite production at the Jones Island WWTP, ammonia-
nitrogen  loads to the Outer Harbor would greatly increase
unless mitigative measures are implemented.

With Complete Sewer Separation, total loads to the Outer
Harbor of all pollutants except fecal coliforms and ammonia-
nitrogen would be reduced to 82% to 96% of the existing
loads.  Fecal coliform loads would be reduced to 1.3% of the
existing load.

With Inline Storage, much of the rooftop storm runoff from
the CSSA would be stored, treated at the Jones Island WWTP,
and ultimately discharged to the Outer Harbor.  Because of
the relatively low concentrations of pollutants in rooftop
stormwater, the Inline Storage Alternative would reduce
loadings to the Outer Harbor only slightly from Complete
Separation.  The reduction in loads from the CSSA would be
partially offset by increased loads from the Jones Island
WWTP.

With the Modified CST/Inline Storage Alternative, all CSSA
loads would be reduced to less than one-half of the existing
loads.  Greatest reductions in total Outer Harbor loads
would be achieved for fecal coliform, biochemical oxygen
demand, and phosphorus.  Modified Total Storage of CSO would
provide the largest reduction in CSSA loads, with all loads
representing less than 15% of the existing loads.  However,
due to increased discharges from the Jones Island WWTP and
to loads from other sources, the total Outer Harbor loads
would be reduced to 75% to 87% of the existing loads, except
for fecal coliform, which would be reduced to 1% of the
existing load, and for ammonia-nitrogen, which would increase
to 316% of the existing load unless mitigative measures are
implemented at the Jones Island WWTP.

A very small proportion  Cless than 1%) of the total flow to
the Outer Harbor is contributed from the CSSA, and a large
                              5-20
-------
                                                      o
                                                                                                           (M       in      _4       in
    K
    O
    CO
    OS
    <
    X  U
        >  to
    «  M  z
    W  6-1  <
    E-i  <  J
    3  Z  O.
    O  OS
        U  fi
    W  E-i  a
    W  J  W
    X  <  E
    a      3
    4;  Q  Ei
    2  Z  «!
    J  <  a
 i       Z 3
tn  w  o O
    I  M J
U  Ei  E-i In
>4      H K
03  O  Q «
«!  E-i  Z >
Ei      O O
    ^3  U
    Q     OS
    <  u w
    O  Z 3
    -)  w W
        E- in
      .
    e-i w si
    j a (o
    Jus
    o Q o
    a, z u
                                                     z  c

                                                     O
-4       U9       -V
at
s
0
n
»
0
a


tJ
-i «
S|
"S 2.
•a
ao
« 0
a —
3
CO
3
O "«
£ -O
a s
« ^

a.

2^
g
TJ (fl

£ 3
-< a g
4 ^ Q.
U
1 O9
« 7*2

O X
o o
a


|
fa
•8
S O
i-
^


n
c
3

r-
a
13 -«
Ifl —
3

a
T3
8,
§^
-* O
%-
4
CJ

a
|
8.
^/^
a o
0.-1
1


1
3
a

o
5~
M
e £
u
0 o
n- a —
-4 ^«-
0 U o
Ou-
— i. X
•4 X
V
b
-------
                                                     ic
    K
    O
    m
    x u
       >  m
    « M  z
    U E-  <
    B <  J
    3 z  a.
    o os
       u  EH
    W H  2
    U 3  U
— * <  E
•a  3     u
   Z m
 c     z  3
 O  U O  O
O  I M  J
— e-> SH  t,
       M  K
o  o a  «
•-<  6* z  >
 I     O  O
m  en o
    a     «
u  < o  cd
,J  O Z  3
o  a M  «
<     t*  en
6H  H Ul
    Z M  Q
    < X  U
    tc U  2
    D     ri
    .4 a  m
    j w  s
    O Q  O
    a. 2  a
o
z e
o
oil
u
* <
V
c

O~*
X
*> CJ
1
3
fs
Q

sj
•


s


\o *> n
C4 f <"•




t0 10 <•>



Is,
-""'::

O r* «
O O Ot
es i- **
o
o n
-J r* f*
2 * ^


r^ o n a i
o as so
fi O ^ * O <*?
0 S ^ — Z
                                                    z  c

                                                    u
                                                    o
                                                               —    13

                                                                     §-«'

                                                                 .    ST
                                                                *    *° 9
                                                                Ql   9) £.
vo


5

a
D

a c
A 3
Si
&
-H O
-4J •—
S
n (N a> a) w f>4 o
m n c*4 ^ o T
r* o

^4 e M o « w o
|
D ^
•O m •£
Sl777««S
S3 t3 t: 13 -D -000
--•ajQ e c c c g*jo-^
«a£. 3 3 3 3 3-j-*r
u zo 3 3 3 S-^""*"
_ OD i 3. cL 5. a eLo^o
Edicifl g U'--
C, >,~ CO O -iO «O O -
-------
portion of the CSSA pollutants are deposited in the Inner
Harbor or Outer Harbor bottom sediments.  Therefore, there
would be little variation in average Outer Harbor water
quality conditions with the different CSO abatement al-
ternatives.  Average pollutant concentrations in the Outer
Harbor are set forth in Table 5.11.

5.1.1.2.3  Sediment Loadings and Quality:  Based on EPA
sediment quality guidelines, both the Inner and Outer Harbor
sediments are classified as heavily polluted, and will
remain heavily polluted under all CSO abatement alternatives.
The heavily polluted classification indicates that a low
diversity, low quality benthic community would be expected
to exist in the bottom sediments.

Pollutant loadings to the bottom sediments of the Inner
Harbor and Outer Harbor were estimated in Section 5.1.4.4 of
Appendix V.  Sediment loadings would be greatly affected by
the abatement of CSO, because CSO solids are more likely
than solids contributed from upstream sources to settle out
in the Inner and Outer Harbors.  This difference is due to
the fact that large solid particles in upstream flows have
been deposited upstream.  Therefore, the effects of CSSA
pollutants compared to total Inner Harbor pollutants is best
emphasized by considering the loads to the bottom sediments.
Annual loadings to the Inner Harbor sediments and Outer
Harbor sediments are set forth in Tables 5.12 and 5.13.

With the abatement of CSO, sediment quality would be expected
to improve slightly.  In the Inner Harbor, the reduction in
concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand in the bottom
sediments would be the greatest, by up to 73%.  CSO abatement
would reduce all other pollutants by less than 50% of the
existing concentrations.  In the Outer Harbor, abating CSO would
not greatly change sediment quality conditions.  All pollutants
would be reduced by less than 20% of the existing concentrations,

When scoured (i.e., disturbed by high flows), river sediments
can exert increased oxygen demands on the water column.
This phenomenon! is caused by the release of chemical sub-
stances which quickly react with and consume oxygen.
Meinholz et al., (1979b) have identified sediment scour at
CSO outfalls as the primary cause of extended dissolved
oxygen depletions following storm events.  Those CSO abatement
alternatives which include storage and treatment of all CSSA
sewage and storm runoff Ci-e., the Modified Total Storage
and the Modified CST/Inline Storage Alternatives)  would
result in less scouring, and therefore less dissolved oxygen
depletion, than those alternatives which include total or
partial separation of sanitary and storm sewers (.i-e.,
the Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage Alternatives).
                              5-23
-------















3
01
SH
3
4->
3
fa


















T3
01 01
•H fj>
MH rH rd
•H H) SH
•d 4-1 0
0 0 4J
S EH CO
0)
fi
•0 -H
0) rH
•H C
UH M
•H \
•0 EH
O CO
S U
01

» • •
CN O =
3
CO


cn
3
SH
0
^
ft
cn
0
JS —
04 H
V.
H CT1
rd g
4-1 -5
O
EH
C
i
X
0

H
nj
0
•H

S
,c
o
0
•H
«
^^ ^
rH
\
C^
_s

*
4-1
H
D
T3

(d
g
CD
Q




C
0)
Cn
0
SH
4-1
-H
2

(d rH
•H \
C Cn
0 S
g ^^
S
3i














v
rd
0)
j
                                                                      SH  X.
                                                                      fti1
                                                                      ft^
                                                                      8
CN
o
                 o
                 o
                                                                  •H
                                                                  N
                                                                                         H
                                                                                      s  e
                                                                                      o o
                                                                                      U-l O
                                                                                      0 U
                                                                                      U U
                                                         o  ^
                                                         01
                                                         fa
                                                                     IT)
                                                                     4-1
                                                                     3
                  a
                                                                                                   C  

                                                                                                   cn  o>
                                                                                                   01  J3
                                                                                                   U  4->

                                                                                                   0)  <4H
                                                                                                   SH  0
                                          
-------
                                                                                                     !"•       O       O       *•»
IN
        Z
        u
        £
        M
    IT;  O
    Q  U
    tf  t/J
    C
    iJ  «
        O
  <  E*  at
 i  z  PS
O  n3  W
<  O  Z
E->  0.  Z
    <  a
    D  S
    Z  6-
                                                            -  3
                                                                        O      r*       in
                                                                                                     \O       O       O*       -H
                                                            O  H
                                                               X
                                                            •»  Ul
                                                              T3|      m       CD

                                                              Jl      3       S
                                                                                                     O       O       O       O
                                                                    -I -.    U ~     X   1C T3      ^      —      ~-      —
                                                                     0  «     O  «    O   £  C      ta       «        •        «
                                                                    w TI    .c -a        -*  3       "      —       ~~       ~
                                                                                                     1111
                                                                                                     3333
                                                                                                     a       a       a       s
                                                                     •*o    -(e>    -c e  —      o    -* o     vo       o
                                                                     j -H     «-•    u aj       "o ^     E>-4     c.-^     u -^
                                                                     ;-    u-    OQ       «-    •o-     o.-     =-
                                                                             fi       S
-------
                                                 Z C
                                                   o

                                                 O 4J
                                                   •01    1
                                                   1    -
     01
     B
     2
     U

-~ cn H
T3 Q Q
 CD 
                                                   u
                                                 * <
•si     =     -
31     '     3
                                                 Z C
                                                   o

                                                 O w
                                                             21
                                                             a (-
                                                             9> 3
                                                                                                 I
                                                          a.  .e a,  -< -a "0     a     o>
                                                             a.     g c  o        s
                                                         3    /n    V fl  *H   •*>    3"1    W
                                                         o  -4 o  j: E  —    o   -«o   »o     o
                                                         »H  «i-4   yo    TJ-J   e-<   fl-^   o-«
                                                         *  *-—   5o     «—   -a—   a—   c —
                                                             p    -«       *     »     o     -*
                                                             P    as      j     u     u     «
-------
      g
      z
      U
   M S
   Q H
   < O
   O U
   J U)
 l
  IB «
W D <
j j 3
tn j
< o a
EH 0, W
   Z U
   z s
   <: H

      o
      E-t
                                                                                 O     _4        t«
'SI   ~      n
                                                                         o  -•

                                                                         -a
                                                                                                         -«      m     o
                                                                                                  3!
                                                                                 Jl-3    S-=j      S3
                                                                                   S    3. 3   — 41 O
                                                                                 O 3    J)  3    T Q C.
                                                                                 —i 0    30    O
                                                                                 JO.   ^  i    -OP


                                                                                 '-     '-     1 i,2
                                                                                                                       2.->    U -4
-------
    O]
    El
    z
    u
— 05 S
•a a H
ai < o
3 O 14
C J a)
•l-t
u fri a
c z o
a < a
u H «
728
u < o
J D
(0 Z W
    O
    t«
    Z
                                4 	  U ~-    C —
o »
sa
•a
— o


V
W)
11
0 £
£
-To


e
-11
u g
•* c a.
s u
J >?O


a
a
•o
c
a

o
•u -»

I
1
a

-4 0


U
TJ
C
a

V 0
a,-.
a—
3
i
i

o
U —"
c —

-------
In-stream measures, such as dredging or flow augmentation,
might also be needed to abate dissolved oxygen depletions
caused by interactions with the bottom sediments.

5.1.1.3  The Outer Harbor and Lake Michigan

5.1.1.3.1  The Outer Harbor;  The average flows and pollutant
concentrations for the Jones Island WWTP effluent and for
the Outer Harbor under existing and future conditions are
shown in Table 5.14.  Future Outer Harbor conditions assume
complete storage and treatment of combined sewer overflows.
Because maximum allowable DNR effluent limits for the Jones
Island WWTP effluent are assumed, concentrations of suspended
solids and phosphorus increase slightly with the final
alternatives.  The ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the
effluent is expected to triple, resulting in a corresponding
increase in the average ammonia-nitrogen concentration in
the harbor.  Although the total flow from the Jones Island
WWTP would decrease by up to 7%, the concentrations of lead,
cadmium, copper, zinc, and fecal coliform in the effluent
are assumed to remain the same as existing concentrations.

In Section 4.1.1 of Appendix VII, Water Quality, an analysis
is presented of the impacts of relocating the Jones Island
WWTP outfall beyond the Outer Harbor.  This analysis included
pollutant loadings, water quality, sediment loadings, and
sediment quality in the Outer Harbor for both the existing
location and a relocation site.  If the outfall is relocated
outside of the Outer Harbor, the Outer Harbor concentrations
of all pollutants except ammonia-nitrogen would be reduced
by up to 50%.  Relocating the outfall would reduce ammonia-
nitrogen concentrations to only 12% of the concentration
expected if the outfall is not relocated.  Pollutant loadings
to the Outer Harbor bottom sediments would be reduced by up
to 90%.  The concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand in
the bottom sediments would be the most greatly reduced, from
139,000 mg/kg at its existing location to 21,100 mg/kg with
relocation.  Therefore, relocation of the Jones Island WWTP
outfall would have a substantial impact on the content of
organic matter in the Outer Harbor bottom sediments.

However, relocation of the outfall would increase total
pollutant loads to the main body of Lake Michigan.  Relocation
of the outfall would increase the phosphorus load to Lake
Michigan from the Milwaukee area by 5.4% of the existing
load and by 4.0% of the load expected assuming the implementation
of the Mosaic and Modified Total Storage Alternatives.  In
addition, outfall relocation would increase ammonia concentrations
near the outfall.  The DNR establishes effluent limits for
un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen based on the acute toxicity
level.  Assuming expected future effluent concentrations, if


                              5-29
-------



a
a
r4
r4 O
01 .Q
4J U
3 id
O X
01
V4
ti -°
3 _ 4J
14 ~ C
S -> g




u
n o
01 a
4-> -4
3 id
o s
cr
-H
- ^
•H >a c
x eg
H Id 3
rH^
»£
Mu
"1 .
si
S!







Parameter




o
0
o

(-1
o
r^



0
o
*
in
*T



O
o
o
rH
0
r-





o
o
o
o>
T
">7
id
a
>,
v,
01
C
o
rH
m
Cn

c
Flow (millioi



CO
CN




-


It
0
m





CO
CN









CO
CN


rH
V,
I

M
'O
-H
rH
Suspended So


\Q
o r- vo
o ^ f-i







id 
O tn O








^D CN
o O ">
ro

rH
rH I
\
CK
£ rH
*•"* rH
3
01
3 1 —•
d i-l
0 TJ "N.
£ C 0>
O. rH « S
01 id E ~*
0 00 |
A -H a e
a. g "Jo
0) C -H Cn
rH x: oi co
 I -U
8-r4 X £ -^
m o < z
t- rH
O rH r-
0 0 rH
000
o' o' o'





r~
CO O vO
O 0 0

o o o




m
O rH CM
rH O rH
000
000






m
p^ o r-~
0 O O
o o o








rH —
X. rH
— O> \
rH e t?
^s. *~* C
i1 e -
— ' 3 .4
•a s a
id 13 a,
ass

CN
CN
O
d o
rH




in
i-4
id
O O
o
CN


r~
CN
o
0 0
o
VO





VD
rH
O 0
O
CN






s
H
Zinc (mg/1)
Fecal Colifo
(MFFCC/ 100ml)
                                  4J
                                  e
                                  01
                                  3
                                  TJ
                                  01
                                  0)
                                       4J
                                       IB
                                       g
                                       01
                                       01
                                       CT>
                                       10
                                       «S
                                       a
                                  a   3
14
4J

•a

g

01
en
«
l-i
O
                                                        3
                                                        0
                                                        to
5-30
-------
the outfall discharges directly to Lake Michigan, the acute
toxicity level* of 0.2 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen might
be violated.  The MMSD (Summary Support Data File Vol. 1,
1980) investigated the possibility of public health hazards
created by relocation of the outfall.  During normal operation,
the relocated outfall would present a very remote risk to
public health.

Abandoning Milorganite production at the Jones Island WWTP
and implementing anaerobic digestion instead  (as recommended
by the MMSD, 1980}  would approximately triple the existing
concentration of ammonia in the WWTP effluent.  Assuming
future conditions, the total load of ammonia to the Outer
Harbor would be 180% to 216% higher than the existing load
(Table 5-3, Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow).  With the
abatement of combined sewer overflows, ammonia would be the
only pollutant evaluated which would have future loads to
the Outer Harbor higher than the existing loads.

In Section 4.1.2 of Appendix VII, Water Quality, the impacts
of the increased ammonia discharge  are described.  In the
Outer Harbor, increased ammonia loads are not likely to
significantly increase algal growth; plant growth in the
Outer Harbor is usually limited by the availability of light
or phosphorus, rather than nitrogen.

The process whereby ammonia is changed to nitrate depends on
nitrifying bacteria which also consume oxygen.  An analysis
of this nitrification process  (Lee et al., 1980) has shown
that the numbers of nitrifying bacteria in the harbor
are relatively low, due primarily to rapid flushing of the
harbor.  This analysis showed that increasing the effluent
ammonia-nitrogen concentration from 6 mg/1 to 18 mg/1 would
have a negligible effect on dissolved oxygen levels.  In the
WWTP effluent, the acute toxicity level of 0.4 mg/1 un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen would be violated during critical
summer periods.  For a majority of the time, however, the
Outer Harbor would meet the acute toxicity level.  The
mixing zone for the WWTP outfall (that area which would
violate the DNR standard for the Outer Harbor of 0.04 mg/1
un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen) could extend up to 2,600 feet
from the outfall.

5.1.1.3.2  Direct Sources to Lake Michigan;  Within the MMSD
planning area, five wastewater treatment plants currently
discharge directly to Lake Michigan:  the South Shore WWTP,
the South Milwaukee WWTP, the Sisters of Notre Dame Academy
private WWTP, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company's Oak
*That level which would seriously harm biota in the short-term.


                              5-31
-------
Creek plant, and the Chalet-on-the-Lake private WWTP.  In
addition, the Outer Harbor, which receives pollutants from
the Inner Harbor and Jones Island WWTP, also discharges
pollutants into Lake Michigan.

Annual pollutant loadings to Lake Michigan are set forth in
Table 5.15.  The Outer Harbor and South Shore WWTP are the
greatest sources within the MMSD service area of pollutants
to the Lake, contributing over 98% of the total loads presented
in Table 5.15.  Future increases in pollutant loads from the
South Shore WWTP due to increased effluent flows and concen-
trations would be partially offset by decreases in the'loads
of total phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand, lead, cadmium,
and fecal coliforms from the Outer Harbor.  The largest
increase in loads to Lake Michigan is expected for ammonia-
nitrogen.  A detailed ammonia-nitrogen analysis for the
South Shore WWTP is presented in Appendix VII, Water Quality.

Phosphorus has been shown to be the nutrient limiting algal
growth in the Great Lakes.  Excessive levels of phosphorus
may result in eutrophic (nutrient-enriched)  conditions and
algal blooms in portions of Lake Michigan.  The International
Joint Commission (1980) estimated the existing (1976) phosphorus
load to provide for the continued protection and maintenance
of the Lake's water quality.  If current phosphorus discharge
levels are maintained through the planning period, and the
wastewater volumes tributary to the South Shore WWTP increase
as predicted, the proportion of the total phosphorus load to
Lake Michigan contributed from the Milwaukee area is expected
to decrease from 4.5% to 4.0%.  If, during the planning
period, current phosphorus discharge levels increase to the
maximum level currently permitted and if the wastewater
volumes tributary to the South Shore WWTP increase as predicted,
the proportion of the total phosphorus load to Lake Michigan
contributed from the Milwaukee area increases from 4.5% to
5.8%.  These phosphorus loadings may increase nuisance
growths of algae along the Milwaukee near-shore area.

5.1.1.4  Lakefills Associated with the MMSD Recommended
         Plan and EPA Preferred Alternative

The MMSD proposes filling in 9.5 acres of the Outer Harbor
for the expansion of the Jones Island WWTP and 12 acres of
Lake Michigan for the expansion of the South Shore WWTP (an
additional 18 acres would be closed off).  The EPA Preferred
Alternative would be a 5.7 acre lakefill for the Jones
Island WWTP and a 12 acre lakefill for the South Shore WWTP
(without closing off the additional 18 acres).

Filling in these portions of the Outer Harbor and Lake
Michigan would cause short-term, localized impacts.  The


                              5-32
-------
   01
   a
   jj

    01
   C CM
   O EH
   fl

  JC.

  (J
                                               £
JJ
o  -
oi  >.

H  fl
•H O rH

M O CM

C
O Ll X

U V 01

in 3 oi

•H O M

S CM U
                 o
                 o
                         co

                         d
                                 o
                                 o
                      o
                      o
                      o
                                                       01
                                                       z
  IW fl

   o a
     3


  5 3

   3 rH

   0 -<

  t/1 S
          CO


          in
                 O
                 o
                                 o
                                 o
                                                01

                                               rH

                                               XI
                                               •H

                                                en
                                                ai
                                                z
                      in
                      o
                      o
                      o
                      o
          lO
          CO
          en
               en
               oi
               Z
                                                       CO
                                                       o
          o
          o
          o
          o
          o
          o
                         o
                         in
                         o
                         lO
o
o
o
o
o.
                                               o
                                               •fl-
                                                  o
                                                  Q<
                                                              e  »
                                                              u  u
                                                              O  C
                                                              lu  3



                                                              I8
                                                              On
                                                               rH
                                                              rH  O
                                                              10  rH
                                                              0  —



























(Q
t-t
rO
fl
•-*
•H
(d
>
<

jj
I


<
z
"u
•H
JJ
fl
01
JJ
01
Ol
fl
Ll
0
rH
fl
•n
Ol
•H
I4H
-rV
O
tn
|
o
$
01
tn
T3
Ol
C
-r4
1
O
o

o

c
n
JJ
fl
0)

jj
•o
c
fl
01
Cn
fl

o
JJ
in

01
JJ
IS
rH
I"
O
u

01
1
tn
in
<

fl















O*
c
tn
tn
a
>.
XI

I4H
II
•H
rH
01
Ll

rl
01
3
01
tn

tn
01
TD
3
rH
U
C
M

XI
fl
s
01
JJ
o
01
si
JJ
c
3
o
JJ
u
tn
JJ
i
o
•a
•H
3
m
T3
10
O
rH
C
01
3
rH
01
IX
•a
c
fl
rH
tn
U)
0)
I
tn
01
13
3
0
C
M

t
C
fl
a>
2
u
s
01

3

o
•^
Ll
o
a
Lt
fl
i

LI
01
JJ
3
O

01
.£
JJ
6
O
Li
IJH
n
•a
fl
3

u



en
C
•H
JJ
tn
•rH
X
a
01
fl

Es
fl
tn
0)

o
JJ
13
i
3
tn
tn
fl

n
c
o
-.H
JJ
-,H
T3
C
o
o

01
LI
3
JJ
3
b

•a
01
LI
3
JJ
3
Ll
01
•a
01
1
1
JS
0
3
tn
in
10
tn
-rH
Cu
01
fl
0
JJ
1
C
0
1
JJ
0>
rH
fl
U
01
o
fl
rH
fl
fl
JJ
0
01
Ll
01
3
CM
EH

s
01
•8
«
01
r

c
o
jj
0)
rH
fl
X
O

01
x:


^
o
IJH

fl
JJ
fl
•a

Ol
c
•H
JJ
01
•r4
X
a

a































.
tn
C
o
-rH
JJ
•rH
•O
C
o
o


                                                                                                                        U
                                                                                                                        w
                                                                                                                        u
                                                                                                                        01
                                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                                        u
                                                                                                                        3
                                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                                        cn
                                             5-33
-------
turbidity of the area would increase, thus reducing light
penetration.  Bottom sediments and any attached pollutants
would be resuspended, possibly reducing levels of dissolved
oxygen.  The color of the water might also change temporarily.

5.1.1.5  The EPA Preferred Alternative for the Abatement
         of Peak Flows

The impacts of the EPA Preferred Alternative on the water
quality of streams and lakes not receiving combined sewer
overflow are the same as those for the Mosaic Alternative as
described in Section 5.1.1.1 and in Appendix VII, Water
Quality.  For waterways which receive combined sewer overflow,
the water quality impacts would be similar to the impacts of
the Modified Total Storage Alternative, as set forth in
Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow, except that occasional
combined sewer overflows would occur.  Violations of the
dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform standards could occur on
a limited basis during these overflow events.  However, the
water quality impacts of the spill events would be reduced
as a result of the large amount of dilutions provided by the
large river flows which would be expected during a spill
event.  As set forth in Chapter 3, the EPA recommends that
additional studies be conducted to identify the most cost-
effective CSO abatement alternative needed to meet an attainable
water quality standard.

5.1.2  Aquatic Biota

Aquatic biota are affected by pollutant loads, toxic sub-
stances, dissolved oxygen levels, and nutrient concentrations.
The EIS has analyzed the effects of alternative future
wastewater systems on the short-term and long-term habitat,
food sources, and health of aquatic communities.

5.1.2.1  No Action Alternative

With the No Action Alternative, inadequately treated waste-
water and bypassed sewage would continue to pollute area
waterways.  Inputs of poorly treated or untreated sewage
into a body of water temporarily lower dissolved oxygen
levels due to the decomposition of organic matter.  Also,
toxic substances may reach harmful levels.  Siltation renders
the affected areas less  hospitable to most aquatic species.
Mobile aquatic animals would avoid the affected areas until
the reccurrence  of more hospitable conditions.  Only species
tolerant of periodic high-pollutant concentrations would
remain during bypass conditions.

Five WWTPs would continue to discharge effluent to Lake
Michigan.  Three of these, School Sisters of Notre Dame,


                              5-34
-------
Wisconsin Electric Power Company  CWEPCO), and South Milwaukee,
would function adequately.  Their discharges would not
affect the water and sediment quality in Lake Michigan
during the planning period.

However, the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would not
function properly on a consistent basis.  During wet weather,
the Jones Island WWTP presently discharges inadequately-
treated effluent to the Outer Harbor.  This situation would
continue if the sewerage facilities are not improved.  As a
result of this and other upstream sources of pollution,
trout and salmon may tend to avoid the harbor.  In addition,
the growth of nuisance algae would be facilitated.  Increased
ammonia levels in the effluent from the Jones Island WWTP
might result in toxicity to fish in the central portions of
the harbor.

The South Shore WWTP would also be overloaded at times
during the planning period, allowing the discharge of partially
treated, chlorinated effluent directly into Lake Michigan.
Although currents would prevent plant nutrients from collecting
near the discharge point, organic matter would settle there.
Fish may avoid the plume of effluent, but they might be
attracted to the food source provided by beds of bottom
dwelling animals that would feed on the organic deposits
around the discharge point.  These deposits might contain
toxic substances such as heavy metals and pesticides, and in
this way these substances could enter the food chain.

The only construction that would occur with the No Action
Alternative would be the construction of sewer laterals in
already sewered areas.  Therefore, there would be few
construction-related impacts to aquatic biota.  Construction
impacts would be limited to the addition of silt and attached
pollutants.  Proper construction techniques would help
mitigate these impacts.

5.1.2.2  Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

The Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives would have
similar impacts on Aquatic Biota.  Effluent discharges to
the Menomonee River at Germantown, to Deer Creek at New
Berlin, and to Tess Corners Creek in Muskego  would cease,
which would reduce the flows of the upper reaches of these
watercourses to close to zero during very dry weather.  If
the streams dry up, the biological communities characteristic
of a flowing water habitat would be replaced by a community
adapted to intermittent streams.  The individual organisms
trapped by cessation of flow would eventually die.  Other
organisms would be displaced to permanently flowing reaches.
These organisms would not be replaced until conditions are


                              5-35
-------
more hospitable for them.  The fish that feed on these
organisms  Cwhite suckers, bass, and bluegill, for example)
would move downstream to permanently-flowing reaches.

Deer Creek is filled with cattails, making it resemble a
marsh.  With the reduction in flow, marsh vegetation would
remain and a marsh community may become established.  Tess
Corners Creek and the upper Menomonee River might also
develop stands of marsh vegetation.

Big Muskego Lake and the Whitnall Park Pond already contain
dense populations of algae.  With any action alternative,
this growth of algae would continue or even increase due to
the accumulated nutrients that would support eutrophication.
Removal of the accumulated nutrients, by dredging the sediments
or harvesting algae, would be necessary to reverse the
eutrophication.  Unless such a program is carried out, the
biota of these bodies of water would remain characteristic
of highly eutrophic conditions.

The Outer Harbor also has nuisance algal growths.  However,
none of the action alternatives would greatly alter the
input of phosphorus to the Harbor, so algal growth would
continue at a high level.  Nevertheless, the action alternatives
would add less phosphorus to the Outer Harbor and to Lake
Michigan, and thus contribute less to the long-term eutrophication
of the Lake.  Increased ammonia levels from Jones Island
effluent might occasionally result in fish toxicity in the
area immediately surrounding the outfall.

In Lake Michigan, effluent from the South Shore WWTP would
tend to repel fish.  The area affected by the effluent would
vary depending on currents and winds, but it would probably
remain close to the surface.  Organic matter would collect
at the outfall locations, encouraging the growth of large
populations of deposit-feeding worms.  These organic deposits
would contain high concentrations of heavy metals, which
could be incorporated into the aquatic worms.  Since fish
feed upon these worms, the potential for introducing these
toxic substances into the aquatic food-chain would continue.

5.1.2.3  Lakefills Associated with the MMSD Recommended
         Plan and the EPA Preferred Alternative

The lakefills included in the MMSD Recommended Plan and
the EPA Preferred Alternative  Csee Section 5.1.1.3) would
permanently remove lake bottom and the overlying water
column from use by aquatic biota.  The temporary changes
described in Section 5.1.1.3 could increase nutrient levels
in the vicinity of the construction area, possibly increasing
algal growth.  The increase in turbidity could cause eggs,


                              5-36
-------
nests, and food to be covered and could interfere with the
breathing organs of some species of aquatic life.  Mobile
aquatic organisms would probably be repelled from the affected
area.

5.1.3  Threatened and Endangered Species

The EIS evaluated the direct impacts to threatened and
endangered species and their habitats.

5.1.3.1  No Action Alternative

Two species of fish on the State Threatened and Endangered
Species Lists may inhabit the Milwaukee River near Thiensville.
These are the striped shiner, an endangered species, and the
longear sunfish, a threatened species.  The striped shiner
has been reported in the Milwaukee River in Milwaukee County
as recently as 1979.  The longear sunfish has not been
reported in the planning area since 1950.  In order to
survive, these fish need clear water and a gravelly stream
bed for spawning.  Bypasses and overflows in the Thiensville
sewer system would contribute to the degradation of the
natural habitat of these fish by adding small amounts of
silt to the river.  Thus, the No Action Alternative could
reduce the numbers of these species of fish.  There are no
other threatened or endangered species that would be affected
by this alternative.  There would be no construction occurring
in the Thiensville area under the No Action Alternative and,
therefore, there would be no construction impacts to the
threatened or endangered species known to be present in the
planning area.

The Federal government lists the longjaw cisco as endangered.
This is a deep water fish that has been reported in Lake
Michigan.  However, it has not been reported since 1963, and
in any case would not be affected by the No Action Alternative.

Among threatened and endangered birds reported in the planning
area are the endangered peregrine falcon and the threatened
Cooper's hawk.  No reports of these species nesting in the
affected area have been recorded, and they are not likely to
be affected by any of the alternatives under consideration.

5.1.3.2  Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives

None of these alternatives should disrupt any endangered or
threatened species of fish in the planning area.  The quality
of the Milwaukee River would not be altered by either the
expansion or the abandonment of the Thiensville WWTP.
Neither the striped shiner nor the longear sunfish would be
affected.
                              5-37
-------
There would be no construction occurring in the Thiensville
area under the Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives and
therefore, there would be no construction impacts to the
threatened or endangered species known to be present in the
planning area.

5.1.4  Air Quality

The EIS evaluated the emissions of pollutants and odors for
each final alternative, and identified possible measures to
mitigate adverse impacts.

5.1.4.1  No Action Alternative

5.1.4.1.1  Pollutant Emissions;  With the No Action Alternative,
there would be little change in the amount of pollutants
emitted to the air from sewerage facilities in the planning
area.  These emissions result from generators, sludge drying,
incineration of screened materials, and the vehicles used
for transporting sludge to disposal sites.

Currently, the greatest source of air pollutants from the
operation of these facilities is the process of drying
sludge to produce Milorganite.  In 1979, 1,226 tons  (1,112
metric tons) of particulates  (dust) were introduced into the
air from this process  (about 6% of the total emissions in
Milwaukee County).  With the No Action Alternative, the
amount of particulates from Milorganite production would
remain the same  (Milorganite production is at its maximum).

The amounts of air pollutants associated with the other
sewage treatment processes in the planning area would also
remain about the same throughout the planning period.
Wastewater flows are not expected to increase between 1985
and 2005, so the WWTPs would operate approximately as many
hours as they do now.  The pollution from these sources is
relatively insignificant to air quality in the planning
area.  Dust emissions due to construction activity with the
No Action Alternative would be minimal.

5.1.4.1.2  Odors:  The No Action Alternative could increase
odor problems in the planning area.  Raw or inadequately
treated wastewater would be periodically discharged into
area waters.  These discharges would continue to create
unpleasant odors from the rivers of the planning area.

There have also been complaints about odors from the
large wastewater treatment plants in the planning area.
With the No Action Alternative, the four remaining sludge
lagoons at the South Shore WWTP would continue to operate,
thus generating odors.  Odors from the Jones Island WWTP
have not been cited as a public concern.

                              5-38
-------
Most of the other WWTPs in the planning area are located
near subdivisions.  Although the surrounding communities
have not complained about odors from these WWTPs, the
increases in flows expected during the planning period could
overload the facilities, possibly creating nuisance odors.

Occasionally, the wastewater conveyance systems are also
the sources of odors.  These problems generally arise from
a system malfunction or improper maintenance, and they are
usually temporary.  None of the alternatives would alleviate
this problem.

The No Action Alternative would include little construction
other than sewer laterals in already sewered areas.  There
would be few construction-related odors associated with the
alternative.

5.1.4.2  Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

5.1.4.2.1  Pollution Emissions:  All the action alternatives
would include the rehabilitation and expansion of the Jones
Island and South Shore WWTPs and methods to abate CSO and to
reduce peak flows.  Each of these components of the MFP would
have construction impacts and long-term operating impacts on
air quality.

Construction would create dust (particulate emissions) and
equipment fumes.  The amount of pollutants added to the air
would vary depending on the percentage of silt in the soil,
the weather (wind and rain), the moisture content of the soil,
and the alternatives selected for WWTP expansion and CSO
abatement and peak flow attenuation.

Dust emissions under extreme conditions (high wind and dry
weather)  could cause localized short-term violation of the
particulate standard unless mitigative measures are taken.
Such measures for control of fugitive dust sources generally
involve watering, chemical stabilization,  or reduction of
surface wind speed using windbreaks or source enclosures.
The construction for the expansion and rehabilitation of the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would take less than four
years.  The lakefill alternatives for these WWTPs would create
the greatest amount of dust.  Construction erosion control
practices in conformance with the Milwaukee County Soil and
Water Conservation District Technical Guide are recommended
to be implemented for all MFP-related construction projects.

For the most part, the impacts on air quality from the
various alternatives for CSO abatement would be construction-
related.  The CSO solutions involving open-cut sewer
construction (Complete Sewer Separation and Inline Storage)


                              5-39
-------
would produce the most dust.  Unlike other MFP construction
projects which would require only temporary construction
sites, the CSO abatement project would require longer con-
struction time for dropshafts, access shafts, and near-
surface storage facilities.  Some of these sites would be
located in or near sensitive residential and recreational
areas.  Precautions for minimizing dust should also be
followed for this construction.

Construction vehicles would emit small quantities of fumes.
The amount of emissions would be limited by the small number
of vehicles and their operation time.  Vehicles should have
emission rates within EPA and DNR regulations.

The average annual construction impacts of the MMSD Recommended
Plan for the rehabilitation and expansion of the Jones
Island and South Shore WWTPs and the joint facilities for
CSO storage and peak flow attenuation are shown in Table
5.16.  The figures in the table would vary if alternatives
other than the MMSD Recommended Plan were selected.  The
ranges of construction emissions for the South Shore WWTP
and the CSO/Peak Flow Abatement Alternatives are shown in
Table 5.17.  (The MMSD did not calculate the construction
impacts for all Jones Island alternatives).  For more detailed
information on the construction impacts of different aspects
of these alternatives, see the Jones Island, South Shore,
and CSO Appendices.

The most significant long-term impact of any action alternative
would be the 6% reduction of county-wide particulate emissions
due to the abandonment of Milorganite production.  In addition,
changes in energy use at the WWTPs would affect their emissions.
Table 5.18 compares air pollutant emissions from energy use
with the No Action and Local Alternatives.  The Local Alternative
was used in this analysis because it would require the most
energy of any action alternative, although energy use under
all the action alternatives would be similar.  This table
does not include purchased electricity.  With any action
alternative, the use of electricity would be at least twice
that of No Action.  The increase in the use of electricity
could require greater use of coal and nuclear energy for
generating electricity.  Greater reliance on coal for the
production of electricity might result in emissions which
could increase the parameters listed in Table 5.18.
                              5-40
-------
                                TABLE  5.16
Particulate Matter

Sulfur Dioxide

Carbon Monoxide

Hydrocarbons
                                   AVERAGE
                           CONSTRUCTION EMISSION
                              OF MMSD PREFERRED
                                ALTERNATIVES
                                   IN TONS
                                  PER YEAR
                                                          1985
                                               MWPAP
Jones
Island1
56
14
425
30
South
Shore2
9
4
9
12
cso3
144
10
235
30
Total
209
28
669
72
County -
Wide4
Total
13,633
178,437
161,247
60, 703
%
of Total
Emissions
1.5%
0. 02%
0.4%
0.1%
Nitrogen Dioxide
160
50
193
403
67,008
0.6%
     ,  Jones Island Facility Plan Element, 1980
2HNTB,  Technical Memo, 1980
3MMSD,  CSO, vol. 1, 1980
4SEWRPC Planning Report 28, 1980.  The year 1985 is used for comparative
 purposes only.
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
                                   5-41
-------
                          TABLE 5.17

                  RANGES  OF  AVERAGE ANNUAL
                    CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
                         IN  TONS
               South  Shore  WWTP
              C_so/Peak  F1 ow Alternatives
                Least  Case
                Alternative
Particulate
Matter              3

Sulfer
Dioxide             2

Carbon Monoxide     5

Hydrocarbons        6

Nitrogen
Dioxide            2 5
Worst Case
Alternative
    34


     5

    11

    13


    56
Least Case
Alternative
    108


      7

    235

     21


    120
Worst Case
Alternative
    160


     16

    296

     30


    193
                               5-42
-------
                           TABLE 5.18

                    AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS
                           CYear 2005)
                     RELATED TO ENERGY USE
                         No Action      Local Alternative

Particulate Matter*         12.8                9.8

Sulfur Dioxide*             52.7               48.3

Carbon Monoxide*            69.5              164.4

Hydrocarbons*              142.5              412.2

Nitrogen Oxide*            312.1              413.5

*tons/year

In addition to the direct impacts on air quality from construction
and operation of sewerage facilities, any growth or land use
inconsistent with the Regional 208 Plan could affect regional
air quality planning.  As urbanization increases, less
agricultural land use and more residential and industrial
land use also occurs.  With the increased development, air
pollution problems can be expected to increase.

5.1.4.2.2  Odors:   The interceptors that would be constructed
with the Local, Regional or Mosaic Alternatives to convey
wastewater flows to treatment facilities would not be susceptible
to odors.  Interceptors are usually constructed at considerable
depths.  The groundwater is under such pressure at these
depths that exfiltration from the sewers is unlikely.  Even
if exfiltration of sewage from the pipes should occur, it is
unlikely that wastes would surface in sufficient quantity to
cause noticeable odors.

Odor problems during the construction of CSO alternatives
would be minimal.   Some objectionable odors could be released
during sewer construction as a result of disconnection of
sanitary laterals  or from the disconnection of existing
separate sanitary sewers from the combined system in portions
of the CSSA.  These odors would be eliminated as soon as the
reconnections were made and the trenches were backfilled.
Consequently, these minor odor problems would be short-
lived .

Odors might also occur at WWTPs.  Since the Jones Island
WWTP is located in an industrial area, its expansion and
upgrading would probably not increase odors.  The South

                              5-43
-------
Shore WWTP is located near residential areas and has been
cited for nuisance odors.  With the upgrading of this facility,
additional sludge lagoons at that site would be abandoned.
This action and improvements in operations should reduce the
odor problems from this facility.  As has been stated, the
South Shore WWTP may not be the only source of odors in this
area.  If this is the case, elimination of the sludge lagoons
at South Shore would not affect nuisance odors in the area.

All other WWTPs in operation with the Local or Mosaic
Alternatives are located near residential communities.
Improvements to the operations of these facilities should
reduce the possibility of future nuisance odors.  With the
Local Alternative, three facilities would employ land appli-
cation techniques for partially-treated wastewater.  Prior
to land application, complete stabilization of sludge is
required to kill any pathogens.  This process would considerably
reduce if not eliminate the possibility of foul odors from
the application sites.

The lower reaches of the Menomonee, Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers frequently give off unpleasant odors.  The abatement
of CSO and other bypasses would eliminate one source of
these odors, raw sewage.  However, it is not certain that
the rivers'  odors would improve noticeably because of their
already degraded condition.  In-stream measures such as flow
augmentation, aeration, and dredging could reduce odors
generated by the rivers.

Other long-term impacts would be associated with the final
CSO alternatives as a result of deposits of solids decomposing
in conveyance and storage facilities.  Deposition of solids
in conveyance systems is usually avoided by proper hydraulic
design.  However, blockages created by large objects lodging
in smaller diameter sewers might trap solids, creating a
localized odor problem.  The large size of the majority of
sewers required under each of the CSO abatement alternatives
would substantially reduce the possibility of these blockages.
Where deposition of solids in storage facilities would
likely occur, aeration equipment would maintain aerobic
Cnon-septic) conditions.

The screening equipment used at dropshafts and near surface
storage silos (with the Modified CST/Inline and the Modified
Total Storage Alternatives) to collect and store solids could
produce odors.  Since these facilities would be located
underground, the odors could reach the surface through
ventilation equipment and during removal of the collected
material from the facility for disposal.  Odors escaping
through vents could be eliminated by the use of deodorizing
filters.  Any odors released during transfer of stored


                              5-44
-------
solids could be reduced by using covered containers to
minimize exposure to the atmosphere.

In the event that solids would collect in deep tunnels and
storage caverns, odor problems could occur near ventilation
exhausts.  As with screening structure vents, deodorizing
filters could be used to eliminate potential problems.

5.1.5  Groundwater

The EIS analysis of groundwater studied the impacts of
dewatering, leaching, and sewer exfiltration on groundwater
supplies.

5.1.5.1  No Action Alternative

With the No Action Alternative, the service areas of the
MMSD and the Local WWTPs would not be expanded.  Thus, the
No Action Alternative would not extend sewer service to lots
now served by septic systems.  As a result, the potential
for contamination of the sand and gravel aquifer from failing
septic systems would continue.  Most homes in areas served
by septic tanks rely on groundwater for their water supply.

The Muskego Rendering Company in western Muskego now discharges
treated wastewater effluent to an infiltration-percolation
pond.  Although this pond operates adequately, flows from the
plant are expected to increase, overloading this pond and
creating the potential for groundwater contamination in the
area.

The MMSD applies sludge produced at the South Shore WWTP to
agricultural lands in Southeastern Wisconsin.  This practice
could be continued without adverse impacts to groundwater if
site selection criteria, application rate limits, and monitoring
of sludge composition and groundwater conditions are carried
out as directed by DNR regulations.

5.1.5.2  Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives

With any action alternative, interceptors would be constructed
to provide sewer service to some areas presently served by
septic systems.  These new interceptors would allow the
abandonment of failing septic tanks in their service areas,
thus eliminating these potential sources of contamination to
local groundwater supplies.  Septic systems would remain in
operation in the more remote areas of the planning area
where sparse population does not warrant interceptor construction,
                              5-45
-------
With any action alternative, the infiltration-percolation
pond at the Muskego Rendering Company would be abandoned.
The company would continue operation of its treatment
facilities to treat wastewater prior to its discharge to the
local sewer system.  With the elimination of this percolation
pond, the potential for contamination of local wells will be
reduced.

With the Local Alternative, three WWTPs in the planning area
would employ aerated lagoons followed by infiltration-
percolation ponds where the partially treated wastewater
would be applied to land.  Because this method uses soil
interaction to reduce pollutants, it is important to have
the greatest distance possible to groundwater at the application
sites; hence, a deep water table is essential.

Even with a deep water table, specific soil characteristics
or underground channels could allow effluent to reach ground-
water before its nutrients and solids are fully removed.
The result could be pollution of the shallow groundwater.
Due to the slow movement of groundwater, this would be a
long-term impact.

Sewage effluent contains many substances that could pollute
groundwater.  Soil acts as an efficient treatment medium,
and pollutants like'metals and phosphates would be rapidly
taken up by soil particles.  The main danger to groundwater
from land application would be pollution by nitrate, which
is highly concentrated in sewage effluent and poorly removed
by soil.  Nitrate has been linked to a blood disorder,
Methemoglobinemia, and so its concentration in drinking
water is limited by the EPA.

To protect users of groundwater in the vicinity of the land
application sites in Vernon, Muskego, and Germantown, a
thorough investigation of the soils beneath potential pond
locations, including percolation tests, should be conducted
before the sites are approved.  If the tests are inconclusive,
tile drains should be installed under the ponds to monitor
the percolate and determine if groundwater quality is in
danger.  If the groundwater should be threatened, the percolate
could be pumped to the surface, retreated, and recycled to
the pond.

Nitrate contamination could be reduced by planting a fast-
growing wetland plant in the infiltration ponds, allowing it
to take up the nitrogen, and harvesting it regularly.  As an
example, the grass Phragmites communis would be capable of
withdrawing three times the amount of nitrate that would be
annually added to these infiltration-percolation ponds over
a growing season.


                              5-46
-------
It is likely that land application facilities could be
successfully designed and operated without jeopardizing
local groundwater supplies.  Due to high concentrations of
metals and other toxic substances, infiltration ponds might
be unsuitable for growing crops once they are no longer
useful for sewage disposal.

The MMSD Recommended Plan and the EPA Preferred Alternative
include  the continued application of sludge from the South
Shore WWTP to agricultural land and the landfilling of
solids from the Jones Island WWTP.

Treatment plant solids contain toxic substances such as
nitrates and metals that could leach through the soil and
contaminate groundwater.  Pretreatment of industrial wastes
would be expected to reduce levels of contaminants in sludge,
but the degree of success of the MMSD pretreatment program
cannot be predicted at this time.

To prevent groundwater contamination, the DNR has established
criteria for the selection of land application sites.
Application rates are limited by permissible levels of
metals and nitrates in the soil.  Furthermore, the DNR
requires extensive monitoring of sludge composition and
groundwater conditions.  These precautions would minimize
the likelihood of groundwater contamination at land application
sites.  Precautions such as providing an impervious leachate
barrier, an underdrain and collecting system, and a leachate
treatment and/or disposal system are now required at landfill
sites by DNR construction and operation permits.  These
precautions should be adequate to protect local groundwater
supplies.

5.1.5.2.1  Impacts to the Sand and Gravel Aquifer

The construction of new local, intercepting, and near-
surface collecting sewers, near-surface storage, screening
facilities and dropshaft structures required by the various
action alternatives could affect the sand and gravel aquifer.
Since most of these structures would be constructed at or
below the groundwater table, groundwater would tend to
infiltrate into the structures through leaky joints and
cracks in the concrete.  If the structures are constructed
above the groundwater table or if the hydraulic head within
the structure is raised above that of the surrounding ground-
water, exfiltration would occur through any leaks or cracks
in the concrete.

Most local sewer construction would be associated with the
correction of the CSO problems in central Milwaukee and the
Village of Shorewood.  New sewers would be constructed


                              5-47
-------
throughout the CSSA for the Complete Sewer Separation
Alternative and Inline Storage Alternative, and in 21% of the
CSSA for the Modified GST/Inline Alternative.  The Inline,
Modified CST/Inline,and Modified Total Storage Alternatives
would require near-surface collectors, near-surface storage,
screening structures, and dropshafts which would also be
constructed in the sand and gravel aquifer.   In the CSSA,
groundwater is mainly tapped from the Niagaran and sandstone
aquifers and cased through the sand and gravel.  Pollutants
would be reduced by the soil in the sand and gravel before
reaching any well in the dolomite formation.

Interceptors would be built in some areas where individual
structures, as well as community water supplies, rely on
groundwater.  In these areas, wells could draw contaminated
water if they were located near an interceptor and were pumping
during an exfiltration event.  Interceptors are generally
constructed at lower elevations than local sewers, thus
reducing the possibility of exfiltration.  Proper sizing of
sewers and hydraulic design would reduce the possibility of
surcharge.  Installing water tight seals and inspecting all
joints during construction as well as regular maintenance
and inspection should also limit the quantity of exfiltration.

Care should also be taken in installing all facilities
because excessive dewatering could lower adjacent ground-
water tables.  If the groundwater tables are lowered, wells
might dry up or buildings might subside.  With due caution
and proper pre-construction and construction techniques, the
lowering of the water table could be minimized.  On sites
where long-term construction is expected, construction of
sheet pilings or slurry walls would limit horizontal ground-
water flow into the excavation site and could reduce the
amount of water to be removed from the site.  Sump pumping
and limited use of dewatering wells are also possible mitigating
measures.

Spills of gasoline, oil, raw sewage, and other contaminants
are possible hazards to groundwater at the construction
site.  Proper handling of these materials as well as development
of a rapid cleanup program would reduce impacts of such
spills.

5.1.5.2.2  Impacts to the Niagaran Aquifer

Tunnels, caverns, and connecting structures  Cdropshafts and
return pump shafts\ would be the only structures constructed
in the Niagaran aquifer.  The aquifer itself is mainly dense
dolomite with discontinuities (fissures and bedding planes)
which convey water through the formation.  Both the size and
frequency of these discontinuities vary.  Because the exact
                              5-48
-------
horizontal and vertical alignments of control structures,
and operating proceduces have not yet been identified, the
following assumptions are necessary to make a reliable
prediction of tunnel-related impacts:

1.   The vertical alignment is assumed at the elevation of
     approximately 300 feet mean sea level (MSL) with a
     slope of 1 ft/1000 ft.

2.   The horizontal alignment shown in Figure 3.9 is assumed,
     with possible dropshaft sites, public rights-of-way, and
     required separated sewer connections as controlling
     factors.

3.   All tunnels are assumed to be 20 feet in diameter and
     lined with a 1 foot thick concrete liner.

4.   All dropshafts are assumed to be equipped with gate
     structures to limit flows to the tunnel.  Excessive
     flows could be bypassed at existing overflow outfalls.
     The pump station could also be used to control flow
     depths.

Given the above assumptions, construction impacts would be
limited to possible drawdown of the piezometric levels of
the water in the aquifer to a point where local well capacities
are reduced or curtailed.  The proposed construction method
is to pump accumulated water (sump pumping) from the tunnels
and to apply grout to all discontinuities intersected.
Grouting is a common practice.   Grout is a concrete-like
material which is pumped to various depths in the discontinuity,
sealing it.  Chicago's Tunnel and Reservoir Project (TARP)
called for grouting of discontinuities to depths of one
tunnel diameter.  (MSDGC 1979).  In the geotechnical report
attached to the Addendum to Appendix V of this EIS, Converse
Ward Davis Dixon, Inc., (CWDD)  estimated inflow for an
ungrouted and unlined tunnel to range from 1,200 to 14,000
gpm/mile.  The report also estimated that at 1000 feet from
the tunnel, the drawdown in piezometric surface would be
from 1% to 3% before grouting.

Data on inflow reductions can be seen in Table 5-19.  As can
be seen from the table, grout has been used to reduce up to
53% of inflow in other tunnels.

Where faults or other large discontinuities are encountered,
large quantities of water could infiltrate the tunnel.
Large quantities of inflow could create a localized piezometric
depression along the alignment of the fault.   Figure 5.2
shows existing and possible faults in the Milwaukee area.
The fault extending southwest through central Milwaukee was
                              5-49
-------
                             TABLE  5.19
                      EFFECT  OF GROUTING  ON*
          TUNNEL  EXFILTRATION/INFILTRATION
  - CASE STUDIES
               Tunnel Configuration
                        depth   depth
Case                    below   below
  No  diameter  length  ground  groundwater
         (ft)     (ft)      (ft)      (ft)
   Measured Inflow Quantities
Before Grout    After Grout
gpm/ft mgd/mile gpm/ft mgd/mile
1
2
3
4
5
6
17
14
20
30
7.5
7.5
18
17


1
6
,400
,121
5mi
5 mi
,500
,400
                            200-  200-
                   5mi  200-20oi  200-300-
                   5mi  200-300-  200-300-
0.025   0.19    0.007   0.05

0.033  0.25    0.006   0.047


0.017   0.13    0.009   0.069


0.27    2.05

0.086   0.65
Source:   MMSD
                                    5-50
-------
           WASHINGTON COUNTY
           WAUKESHA COUNTY" "
                              OZAUKEECOUNTY
                 VULCAN MATERIALS
                   CORP.  QUARRY
                      iPEWAUKEE
                  WAUKESHA STONE
                  COMPANY QUARRY
                     r~
                           [WAUKESHA
          iiiiiiiiin
Fault-Postulated By
Distelhorst & Milnes
(1967)

Fault Observed in Quarry
 5' Vertical Offset

Fault Observed in Quarry
 100'Vertical Off set
                                                          LAKE MICHIGAN
                                                          MILWAUKEE COUNTY
                                         RACINE COUNTY
                                                                              NORTH
                                                                       1   0
                                                                              MILES
FIGURE

    5-2
DATE

 APRIL I98I
   FAULTS IN  THE  MILWAUKEE AREA
                                                     SOURCE M.M.S.D.
                                                     PREPARED BY
                                                        sUlEcolSciences
                                                        LT3U ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
postulated by Distelhost and Milnes in 1967.  Subsequent
borings performed along the proposed fault have not con-
clusively proved that this feature is a fault.  The existence
and location of all possible faults along the tunnel route
should be documented prior to construction.  Proper instru-
mentation in the tunnels during construction could also
locate such large discontinuities before tunnel operations
actually encountered the geologic feature.

Where known faults exist, impacts could be minimized by
aligning the tunnel perpendicularly to the fault, thus
reducing the exposed surface area of the fault.  Pre-grouting
(pumping grout  either radially from the tunnel or down
from the surface along the fault line to seal openings in
the feature prior to direct contact with tunnelling operations)
would also mitigate the possibility of adverse impacts.

The existence of faults often indicates the potential for
seismic activity.  Should earth movement directly intersect
the tunnel, it would be necessary to close the tunnel and
reseal any damaged walls.  Although distant siesmic activities
can be felt for hundreds of miles on the surface, it has
been shown that the effects on structures in rock openings
are significantly less severe (Dowding, 1977).

Wastewater could exfiltrate from the tunnels only when the
static pressure of the water inside the structures is greater
than the piezometric pressure of the surrounding groundwater.
Such a situation could occur if the tunnels filled to a
height greater than the height of the piezometric surface of
the groundwater  Ce.g., if local pumping caused a cone of
depression).

Flow depths within the tunnel could be limited by positive
head controls such as gate structures located prior to
dropshafts and by use of the pump station at the downstream
end.  If each structure is also supplied with a backup
facility, the possibility of the operators losing control of
flow depths in the tunnels would be quite small.  Using the
conservative assumption that gates, pumps and backup facilities
for each tunnel are each only 90% reliable, all flow control
devices would have to fail simultaneously for the tunnels to
fill to such an extent that wastewater backed up into dropshafts
(surcharged).  The probability of the occurence of such an
event would be 0.0001 (one in ten thousand).  This probability
would be further reduced by the fact that such an event
would have to occur during a storm that would require more
storage than would be available in the underground system.
Proper testing and maintenance of control equipment could
ensure reliabilities of greater than 90%.
                              5-52
-------
Low piezometric pressure already exists at two locations
along the tunnel route.  The first is in the vicinity of I-
43 and Hampton Avenue where the non-pumping cone of depression
dips to 520 ft. Mean Sea Level  (MSL).  The second, more
severe area is located near 1-94 and North 27th Street where
the non-pumping piezometric surface drops to below 480 ft.
MSL.  The cause of this second cone of depression has been
traced to industrial well pumpage in the area, especially by
the Universal Foods Corp. which draws an average of 35
million gallons per month for cooling water at its Red Star
Yeast plant.  Plant records show that pumping reduces the
pressure levels an additional 210 feet to an approximate
elevation of 270 ft. MSL.  It is doubtful that pumping
levels in the depression area near Hampton Avenue are as low
as near 27th Street because of the types of industry and
water use reported there.

Should exfiltration occur, its quantity and rate would be
controlled by the pressure differential between the aquifer
and the stored flows.  Thus, if the flow depth in the tunnels
is controlled and rises only slightly above the piezometric
pressure elevation, exfiltration quantities would be minimal.
Because the tunnels might infiltrate, they would exert an
area of depression similar to a well.

If exfiltration events are short in duration, it is quite
possible that exfiltrated pollutants could be recaptured in
the tunnels when conditions conducive to infiltration are
re-established.  Pollutants not recaptured would move through
the aquifer along the hydraulic gradient of the aquifer
toward the east at a slope of 0.0028 ft./ft. Pollutants
which enter a cone of depression created by localized pumping
would migrate to and be removed by the well creating the
drawdown.  This could be a severe impact if wells near the
area are used for drinking water.

The MMSD is continuing a program to identify and classify
all known wells in the tunnel corridors.  Wells are classified
by their depth, construction, and use.  Use classifications
include active wells, inactive wells maintained as standby
sources, inactive wells with pumps intact, inactive wells
which are capped, inactive wells which are properly abandoned,
and wells of unknown condition.  The data available to date
have shown that the majority of wells in the tunnel corridor
are inactive, and those that are active supply mainly air
conditioning and cooling water needs.  In order to protect
active or inactive auxilliary wells where use of contaminated
water could cause severe impact, the safest alternative is
to case the well through the dolomite formation.
                              5-53
-------
The grouting and lining program proposed for control of
infiltration would also control exfiltration.  In addition,
the permeability of the lining might also decrease over time
due to impregnation of pores in the wall by particulate
matter carried in the raw sewage.  Other measures to control
exfiltration include positive flow depth control in the
tunnels, construction of a drain system around the tunnel to
recapture exfiltration,and pumping of inactive wells in the
tunnel corridor immediately after an exfiltration event to
control the spread of  and remove a majority of pollutants
from the aquifer.

Further borings and aquifer tests, continued well identification,
and seismic analyses should be conducted to adequately
identify all geologic features and to obtain other data
necessary for safe construction and operation of a system
within the Niagaran aquifer.

5.1.5.2.3  Impacts to the Sandstone Aquifer

No facilities would be constructed in the sandstone formation,
so no direct impacts to this formation would occur.  It
would be possible that exfiltrated pollutants might enter
this aquifer from the Niagaran formation.  This contamination
could occur via the many non-pumping active and inactive
wells which are open to both the Niagaran and sandstone
aquifer.  If polluted waters entered these wells, they could
be conveyed vertically to the sandstone aquifer.  This
situation could be mitigated by proper abandonment of inactive
wells by methods described in the Wisconsin Administrative
Code Section NR 112.21.  Other mitigative measures include the
casing of wells as they pass through the Niagaran Aquifer  and'
the pumping of inactive wells immediately after an exfiltration
event.

Although it is possible that a number of older, improperly
abandoned wells may not be found in the central Milwaukee
area, only those wells which penetrate to the sandstone
aquifer are considered significant.  Vertical movement is
created in wells open to the sandstone because the piezometrie
pressure of the sandstone is less than that of the Niagaran
aquifer.  Those wells which do not penetrate the Maquoketa
shale will not create movement since there is no significant
pressure differentials through the aquifer.  Wells drilled
to the sandstone would generally be high capacity in nature
because of the expense involved in drilling to that depth.
Such wells would only be needed by industrial or large
commercial water users and should thus be traceable.
                              5-54
-------
5.1.5.2.4  Potential Long-Term Impacts

Impacts which could occur over the life of the planning
period are related to the possibility of lowering of the
potentiometric surface of the Niagaran aquifer to below
tunnel depths.  SEWRPC Technical Report Number 16, A Digital
Computer Model of the Sandstone Aquifer in Southeastern
Wisconsin,projects pumping rates regionally to the year
2000.The report predicts extensive increases in pumpage
from the sandstone aquifer in the western suburban areas,
especially Waukesha.  Although the majority of these high
capacity wells are open to both the Niagaran and sandstone,
it is likely that the majority of flow will be drawn from
the sandstone aquifer.  This prediction is based on a com-
parison of the transmissivities of the two aquifers which
shows a rate of 10,000 to 25,000 gpd/ft for the sandstone as
compared to 500 to 5,000 gpd/ft for the Niagaran formation.
The report also notes a continued decrease in pumpage from
the central areas of Milwaukee County.  Based on the preceding
details, plus the fact that the predicted large pumping
centers are west of or near the western edge of the Niagaran
formation as seen in Figure 5-3, it is doubtful that pumpage
would greatly decrease the potentiometric surface of the
Niagaran aquifer.  The location of the wells near the western
edge is important to note.  The dolomite formation is wedge-
shaped, with its thinnest points on the western edge.
Because flow through the dolomite occurs by discontinuities,
the decreased depth of contact will decrease the possible
numbers of discontinuities and thus flow from the Niagaran
formation.

The SEWRPC report predicts that pumpage would cause such
large scale drawdown in the sandstone aquifer that the cone
of influence of the Waukesha area wells would reverse the
general flow of the sandstone aquifer beneath Milwaukee from
its present eastward flow to a westward flow.  If pollutants
were to migrate vertically in an inactive well to the sandstone
beneath the tunnel corridor, they would migrate eastward
along the existing hydraulic gradient of the aquifer.
Should the predictions of the model,prove true, these pollutants
would migrate westward toward the pumping centers, contaminating
these water supplies.  By sealing inactive wells, minimizing
exfiltration from the tunnels, and using present standby
wells to control contaminant movement, the possibility of
vertical migration would be greatly reduced.

The SEWRPC model shows that drawdown in the sandstone aquifer
could be severe enough to establish water table conditions
(piezometric surface is below the elevation of the confining
layer} in the aquifer.  Such an occurrence would reduce
piezometric elevations in the Niagaran formation.  The two
                              5-55
-------
       LEGEND

       DEVONIAN

n           DEVONIAN DOLOMITE fl^Jl
           'JNOI^FERENTfATCD

       SILURIAN

       i—-•—j  SILURIAN DOLOMITE,
       t .._,._-i  
-------
formations are separated by the Maquoketa shale and the
Galena-Platteville dolomite formations.  The Maquoketa shale
is considered the main confining feature with a hydraulic
conductivity of 0.00005 gpd/ft2.  The shale is an average of
200 feet thick, and assuming it were completely saturated,
the transmissivity of the formation would be 1.25 gpd/ft as
compared to 500 to 5,000 gpd/ft for the Niagaran formation.
Thus the downward movement from the Niagaran to the sandstone
would be highly restricted.  By sealing deep inactive wells,
losses to the sandstone would be further reduced.  More evidence
of the barrier between the two aquifers can be seen in the
Wisconsin Geologic and Natural History Survey Circular
Number 9 by Devaul and Circular Number 21 by Erickson.
These two publications show a continuing record of water
levels in wells from 1940 to 1971.  The general trend of
water levels in wells open only to the dolomite in Milwaukee
was static while nearby wells open to the sandstone or both
the dolomite and sanstone showed marked decreases.

Based on the above information, it is probable that, even if
these predictions concerning the sandstone aquifer are
accurate, the effect on the Niagaran aquifer would not be
significant.  It is, however, recommended that the MMSD
study this possibility further prior to construction of a
tunnel system.  It is essential that all structure and
groundwater movement within both the Niagaran and sandstone
aquifer be fully defined and understood prior to constructing
and operating a system such as the proposed tunnel system.
Should widespread contamination of the two aquifers occur by
tunnel exfiltration, pollutants would remain in the aquifers
for centuries, making them unfit as a drinking water supply.
However, data available to date support the belief that a
tunnel could be safely constructed and operated in the
Niagaran formation without severe impact to groundwater
supplies in southeastern Wisconsin.

5.1.6  Floodplains

The preservation of floodplains in their natural state is
important since these lands allow for the storage of the
periodic rise of water levels.  The EIS evaluated potential
impacts to existing floodplains from construction and urban
development.

5.1.6.1  No Action Alternative

If no action is taken to expand existing wastewater treat-
ment facilities, the amount of housing development that
could take place during the planning period would be limited
by the capacity of the existing sewer system.  For the most
part, new development would take place in areas that are
                              5-57
-------
already sewered.  Since there are strict requirements for
septic systems and special permits are required for con-
struction on floodplains, it is unlikely that there would
be increased pressure to build in these environmentally
sensitive areas.

5.1.6.2  Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

Although every community in the planning area has some land
within a 100-year floodplain, the only floodplains that
might be affected by these alternatives are in Oak Creek and
New Berlin.  The Germantown WWTP is located near a floodplain,
but the floodplain would not be disturbed.

All these alternatives include the construction of the Oak
Creek Interceptor to be routed along the North Branch of Oak
Creek.  The MFP recommends that Oak Creek and its floodplain
be maintained in a natural state.  Nevertheless, downstream
flooding could be increased.  Planting marsh vegetation or
placing rocks along the river's banks would lessen the
possibility of downstream flooding.  In addition, this
construction might require a temporary damming of the creek.
If such action is necessary, the likelihood of flooding
upstream of the interceptor during a heavy rainstorm would
increase.

All action alternatives would include abandoning the New
Berlin Regal Manors WWTP  which is located on the floodplain
of Deer Creek.  The land could then be maintained as an open
floodplain.

Some CSO facilities would be constructed in floodplains.
For the Inline, Modified GST/Inline,-and Modified Total
Storage Alternatives, three dropshafts would be constructed
in the floodplain.  Precautions should be included in design
to protect these structures and to keep them operational if
inundated during a flood.  The Modified CST/Inline and
Modified Total Storage Alternatives would require screening
structures ahead of the dropshafts.  If these facilities are
also constructed on the floodplain, access structures should
be flood-proofed for the protection of equipment from flood-
water damage.

All CSO alternatives might require the modification or
repair of existing outfalls, many of which lie in floodplains
or stream channels.  This work should not affect floodwaters
once construction is completed.  If, however, flooding
occurred during the period in which CSO outfalls were being
repaired, and these floods inundated the outfall site, the
erosion of exposed soil and gravel could increase sedimentation
and the turbidity of the rivers.
                              5-58
-------
With the implementation and enforcement of the Regional Land
Use Plan CSEWRPC PR25), there would be little chance of any
MFP alternative inducing growth on floodplains.  The 100-
year floodplains of the study area have been designated by
SEWRPC as primary environmental corridors.  This designation
would control any potential development in these sensitive
areas.  However, full control rests with regulatory actions
of the DNR and local units of government.

5.1.7  Wetlands

The EIS analyzes the impacts of the final alternatives on
the wetlands of the planning area.  The EIS evaluates whether
each alternative would require construction on or disruption
of valuable wetlands.

5.1.7.1  No Action Alternative

Wetlands would be unaffected by the No Action Alternative.
Since there would be no construction of sewer facilities,
zoning would limit most development to areas that already
have sewer service.

5.1.7.2  Local Alternative

The only wetland in the planning area that could be affected
by the Local Alternative is located in Muskego.  The Muskego
Northwest WWTP is bordered on two sides by a marsh.  The
construction of a new pump station at the WWTP site to
convey wastewater to Vernon would not take place on marsh-
land, but there is a possibility of short-term disturbances
to the marsh from construction equipment or practices.
Contractors should be careful not to dump soil or place
equipment on the marsh.  Erosion control procedures should
be strictly controlled at this site during construction.

Implementation of the Local Alternative should not induce
the development of any wetland areas.  Wetlands are designated
by SEWRPC as primary environmental corridors.  Therefore,
future development in these areas would be restricted.

5.1.7.3  Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

Only one wetland in the planning area could be affected by
the construction required by the Regional and Mosaic Alternatives,
The route of the Franklin-Muskego Interceptor could come
close to a small cattail marsh between Forest Home Avenue
and College Avenue.   This wetland should be avoided during
construction.  Precautions should be taken at this site to
prevent erosion.
                              5-59
-------
Like the Local Alternative, these alternatives would not
induce growth on wetland areas.  The Year 2000 Land Use Plan
limits development on primary environmental corridors,
including wetlands.

5.1.8  Wildlife Habitats

The EIS analyzes whether the construction and operation of
the facilities associated with each final alternative would
remove or disrupt wildlife habitat.

5.1.8.1  No Action Alternative

With the No Action Alternative, there would be no new sewer
construction, except that now underway.  The disruption of
wildlife habitat might result from private construction,
which could only take place on presently sewered land or on
lots with soils meeting state standards.  Since these standards
have been strengthened over the last two years, it is unlikely
that much septic tank development would occur, so the potential
for disturbing wildlife habitat is minimal.

5.1.8.2  Local Alternative

The Local Alternative would result in impacts to wildlife
habitats in the vicinity of the South Shore WWTP, in New
Berlin,and in Muskego.  The South Shore WWTP could be expanded
by building a new lakefill to the north of the present site,
by cutting the bluff to make more land at lake level, or by
building on top of the bluff.  If the bluff is cut, some of
its habitat would be destroyed, and the exposed surface
would be more susceptible to erosion.  These impacts could
be mitigated by replanting vegetation and initiating erosion
control methods, such as terracing.  Neither of the other
two options for the expansion would have significant impacts
on terrestrial wildlife habitats.

The New Berlin Southeast plant would be constructed on 55
acres of old fields and young woods, destroying these wildlife
habitats.  However, this land is zoned for residential use,
and it is unlikely that it would remain undisturbed in any
case.

The new site of the Muskego treatment facility is a few
hundred feet south of the existing WWTP, bordering a small
stand of old trees that has been set aside as a park by the
City of Muskego.  These trees should be avoided during
construction.  The wildlife in that area could be tempor-
arily disrupted by the noise and activity of construction.
                              5-60
-------
Because the CSSA is an urban area, the construction of any
CSO Abatement Alternative would have little impact on wild-
life habitat.  Most of the construction for any CSO alternative
would take place on paved surfaces.  Some vegetation might
be removed for the construction of pump stations, dropshafts,
or storage facilities.  However, few of these facilities
would be located in a designated wildlife area and the
vegetation would be restored upon completion of the construction.
When construction occurs in public parks, some wildlife
habitat could be disrupted.  Some mitigation should be
provided by replanting in these areas.

As part of the primary environmental corridor concept set
forth in the SEWRPC Regional Land Use Plan, wildlife habitat
should be protected from future development.  The Local
Alternative would not induce development in these areas  if
the Plan is implemented.

5.1.8.3  Regional or Mosaic Alternatives

Either of these alternatives would have similar impacts on
wildlife habitats.  The potential impacts of different
methods of expanding the South Shore WWTP and for CSO abatement
are described with the Local Alternative.

Other wildlife habitat that could be disturbed by construc-
tion includes the wooded floodplain of Tess Corners Creek
in Muskego and Franklin  and the north branch of Oak Cree-k
near the south end of the Oak Creek Interceptor.  The construction
would require cutting a number of trees, thus disrupting
wildlife.  These impacts would be temporary, and they could
be lessened by preserving as many trees as possible.

Because the wildlife habitat of the planning area is designated
by SEWRPC as primary environmental corridor, it is unlikely
that alternatives would cause development in these areas.

5.1.9  Prime Agricultural Land

As urban services, such as sewers, are extended to areas
bordering farmland, the market value of the agricultural
land tends to increase.  As the farmland becomes more valuable
for development, property taxes increase.  The farmer is
often encouraged to sell his property.  This conversion of
land from agricultural to urban use is an irreversible
commitment of a resource.  This EIS analyzes whether the final
alternatives would encourage encroachment on prime agricultural
land.
                              5-61
-------
5.1.9.1  No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative could affect prime agricultural
land in three areas:  Muskego, Franklin, and the Caddy Vista
subdivision of Caledonia.  The Caddy Vista subdivision is
bordered on the north by a floodplain and on the east, west,
and south by prime agricultural land.  The Caddy Vista
wastewater treatment plant is already hydraulically overloaded
and it would not be able to meet future effluent standards.
Large areas of Franklin and Muskego are presently unsewered.
With the No Action Alternative, little new development would
be allowed to connect to the public sewer system.  Therefore,
pressure could increase to develop the area on lots with
septic tanks.

The Caddy Vista Subdivision is surrounded by prime farmland.
In addition, southwest Muskego contains 3,800 acres (1,537.9
ha) and Franklin 5,000 acres  (2,024 ha) of prime agricultural
land.  In all these areas, most of the soils are unsuitable
for septic tank development on lots less than one acre (95%
of Caddy Vista area and Franklin, 90% of Muskego).  However,
much of their land could be developed with septic tanks on
lots greater than one acre CO.4 ha); 50% of,Caddy Vista and
Franklin, 55% of Muskego.  Nonetheless, enforcement of local
land use controls in conformance with the Year 2000 Regional
Plan would limit development on prime agricultural land.

If any of these alternatives are implemented, the capacity of
sewerage facilities in Muskego and Caddy Vista would be
expanded, and sewer service would be extended further into
Mequon, Franklin, and Germantown.  All of these communities
contain prime agricultural land  which would be threatened
by increased development.  Enforcement of land use controls,
such as local zoning for the implementation of the Regional
Year 2000 Land Use Plan, would restrain this development.
In addition, the Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Act  (1977)
provides tax relief to some farmers and it could be used to
encourage the preservation of prime agricultural land (WSP
1979) . This Act was established to ensure the continued
maintenance of productive and potentially productive agri-
cultural land.  It was designed to promote cohesive state,
county, and local planning for protection of a vital Wisconsin
resource.

Through exclusive agricultural zoning or individual init-
iative, those persons meeting the necessary legal criteria
(i.e., possessing at least 35 acres (14 ha)  of land engaged
in agricultural pursuits that have earned a minimum of
$6,000 for the year previous to application or a net income
of $18,000 over the previous three years) who wish to qualify
under the program are eligible for an income tax credit
                              5-62
-------
based on a complicated schedule that considers one's assessed
property tax and earned income.  Implicit in the agreement
(contract) is the understanding that the land placed under
the Wisconsin Farlmand Preservation Act will not be developed
by the owner without review by the proper officials and a
repayment of deferred taxes.  For further details, the
reader should consult Wisconsin State Statutes 91 and 71.

Prime agricultural land might be selected as sites for
sewage sludge landfills or for storage facilities for sewage
sludge.  The estimated maximum total acreage required for
any action alternative would be 410 acres for landfills and
60 acres for sludge storage.  The use of prime agricultural
land for landfill sites would be an irreversible committment
of this resource because the future uses of the landfill
sites would be restricted.

The application of sewage sludge containing metals to agricultural
land could contaminate crops, soils, and groundwater.
However, the sludge application would be regulated by the
DNR, and the amounts would be limited by regulations.  A
detailed discussion of the impacts of land application of
sewage sludge is presented in Appendix IV, Solids Management,
and its Addendum.  The Site Specific Analysis,now being
prepared, will evaluate the impacts to the specific sites
under consideration.

5.2  MANMADE ENVIRONMENT

5.2.1  Future Development and Land Use

The analysis of impacts of the Master Facilities Plan (MFP)
on future development involves the examination of the South-
eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
population and housing unit forecasts and ElS-developed
population and housing unit projections for interceptor
areas.  The SEWRPC forecasts were developed in its Planning
Report No. 25r A Regional Land Use Plan and a Regional
Transportation Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin - 2000.'  The EIS
projections were short-term(through 1990}analyses of the
housing market demand in proposed interceptor service areas
based on recent trends.

The ElS-generated projections and SEWRPC forecasts should
not be interpreted as two competing studies but,  rather, as
an independent analysis of the perceived demand to live in
interceptor areas (EIS projections), and as a normative plan
(SEWRPC) that is based on a set of guidelines, adopted
principles, and overall county-level population forecasts.
                              5-63
-------
These normative population allocations are the projected
numbers of people and households that appear under the
heading SEWRPC Plan in the tables in this section.  The
population and household numbers that appear in columns
labeled Action and No Action are EIS projections based on
market analysis of the amount of development that is likely
to occur in the interceptor service areas.  This type of
analysis examines the relative strength of the housing
market in the interceptor areas or, alternately, it assesses
the demand of people and builders to develop the defined
areas.  These interceptor area analyses have, in general,
confirmed the existence of a strong demand to develop in
most of the areas.

If the overall county and regional population forecasts are
accurate, the interceptors will have provided sewer service
for new net growth in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area  (SMSA).  if, however, the future population level falls
short of the forecast level (for the counties), the inter-
ceptor service areas will continue to remain high demand
areas.  The difference will be that, instead of accommodating
new growth in the planning area, they would serve to disrupt
the balance between the normative forecasts for the City of
Milwaukee and the newly-served areas.

The impacts of the No Action and Action alternatives on
Future Development are described below.  These impacts are
discussed in detail in Appendix IX, Secondary Growth Impacts.

5.2.1.1  No Action Alternative

SEWRPC has projected population and housing growth for the
Southeastern Wisconsin Region through the year 2000.
However, taking no action to upgrade sewerage facilities
would alter the amount and location of growth that could
occur.  Table 5.20 illustrates these impacts.

The No Action Alternative involves no new construction of
sewerage facilities other than two small projects which are
already funded (.two new interceptors presently under con-
struction in the planning area).  As a result of No Action,
future housing growth that is planned  (SEWRPC 2000 Land Use
Plan) in the proposed interceptor service areas could not
occur.  By the year 1990, 6,300 new housing units that might
have been accommodated in the interceptor service areas
would have to develop elsewhere.  This displaced development
could shift to areas within the existing sewer service area,
such as the Northwest Side of Milwaukee, Menomonee Falls,
the Wildcat Creek area of New Berlin,  parts of Greenfield,
central Franklin, and much of Oak Creek.  SEWRPC projects a
growth of 13,000 units in these areas between the years 1990
                              5-64
-------
                                                                                       CO *

                                                                                       CM «
                            133
                            I CO O*
                                                                                       2 «
                                                                                       §£
                        St
                        O  CO i
                        00 V I
                        V  H j
                              :§
                                    CM .H

                                    ON fl
                                                                                 N fl
                                                                                IH ft
                                                                                 CO 3
                                                                                   &
                                                                                -a o
                       '£

                        C  O.
                                                                                                            e-c
                                                                                                            1-1 e
                            : o U
                            i z <

                             y

                             J3j
                            < UJ CM
                                    CM CO



                                    CM O
                                                           CO «-l

                                                           CM ON
o
CN
                                    CO CO

                                    -a- m
                                                m M
                                                CM CO
                                             C-T3
                                               a
                                             V X
                                             J— 3
w   i
ffl
 o

il!
CO ON

o o
                                                                           O -T
                                                                           O O
                                                                           CO en
                                                                                       ft sO

                                                                                       rx so"
                                                                                                  n ON
                                                                                                  22
                                                    O CO
                                                    o m
                                                    -a- -a-
                                                                                         CN
                               O

                             s!§
                                                           CM SO



                                                           cn f?
                                                                                       •K *
                             oS
                             z <
                                                               -a- -*




(0
T3
0
^
0)
CD
|




c
0
JJ
(Q

3
a.
o
B,
m
CO
ON
ON
I--
ON
•^
U
c


b
u
e
M




CO
•o
Q

41
U
3
O
X




c
o
jj
«J
-H
3
a.
o in
a. co
ON




ID e
-o 0
O M

"53 fi


|




00
•3
o

cu
%
3
O




e
o
4J
Q

3
&
0 0
CM ON
ON
fl




co e
•a o
O J->
.= Q
9) fl
CO 3
s a
00 0
SB. 0
CM




09
TJ
O

"3J
en
3
0
                                                                                                         u o!

                                                                                                         m co
                                                                                                         co -•*
                                                                                                                    en 4)
                                                                                                                    41 M
                                                                                                                    U J3
                                                                                                                    Q CO
                                                 5-65
-------
and 2000, assuming no expansion of existing facilities.
Thus, these presently sewered areas could be developed between
1980 and 1990 to the Year 2000 levels without overtaxing the
existing sewerage facilities.  The 6,300 units that could
not occur in the proposed interceptor service areas from the
present to 1990 could be accommodated in the presently sewered
areas in addition to their planned 1990 development.  Much
of this growth would have to occur on small, infill parcels
of land.  Between 1990 and 2000 an additional 11,000 housing
units would be displaced from their planned locations.  By
that time the housing growth would have to shift out of the
planning area.

It is unlikely that much of the development that would be
blocked from the proposed service areas could take place on
lots with septic tank systems.  Over the last two years,
Wisconsin has strengthened and improved enforcement of
regulations for soil percolation tests for on-site systems.

Most of the soils in the planning area are unsuitable for
septic development on lots less than one acre in size.
Thus, interest in sewered lots has increased and the No
Action Alternative would probably not result in much septic
system development.

Enough sewerage capacity currently exists in the planning
area to accommodate the 4,000 new units of growth projected
by SEWRPC for each year through 1990.  Thus, the No Action
Alternative would not significantly affect the level of
growth up until that time.  The Dane County Circuit Court
has approved a "Waste Load Restriction and Apportionment"
which allows the MMSD to increase annual wastewater flows to
the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs by only 2.1 MGD per
year from 1977 to 1985.  The 4,000 units that would be
built each year during those years would add only 1.02 MGD
of wastewater flow per year, which is well within the
allocation (User Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery Program,
Technical Memo No. 4A).

Beginning in 1983, if effluent violations should occur at
either the Jones Island or South Shore WWTPs, the allocated
increments of flow and pollutant loadings to the treatment
facilities would be reduced.  Table 5.21 outlines these
reductions.  Even if there were no new commercial or in-
dustrial connections, the pollutant load allotments would
limit development to 3,764 housing units in 1983.  In 1984
and 1985, only 1,880 additional residential units would be
allowed, assuming no commercial connections.  After 1986, no
new development would be allowed in the MMSD service area if
there were violations at the South Shore or Jones Island
WWTPs.
                              5-66
-------
2  EH














•o
cu
•o
c

a
co
3
cn

rH
03
-P
0
EH




1 Allowable
03
P
4J
0












^•^
cn
en
EH


en
'TD
•rH
rH
O
CQ




ases
0)

0
c
r-H
e g e s
vO CO CO O
	 c
co ^ in ^£> o
CO CO CO CO Sx,
C"i CTi Cn CTi CU
rH rH rH rH £t









^^
>1
03
Q

!H
0)
a

.
cn
Q
! "]
• — *










O O O O
O O O
O O O
*. s. «.
CN rH r-H




0
fa
tn
•o
•H
rH
0
tn
CU
•O
C
cu
a
en
p
tn

4-4
O

rH
X.
D"1
e

0

CN

rrj
C
03

m
Q
O
03

4H
o
0
4-1
3
O

03

cu
^
4J

CU
en
3
03
0
CU
pa


,
JJ
0
i-H
14-1

MH
0

en
C
0
rH
rH
03
Cn
to increase by
T3
0)

0
rH
i-H
03

CD
p

•a
rH
3
0


^
0
rH
M-J

^
i
O  cn  rH
CN      0)
    4-1  fX
 >, 03  -H
rH      rH
 CD  T3  C
4->  CU  P
 03  J2
 g  u  en
•H  ro  -iH
 X  (U
 O  X^  f-i
           fa

rH
03
o
•rH
g
  o
                          CO      00  >,
                          cn      cT»  cu
                                                                               a •
                                                                               03
                                                                                   cn  o
o

,c
4-1
Cn
C
I)
^
4-1
tn

03

en
03
r^

^
0)
4J
03
[5
cu
4-1
tn
03
^

o
•H
4-1
en
0)
g

• H
rH
0
en

""O
CU
T3
C
-------
Since the two WWTPs are presently overloaded during wet
weather, the No Action Alternative would probably result in
the planning area not achieving its planned growth.  If the
increment by which MMSD wastewater flows can be increased
each year is severely reduced after 1983, the allocations to
contract communities would be reduced by the same ratio.

5.2.1.1.1  Franklin;  With the No Action Alternative, the
same amount of development would occur in Franklin as with
an Action Alternative.  The difference between Action and No
Action would be the location of the future development.  A
large amount of sewered, vacant land exists in central
Franklin.  Under the No Action Alternative, a greater
proportion of the future development would take place in
central Franklin (about 2,800 units between 1979 and 1990).
Growth would continue in the Franklin portions of the service
areas of the two proposed interceptors.  Between 1979 and
1990, this growth would consist of approximately 500 units
in the Franklin-Muskego area and another 500 in the Franklin-
Northeast area.

5.2.1.1.2  Germantown;  In Germantown, the wastewater treat-
ment facilities have almost reached their capacity.  With
the No Action Alternative, development would be limited to
subdivisions in southern Germantown that are already platted
(mapped).  Once WWTP capacity is reached, no new development
would be allowed.  Therefore, only 255 new units would be con-
structed between 1979 and 1990, increasing the population by
760 people.

5.2.1.1.3  Meguon;   In Mequon, the capacity of the sewer
facilities has already been reached, and there have been
problems with discharges, bypasses, and the availability of
water.  The No Action Alternative would result in very
little new growth in the area.  Only 200 new units could be
accommodated and these would probably be built by the end of
1980.

5.2.1.1.4  Muskego:  With the No Action Alternative, very
little development would be possible in Muskego because the
public wastewater treatment plants are already at capacity.
Any new development would be scattered, taking place on
large lots with septic systems.  It is estimated that 450
new housing units would be constructed by 1990.  Most of the
development would take place in the far northwest corner of
Muskego, since that is the only area with soil suitable for
septic tanks.  A small amount of development could also
occur in southern Muskego served by the Town of Norway's
sewer system.
                              5-68
-------
5.2.1.1.5  New Berlin:  Although development would be limited
with the No Action Alternative, New Berlin would be able to
accommodate much more development than most of the pre-
viously mentioned communities.  There is capacity for 610
additional housing units at the Regal Manors WWTP in southern
New Berlin, and capacity in the Wildcat Creek service area
in eastern New Berlin and in the Poplar Creek service area
in western New Berlin.  Thus, between 1979 and 1990, it is
likely that 2,025 housing units would be built in New Berlin,
increasing the population by 6,885 to a total of 41,055.

5.2.1.1.6  Oak Creek;  There is ample capacity throughout
Oak Creek for the forecast increases in population and
housing.  However, with No Action little of this development
would occur within the Oak Creek Interceptor area because
there is very little capacity left in the Wildwood lift
station.  Only 90 new units could be accommodated in this
area.

5.2.1.2  Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives

The Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives were all designed
to provide sewer service for the same area.  For this reason,
the effects of these alternatives on future development and
land use would be identical.  In most of the communities of
the planning area, these alternatives would encourage growth
consistent with the Year 2000 Regional Land Use Plan.  How-
ever, the provision of this additional sewerage capacity
could have some "secondary" impacts; some communities might
grow more rapidly than planned  and others might not reach
their recommended level of growth.

The implementation of any of these alternatives would affect
land use in many communities in the planning area.  In some
areas, including Muskego, Mequon, Franklin, New Berlin, and
Germantown, the provision of sewer service could result in
the conversion of rural land use to urban use.  In these
communities, this conversion would be consistent with the
recommendations of the Regional Plan as long as measures are
taken to prevent encroachment on prime agricultural land.

5.2.1.2.1  Franklin:  With an action alternative, the level
of development in Franklin would be identical to the No
Action level.  However, the location of some of this future
growth would change.  Approximately 500 units (1979 to 1990)
would shift out of the central Franklin area to the Franklin-
Muskego Interceptor area (100 units) and to the Franklin-
Northeast Interceptor area (400 units).  The development is
illustrated in Table 5.22.
                              5-69
-------
                         TABLE 5.22
                     FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:
                       FRANKLIN, 1990
                                      Action         No
                                      Alternative    Action

Franklin Portion of Franklin-
Muskego Interceptor Area

1979-1985                               400            400
1985-1990                               250            125
1979-1990                               650            525

Franklin Portion of Franklin-
Northeast Interceptor Area

1979-1985                               125            125
1985-1990                             	785_            400
1979-1990                               910            525

Central Franklin Area

1979-1985                               675            675
1985-1990                             1,590          2,100
1979-1990                             2,265          2,775

City of Franklin Total
1979-1985                             1,200          1,200
1985-1990                             2,625          2,625
1979-1990                             3,825          3,825
                             5-70
-------
In Franklin and the Caddy Vista subdivision, the implementation
of an action alternative would allow development to occur on
sewered lots, with less septic tank development than would
occur with the No Action Alternative.  The construction of
the interceptor would open up parcels of land adjacent to
existing development encouraging a compact type of development.

5.2.1.2.2  Germantown and Milwaukee's Northwest Side;  The
EIS analysis revealed that Germantown and the Northwest Side
of Milwaukee share the same housing market to some degree.
When development in Germantown was limited by inadequate
sewer capacity, the development on the Northwest Side in-
creased.  Provision of expanded sewer service in Germantown
could encourage development there and slow growth on the
Northwest Side (see Table 5.23) .  It might be necessary to
enact growth controls to mitigate this impact.

With an action alternative it is estimated that 2,770 new
housing units would be built in Germantown between 1979 and
1990.  This growth is 2,520 more than the 250 units that
could be added with the No Action Alternative.  With this
increase in housing development, population is expected to
increase by 8,320 people.


The level of population and housing growth projected in
Germantown with the implementation of the Local, Regional,
or Mosaic Alternatives would be consistent with the Regional
Land Use Plan.  If no new sewer capacity were provided for
Germantown, much of the development that would have occurred
there would instead take place on the Northwest Side of
Milwaukee, where there is a great deal of vacant sewered
land.

5.2.1.2.3  Oak Creek:  The City of Oak Creek has a large
amount of vacant land and is encouraging development.  Al-
though construction of the Oak Creek Interceptor would have
little effect on the amount of growth that would occur in
Oak Creek, it could affect the location of future development
within Oak Creek (see Table 5.24).

Oak Creek is expected to grow at a rate of 225 units per
year between 1979 and 1990.  At this rate of growth, 2,475
new housing units would be constructed during this period.
By 1990, the Oak Creek Interceptor would lead to the construction
of 390 units in the interceptor service area.  Without
construction of the interceptor, only 90 units could be
built in that area by 1990.  Thus, an action alternative
would induce the construction of approximately 300 units in
the interceptor service area between 1979 and 1990.  Most of
the existing development in Oak Creek has occurred in the
                              5-71
-------
fa








n
CM
in

W
«
 C£j
W W
a a
w
PJ
D
             •p
             to
             cu

             45
             -P

             O
             2
              g
              o
              4J
              C
              I
              M
              OJ
                     OJ W
                     CJ 4J
                  l*H Ai W
                  O 3 (d
                     id o
                  >i S CD
                  •P rH H
                  •H -H O
                  U g fa
                     U
W
   e
   o
   •rH
   •P
   O
                        *
                        *
                         C
                         o
                        •H
                        -p
                         o
                     u
                     W
                     en
    o
   •rH
   -P
    O
                         C
                         o
                        -H
                        -p
                         o
               o o
               o o
               en n

               n n
               CN r~
                                    o o
                                    o o
                                    en n

                                    n n
                                    CM r~
               o  o
               o  o
               en  n
                 ^  ^
               n  n
               CM  r^
                S3
                   in
                   CM
                mo
                                    (Tl
                               (dcr>
                   in
                   CN
                no
                W C


                rH -rH

                O -P


                CD rH




                O O




* *
o
o
o
in
rH
rH
1
oooo oooo in r-* nin oo CD
en oo o^ oo vo oo vo CN c j t » «^ • 1 1
en ^ oo t-» rH t~» o in
^•o oon ^* oo ncs
rH CN oo n en


* *
<* o c en cd
HO rH O W
•* rH CXi -H 0)
rH -P -P
u o id
ft cu S
ncN o •<* nvo n in ps -n-H •
COO VOrH nrH VO'* SO-PU
^4* f^ C^ O^ ^3* O^
•n r- w SH w di
rfj f£ ^* i — I CN in t^- vo n oo S
2 2 CN [~- CM t-»






r- o r^-o oo r- o
ooo oco oo oco
m CD ^i* n oo ^* r** r^
•*!• en COCN nvo rHco
 CN r-irH -H
Pi -P di ITS
W-H O4 >
CJ u (d (d
-p -p
o o
 ^ •* ^ «» ^ ^
CM ^ n r- 1 in vo co
rH rH



we we we we
•P in ^ o ^ O -P eD T^ o ^ O
C 00 rH -H rH -H C Cn rH -H rH -H
(Dcno-P O-P QjcnO-P O-P
CDICDrH (DrH (UlCDrH CDrH
t 1 ^\ UJ rj ^^j yj rj li |^^ y^ rj f~} yj rj t ~j
Ot~~3CU oo3O< cjcojJQj cnj3Qj o
ecnoo cnOO ecnOO cnQO eD
n o
-H >>
^ ? i
SH i
•H rH
-P C M
we (d O (d
t3 O H -H OJ
rH -H O W JH
O -P O.-H
CD rH CD O "
W 3 -P M 
-------
                          TABLE 5.24

                       FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
                  OAK CREEK INTERCEPTOR, 1990
               Action**
                   NO
                 Action
                SEWRPC
                 Plan
Base
1979
Households
Population

Increment
1979-1985
Households
Population

1985
Households
Population

Increment
1985-1990
Households
Population

1990
Households
Population

2000
Households
Population
1,173
3,343
  140
  399
1,313
3,742
  250
  713
1,563
4,455
1,173
3,343
   90
  257
1,263
3,600
    0
    0
1,263
3,600
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,323
4,090
  679
1,888
2,002*
5,978*
                                 3,359
                                 9,754
* Interpolation from 1985 to 2000.
**Provision of additional sewer service.

Note:  Yearly dates are as of January 1.
Source:  RERC projections; SEWRPC Plan.
NA - Not Applicable.  1979 estimates are not available from SEWRPC
                            5-73
-------
northern sections of the City.  Construction of the interceptor
could encourage development in southern portions of the
City.  Although the interceptor is not expected to increase
the overall level of growth, it would open up new portions
of the City for development.  Thus, development may disperse
over a larger area.

5.2.1.2.4  Mequon;  The Northeast Side Relief Sewer System
would serve Mequon, Thiensville, and a number of communities
in northern Milwaukee County.  Most of the municipalities in
this area are fully developed.  However, Mequon has a large
amount of vacant land available, and its location makes it
especially desirable for development.  The Northeast Side
Relief Sewer System could induce additional development in
Mequon.

Construction of the Northeast Side Relief Sewer System will be
completed in mid-1983.  Until that time, 675 housing units
are likely to be built in Mequon (150 units per year for 4.5
years).  After 1983, new sewer capacity would allow development
to accelerate.  Mequon's growth management system is currently
being formulated, and it will probably limit new development
to between 225 and 250 units per year.  Development from 1983
to 1990 could increase to those limits, approximately 250
units per year.  The total increase by the year 1990 could
then be 2,425 units (675 plus 250 units per year for seven
years).  The No Action Alternative would limit growth to 200
units by 1990.  Thus,  the Local, Regional, or Mosaic Alternative
would result in an induced growth of 2,425 households.

Even with the construction of the Northeast Side Relief System,
development in the City of Mequon would probably not reach
SEWRPC forecasts.  If growth controls are enacted, development
by the year 1990 could be 1,000 units less than forecast
by SEWRPC.  The EIS analysis indicates that without the
enactment of growth controls,development would still be
within forecast levels.

5.2.1.2.5  New Berlin;  New Berlin is physically attractive,
is accessible by major highway, offers local employment
possibilities, and contains large parcels of developable
land.  With the provision of increased sewer capacity, New
Berlin would attract a larger share of the suburban Milwaukee
housing market than it has in the past.

A range of forecasts have been determined for population and
housing growth in the New Berlin area.  The lower numbers
were derived from an evaluation of the regional development
that New Berlin is likely to attract, if easily developable
land in Greenfield, West Allis, and Hales Corners is filled
first.  The higher estimates are based on the assumption


                              5-74
-------
that New Berlin would attract development from Greenfield,
West Allis, and Hales Corners in addition to its share of
the regional development.

Between 1979 and 1990, an action alternative would allow
between 3,970 and 5,220 new units to be constructed in New
Berlin, compared to only 2,000 units with the No Action Alternative,
Thus, induced growth would be between 1,950 and 3,200 housing
units.  New Berlin's population would increase by 13,960 to
18,470 people by 1990.  This growth exceeds the level expected
with the No Action Alternative by 7,080 to 11,590 people
(see Table 5.25) .  Most of the development would occur in
the southern half of New Berlin which contains vacant land.

5.2.1.2.6  Muskego:  With the Local, Regional, or Mosaic
Alternatives, Muskego could experience development of 1,860
new housing units by 1990, 1,410 more than the 450 units
that could be constructed with the No Action Alternative.
The population would increase by 4,870 people, which is
4,580 more than the increase of 290 people that would occur
without additional sewer capacity.  The SEWRPC 1985 housing
and population projections have already been exceeded, and
it is likely that the year 2000 figures will be reached by
1990  (see Table 5.26} .

5.2.2  Indirect Fiscal Impacts

An indirect fiscal impact analysis was performed to deter-
mine the net costs or revenues that would result from secondary
impacts.  The costs associated with the future population
would include municipal services such as general administration,
public safety, parks, recreational facilities, and primary
and secondary public education.  Revenues would result from
the increased tax base.  Since future development would
probably be similar in type to the existing development, it
was assumed for the analysis that the relationships in state
and federal aids would remain the same.

5.2.2.1  No Action Alternative

Indirect fiscal impacts are the revenues and costs to a
community associated with future growth.  Since the No
Action Alternative would not greatly affect growth in the
planning area, the indirect fiscal impacts of the alter-
native would be negligible.

5.2.2.2  Local, Regional or Mosaic Alternatives

Because the Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives would
have the same effects on future growth in the planning area,
their indirect fiscal impacts would also be the same.  As a


                              5-75
-------
                        TABLE 5.25

                    FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:
                        NEW BERLIN
                           1990
                Action Alternative
                (Regional or
                Local Alternative)
                        No
                        Action
            SEWRPC
            Plan
Base
1979
Households
Population
 9,286
34,172
 9,286
34,172
 9,286
34,172
Increment
1979-1985
Households
Population
1,649-2,136
5,522-7,290
 1,224
 3,979
 1,519
 6,728
1985
Households
Population
10,935-11,422
39,694-41,462
10,510
38,151
10,805
40,900
Increment
1985-1990
Households
Population
2,325-3,080
8,440-11,180
   800
 2,904
 1,487
 5,167
1990
Households
Population
13,260-14,502
48,134-52,642
11,310
41,055
12,292*
46,067*
2000
Households
Population
                                    15,265
                                    56,400
* Interpolation from 1985 to 1990.

Note:    Yearly figures are as of January 1.
Source:  RERC projections; SEWRPC Plan.
NA:      Not Applicable.  1979 estimates are not available
         from SEWRPC.
                            5-76
-------
                         TABLE 5.26

                    FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:
                       MUSKEGO 1990
Base
1979
Households
Population

Increment
1975-1985
Households
Population

1985
Households
Population

Increment
1985-1990
Households
Population

1990
Households
Population

2000
Households
Population
                  Action
                  Alternative
 4,686
16,401
   935
 1,867
 5,621
18,268
   925
 3,007
 6,546
21,275
                    No
                  Action
 4,686
16,401
   200
  (522)*
 4,886
15,879*
   250
   813
 5,136
16,692
             SEWRPC
              Plan
NA
NA
NA
NA
 4,423
16,500
   505
 1,667
 4,928**
18,167**
                                5,938
                               21,500
* Muskego's population is projected to decline between
  1979 and 1985 under No Action due to the projected
  decline in household size from 3.53 to 3.25.

**Interpolation from 1985 to 2000.

Note:  Yearly dates are as of January 1.
Source:  RERC projections; SEWRPC Plan.
NA - Not Applicable.  1979 estimates are not available from SEWRPC
                            5-77
-------
community grows, its revenues from taxes increase; but at
the same time, the cost to the communities for providing
educational and municipal services also increases.  In most
of the communities in the planning area, these alternatives
would allow growth to occur at a level, rate, and pattern
consistent with the Regional Plan.  However, the implementation
of any of these alternatives could encourage growth in
several areas at a level or pattern inconsistent with the
Regional Plan.  These areas include the Oak Creek Interceptor
service area, the Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor
service area  CGermantown and Milwaukee's Northwest Side), the
Hales Corners Interceptor service area  (southeastern New
Berlin), and the Franklin Northeast Interceptor service area.

A quantitative indirect fiscal impact analysis was performed
for Germantown, the Northwest Side of Milwaukee, and New Berlin
(see Table 5.27).  In Oak Creek  and Franklin, an action
alternative would not increase growth, but it could cause a
more dispersed pattern of growth.  A qualitative approach
was used to examine the indirect fiscal impacts of this
pattern of development.

5.2.2.2.1  Germantown and Milwaukee's Northwest Side;  All
of the alternatives would result in a surplus of revenue in
Germantown of about $56,400 over municipal costs, compared
with a $319,000 surplus with the No Action Alternative.  A
lower surplus would occur with the Local, Regional, or
Mosaic Alternatives because of the increased municipal costs
to serve the future populations.  These costs would be
minimal with the No Action Alternative.

The housing markets for Germantown and the Northwest Side of
Milwaukee overlap, as discussed previously.  The provision
of increased sewer capacity in Germantown would draw some
development away from the Northwest Side.  Conversely, the
No Action Alternative would result in greater development in
the Northwest Side.  With the No Action Alternative, the net
indirect fiscal impact would be a revenue surplus of $23,436,000
for Milwaukee.  If increased sewer capacity were provided
for Germantown, the result would be a revenue surplus of
$19,960,000.  The Northwest Side already has an excess of
municipal services and school facilities, so the population
increase here would have less cost  than revenue associated
with it.

By combining the net fiscal impacts on Germantown and Milwaukee's
Northwest Side, one can see that the construction of the
Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor would result in a
total revenue surplus of $20,017,000.  With the No Action
Alternative,the surplus would be $23,755,000.
                              5-78
-------




































tn
£H
CJ
<
(it
S
P- H
CM
in *£
O
w tn
J H
CO fc*
lejj
g-4 g~i
U
s
H
Q
Z
H




















































o
cn
en
rH
c
•rl
in
-M
cn
0
o
























o
cn
cn
rH

C
•H

in
a
3
C
0)
dl









































EH
U
EH 0,
u s
Z H




j cn
*3* EH
Sen
0
EH U


H
id
a

U cn
•H -U
C W
3 0
E U



O U1
O 4J
£ CO
0 0
tn u



a
J^
tJ Z
< da
EH ^>
O Ed






0)
3
•H C
0) 0)

-u (1)
O K




£*(
4J (1)
0) C
Dj 
rl Id CU
CU EH 05
c
o
•rH tt)
4J m
id id
rH CU
a o
o c
a. M














$
•rl
C
3


8
co r—
rH CO
pn pn
cn vo
rH in
pn


w- tn-
r-. vc
TT r»
pn TT
r~ o
CN CN
cn TT
H"
rH


O O
o in
i— in
» .,
r^ pn
CN TT
CN r-
«,
pn
r*» vo
TT CN
VD cn
cn VD
cn r-
VD VD
b
*""
in pn
m ID
VO CO

ID VO
TT i—
CN TT
•» fc
rH rH
H




•H m
CN rH
cn pn
cn co
VD TT
co pn

f*.



TT o
TT m
t- in
VO CO
C- CN
Pn rH
,.
TT




0*, QV,
in r-i
00



J_l
0
4J
a
tu
o

tu
4-1
C
M
C
§c +->
0 0
4J--H 3
C 4J M
id O 4J
e < in

0) O O
0 2 U
rH
VO
>T
r-
CO
cn
I

t/>
cn
CN
r-
o
r*-
rH
CN
rH


O
O
in
*
TT
cn
,—1
..
in
cn
CN
CN
CO
pn
o
•.
^
CO
VO
CN

m
CO
rH
»>
rH
rH




VO
TT
CO
CO
cn
pn
*.
r^



CN
CN
TT
TT
CO

*,
cn




o
rH
^
rH
















CJ
Cu
eg
Jj
W
O CN
pn o
cn *r
in o
cn vo *
TT cn
pn cn
CN i-H
to- to-
es o
O CN
TT rH
o cn -it
VO PO
in co
pn CN



o o
O CN
TT rH
* *
o cn *
vo cn
in co
* *,
cn CN



o o *




O CN
pn cv
pn in
•, *.
vo cn
cn cn *
cn r-
•^ •>
VO CN
CN CN




TT VO
r~ CN
vo TT
CN cn
TT co *
co pn

«T CN
rH rH


in vo
vo cn
in o
m o
in rH *
rH TT
1, H
CN O
rH rH




o TT in
CO TT CN
in CN cn
rH rH rH


M
O
(U 4J
CD ft
X CU
3 U
Id rl
9 
rH 4J
•H C
£ H

4J C 4J
to o o
4) 'H 3
3 4J rl CJ
s: o 4J o-

h c S
o o o w
z z u tn
TT TT VO VO
O O CN O
TT TT r~ r-
o r- cn m
co co r> r—
CN cn cn TT
II II

 to- to-
O I— rH CO
TT in cn co
TT TT TT CO
CN TT O TT
TT O O CN
CN CN r~ in
TT o cn vo
rH


CN cn in rH
TT CN vo TT
rH CN r~ CO
* » fc ••
pn co vo in
o in o o
rH vo in cn
* * ». •.
rH CM CN H
co CD vo r-
cn CN CN TT
CN CN r-- O
cn vo pn cn
pn TT cn rH
i— t in rH VO
« *. hi.
pn r*- r^ TT
vo pn in CN
pn >n vo co
o o r~ 1-1

CM r- o cn
VO rH CN TT
cn CN r~ o
•• «» ^ ^
m cn co vo




pn o cn cn
in TT vo vo
cn cn rH o
TT co CN pn
CN o m pn
m rH en r-i

rH Pn CN CN



pn pn rH pn
CO rH O i-H
OH VO H
r^ co" co" vo"
pn o vo rH
vo H I— cn
h H h *l
CN vo in pn




pn H vo in
co m o cn
co tn vo co
vo vo in H
H H rH













c +
•rl C
rH O H
M -rl Id
cu 4-» c u u
CO CJ H O -H CM
< « -H id K
3 O &> tn S
0) 0 O CD O W
Z Z J 05 S Cn







































































(U

IB
4-1
0
C
0)
M
O
3

tn
0)

id
6
•H
4J
tn
cu
CJ

05
J2
u
tn
5-79
-------
5.2.3  Cost1

5.2.3.1  No Action Alternative

Although the No Action Alternative would not require capital
expenditures for construction and improvements, significant
costs would likely result.  The MMSD is presently under
order from the U.S. District Court and the Dane County
Circuit Court to eliminate wet weather bypasses from separated
sewer systems, to abate CSO discharges, and to upgrade the
operations of its treatment facilities.  Failure to comply
with these orders could result in further court action,
fines, and penalties.  WWTPs must meet the effluent limita-
tions set forth in their discharge permits.  In cases where
WWTPs would not consistently meet future effluent limits,
fines and legal action would also be possible.

5.2.3.2  Local Alternative

The costs in 1980 dollars of implementing the Local Alternative
have been calculated for:  construction costs of new facilities
(costs of materials and labor); annual operation and maintenance
costs; sewer rehabilitation costs; and total present worth.
Net (or total) present worth equals the total of initial
construction costs plus the present value of annual operation
and maintenance costs and future expenditures minus the
present value of future salvage values.  All costs are
computed over the 20-year planning period  and assume no
inflation.

The total cost of the Local Alternative would include the
cost for local plant construction and improvement, MMSD
treatment plant improvements, interceptor construction,
improvements to the MIS system, control of peak flows from
separated sewer areas and abatement of combined sewer overflows.
Costs associated with local treatment and conveyance are
detailed in Table 5.28.
Costs for MMSD treatment plants and for rehabilitation,
reinforcement, and expansion of the MIS system are detailed
in Table 5.29.  In addition to these costs, there are also
costs for CSO abatement and peak flow attenuation.  The
•'•All cost  estimates for storage components are based upon the
 assumption of 48% I/I removal.  Should conditions arise which
 cause the storage volumes to change as outlined in Chapter 3,
 Section 3.9, the cost for the required storage volume would
 have to be adjusted.  The costs for I/I removal would also
 have to be adjusted, which would partially offset the cost
 adjustment for a changed storage volume.
                              5-81
-------
                         TABLE   5.28
                    COSTS FOR LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
LOCAL TREATMENT COSTS

                Action
Community

Thiensville
Germantown
New Berlin
Muskego
Caddy Vista
S. Milwaukee
Mequon
                Expand in Kind
                Land App.
                S.E. Land App.
                N.E. Land App.
                Expand in Kind
                Upgrade
                Extend MIS
Capital
($106)
3.89
8.77
32.18
10.14
1.90
2.38
2.51
O&M
($106)
0.128
0.422
0.754
0.435
0.076
0.414
0.001
Rehab .
($106)
0.15
0.40
1.24
0.32
0.04
Net
Present
Worth
($106)
5.17
13.17
39.43
14.57
2.64
7.01
2.22
   LOCAL PLANT SUBTOTAL
                                61.77
2.230   2.15
   84.21
LOCAL ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM COSTS

Component

Local Alternative Constants
  Local Plants
  MMSD Treatment Plants
  MIS Relief
  Interceptors

Subtotal

Complete Separation Subtotal
  Total System Cost

Inline Storage Subtotal
  Total System Costs

Modified CST/Inline Subtotal
  Total System Cost

Modified Total Storage Subtotal
  Total System Cost
                                  Capital
                                  794.65
  O&M
 26.009
 Net
 Present
 Worth
61.77
465.42
186.31
81.16
2.230
23.544
0.010
0.225
84.21
740.51
169.86
77.27
1071.85
927.65
1722.31
897.73
1692.39
904.18
1698.84
921.76
1716. -42
2.295
28.304
2.474
28.483
3.435
29.444
3.945
29.954
946.62
2018.47
878.26
1950.11
909.90
1981.76
934.84
2006.69
                                5-82
-------
                           TABLE  5.29

           MMSD TREATMENT PLANT AND MIS SYSTEM COSTS
                         ($ x 106)

                             MIS System

                                               Annual
Component                     Capital          O&M         N.P.W.

Jones Island                  337.87           13.817      504.59
South Shore                   127.55            9.727      235.92

Treatment Plant Subtotal      465.42           23.544      740.51

Honey Creek Branch              0.26             --          0.23
S. 6th Street Branch            4.84            0.001        4.42
Hampton Avenue Branch          10.06            0.001        9.19
Menomonee/Burleigh Overflow     0.11            0.001        0.11
Menomonee/Keefe Diversion       0.16            0.004        0.19
81st & Grant Street Branch      0.54            0.001        0.48
84th & Becher Street Overflow   0.12             --          0.10
Upper Lincoln Creek Segment     4.80            0.002        4.39
MIS Rehabilitation             52.00             —         47.44
Local Sewer Programs           89.22             —         79.11
SSES Program                   24.20             --         24.20

MIS Relief Subtotal           186.31            0.010      169.86


                            Interceptors

Franklin-Muskego  (Franklin
  only)                         0.85            0.021        1.08
Franklin Northeast              0.81            0.115        2.19
Mitchell Field South            1.58            0.002        1.41
Northeast Side Relief          58.26            0.033       53.64
Northridge                      0.47            0.017        0.63
Oak Creek North Branch          3.74            0.003        3.45
Root River                      9.76            0.001        9.08
Underwood Creek                 5.69            0.033        5.79

Interceptor Subtotal           81.16            0.225       77.27

MMSD/MIS Subtotal             732.89           23.779      989.51
                               5-83
-------
total costs of the Local Alternative are summarized in Table
5.29.

5.2.3.3  Regional Alternative

The Regional Alternative has many components common to the
Local Alternative.  With the Regional Alternative, costs for
MMSD treatment plants and MIS improvements, as well as costs
for CSO abatement and peak flow storage, would be identical
to those costs detailed in the preceeding discussion of
local costs.  Under the Regional Alternative, costs to
connect local plants to the MIS system would replace costs
for local treatment plants.  Due to requirements for certain
local connecting sewers, the alignments and costs for some
proposed interceptors would also change.  Costs for connecting
local communities presently served by independent plants as
well as costs for the interceptors are detailed in Table
5.30.  A summary of the costs of the Regional Alternative
assuming implementation of each of the four CSO abatement
and peak flow attenuation alternatives is shown in Table
5.31.

5.2.3.4  Mosaic Alternative

The Mosaic Alternative is identical to the Regional Alternative
except in the case of South Milwaukee.  The South Milwaukee
WWTP would remain in operation as under the local system.
Local costs are detailed in Table 5.30.  Total costs for the
Mosaic Alternative assuming implementation of each of the
four CSO abatement alternatives is included in Table 5.32.

5.2.3.5  Local Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation

The MMSD's clear water program involves three sequential
parts:  an infiltration/inflow (I/I) analysis which was
completed in November of 1978; a sewer system evaluation
survey (SSES) which is currently in progress and to be
completed in April of 1981; and a program for the repair and
rehabilitation of local sewers (the ultimate objective of
the clear water programl.

Table 5.33 shows the cost estimates by community for a
specified cost effective level of I/I removal, which was
recommended by the I/I Analysis.

5.2.4  Fiscal Impacts

5.2.4.1  Introduction

Once the cost of each final alternative was estimated, a
second analysis was performed to determine how the alternative
                              5-84
-------
                             TABLE  5-30
                      SUMMARY OF  LOCAL COSTS
               REGIONAL AND MOSAIC ALTERNATIVES
                               Local  Costs
Capital
fi
Community
Thiensville/Mequon
Germantown
New Berlin
Muskego
Caddy Vista
Regional
Mosaic
IB TOTAL
Regional
Mosaic
Action
Connect
Connect
Connect
Connect
Connect
Connect
Upgrade


($10 )
to
To
to
To
To
to
to


MMSD
MMSD
MMSD
MMSD
MMSD
MMSD
MMSD


3
3
3
3
0
2
2
18
17
.50
.40
.05
.26
.40
.69
.38
.30
.99
O&M
($io6)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.002
.085
.002
.048
.018
.032
.414
.187
.569
Re
hab.
Net
Present
Worth
($10") ($10")
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
—
— »_>
2.
2.
15
40
24
32
04


15
15
3
6
4
3
0
3
7
21
25
.37
.35
.04
.91
.59
.21
.01
.47
.27
                               Interceptors
Franklin-Muskego
Franklin-Northeast
Hales Corners
Mitchell Field  South
Northeast Side  Relief
Northridge
Oak Creek North Branch
Root River
Underwood Creek
Interceptor Subtotal
2.51
0.81
2.28
1.58
58.26
0.47
3.74
13.37
5.69
0.041
0.115

0.002
0.033
0.017
0.003
0.027
0.033
2.68
2.19
2.08
1.41
53.64
0.63
3.45
13.17
5.79
88.71   0.271
                                                                 85.04
Source:   MWPAP and ESEI
                                   5-85
-------
                          TABLE  5.31

           SUMMARY OF REGIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
                          ($  X 106)
                                             Annual  Net Present
                                  Capital    OSM        Worth
465.42
188.68
88.71
L8.30
23.687
0.010
0.271
0.187
742.04
169.25
85.04
21.47
                                   761.11  24.155   1017.80
Components

Regional Alternative  Constants
  MMSD Treatment Plants *
  MIS Relief
  Interceptors *
  Local Connections

Subtotal

Complete Separation Subtotal
  Total System Cost

Inline Storage Subtotal
  Total System Cost

Modified GST/Inline Subtotal
  Total System Cost

Modified Total Storage Subtotal
  Total System Cost
  See  Table 5.30  for  a  breakdown  of costs.
927.65
1688.76
897.73
1658.84
904.18
1665.29
921.76
1682.87
2.295
26.450
2.474
26.629
3.435
27.590
3.945
28.100
946.62
1964.42
878.26
1896.06
909.90
1927.70
934.84
1952.64
Source:
           MMSD
                              5-86
-------
                           TABLE  5.32
            SUMMARY OF MOSAIC TREATMENT  SYSTEM  COSTS
Components

Mosaic Alternative Constants
  MMSD Treatment Plants *
  MIS Relief
  Interceptors*
  Local Costs

Subtotal

Complete Separation Subtotal
  Total System Cost

Inline Storage Subtotal
  Total System Cost

Modified CST/Inline Subtotal
  Total System Cost

Modified Total Storage Subtotal
  Total System Cost

*   See  Table  5.30  for a  breakdown  of

Source:   MMSD
Capital
465.42
188.68
88.71
17.99
760.80
927.65
1688.45
897.73
1658.53
904.18
1664.98
921.76
1682.56
:down of
Annual
O&M
23.687
0.010
0.271
0.569
24.537
2.295
26.832
2.474
27.011
3.435
27.972
3.945
28.482
costs .
NPW
742.04
169.25
85.04
25.27
1021.60
946.62
1968.22
878.26
1899.86
909.80
1931.50
934.84
1956.44

                              5-87
-------
                          TABLE 5.33

      COSTS FOR REPAIR AND REHABILITATION OF LACAL SEWERS

                 AND FOR LOCAL RELIEF SEWERS
                          ($ X 1000)
                Local Repair and
                Rehabilitation
Community

Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West .Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
SUBTOTAL
Brookfield
Butler
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
Mew Berlin
Thiensville
Private
$ 457
695
2,050
1,361
372
526
40
7
57
42,695
406
298
778
361
4,687
12,489
510
34
$67,823
313
13
28
44
3 286
169
78
85
21
Public
$ 119
138
580
226
166
335
368
780
320
7,288
308
190
300
76
1,016
984
104
413
$13,711
205
52
363
141
314
205
94
416
69
TOTAL
$68,860
$15,570
                     Local
                     Relief
                     Sewer
                     $ —
                        391
                        917
                        450
                         45
                        434
                         36
                        451
                      1,027
                      1,479

                      1,713
                     $6,943
   217

$7,160
Total
Public
Costs

$   119
    138
    971
  1,143
    166
    335
    368
  1,230
    365
  7,722
    308
    190
    336
    527
  2,043
  2,463
    104
  2,126
$20,654
    205
     52
    363
    141
    314
    205
     94
    416
    286

$22,730
Project
Costs

$   576
    833
  3,021
  2,504
    538
    861
    408
  1,237
    422
 50,417
    714
    488
  1,114
    888
  6,730
 14,952
    614
  2,160
$88,477
    518
     65
    391
    185
    600
    374
    172
    501
    307

$91,590
*Six Gallons per Minute Removal Rate

Source:  I/I Analysis, MWPAP November 1978
                             5-88
-------
could be funded and how its financing would burden the
communities and households in the planning area.  In discussing
these fiscal impacts, the analysis will proceed from consideration
of the overall cost of the alternative to the individual
household tax burden.  The analysis includes funding sources,
methods of financing the project, debt requirements, costs
to communities in and out of Milwaukee County, and costs to
the average household.  A description of the funding mechanisms
for MMSD projects is included in Section 4.2.1.7.

5.2.4.1.1  MFP Funding;  It has been estimated that Wisconsin
will receive about $66 million of federal funds in 1980, of
which a maximum of nearly $40 million will be available for
allocation to MFP projects.  The Wisconsin Fund will have
approximately $60 million of available funds in 1980.  Of
these funds, a maximum of $20 million will be available for
MFP projects.  This brings 1980 funding expectations for the
MFP to approximately $60 million.  This $60 million ceiling
assumes an unchanging level of available federal funds.
However, recent trends and political opinion indicate that
available federal funding may decline in future years.

With a $60 million annual ceiling on federal and state
funding of the MFP, one approach to implementing the program
would be for the MMSD to spend $80 million per year for as
many years as necessary to complete the project.  This
method of meeting the project costs would allow the project
to be 75% funded ($60 million is 75% of $80 million) which
is the maximum allowable level of funding.

However, due to the construction schedule imposed on the
MMSD by the U.S. District Court Order, the construction
necessary to implement the MFP must be completed by the end
of 1989.  Averaged over a ten-year period, the cost to
implement the Mosaic Alternative would be more than $150
million per year.  Since the maximum funding that could be
expected from the Federal government and the Wisconsin Fund
would be $60 million, the majority  (64%) of the cost of
implementing the MFP would be borne locally.

5.2.4.1.2  Financing the Local Portion of the MFP Costs:
There are several methods that could be used to finance the
local portion of the MFP costs.  Taxes could be levied to
raise the money to pay construction costs on a "pay-as-you
go" basis or bonds could be issued to spread the costs of
the project over a longer period of time.  Theoretically, by
taxing all the taxable property in Milwaukee County in
proportion to its equalized value (ad valorem), sufficient
revenue could be collected to make cash outlays for MFP
improvements as they fall due.  The advantage of this type
of "pay-as-you-go" system is that money need not be spent on
interest or financing costs.
                               5-89
-------
The disadvantage of this type of financing is that the
magnitude of cash outlay would vary greatly from year to
year.  The MFP must be implemented by 1289, but the costs of
the project would not be distributed evenly over those ten
years.   Almost two-thirds of the locally funded share would
be expended within four years.  To pay for these costs
directly, tax rates in the County would average $6 per
$1,000  of equalized property value, but in some years the
rates would climb to more than $10 per $1,000 of property
value.*  This rate of taxation would result in severe hardship
to businesses and residents.

The other method for financing the local portion of the
project costs would be to raise the necessary money by
issuing either general obligation  (G.O.) or revenue bonds.  G.O.
bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit" and the
taxing  powers of Milwaukee County, the issuing body, thereby
providing a low-risk investment for the bond purchaser.
Because of this high level of security for the investor and
because of the tax exempt status of the bonds, investors are
willing to accept a lower interest rate on the G.O. bonds.

In Wisconsin, the amount of debt that a municipality such as
a county, city, town, or village may incur is limited to 5%
of the  equalized valuation of its taxable property.  Since
G.O. bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of Milwaukee
County, they contribute to the County's debt.  In addition,
G.O. bonds issued for MMSD improvements are currently restricted
by the  Wisconsin Constitution to a maturity of twenty years
from the date of issue.

Revenue bonds differ from G.O. bonds in that they are backed
by the  future revenues of the issuing body, in this case
either  Milwaukee County or the MMSD.  The obligations from
this type of bond would be payable only from future revenues,
and so  they do not contribute to the debt of the community.

Revenue bonds would be considered by investors as a higher
risk than G.O. bonds because revenue bonds are backed only
by future revenues.  For this reason, the interest rate paid
on revenue bonds might be slightly higher than the rate paid
on G.O. bonds.  Also, revenue bonds solicit a closer examination
by prospective buyers.  Since neither the County nor the
*Current tax rates in Milwaukee County range from $15.33 per
$1,000 of equalized taxable property value CWest Milwaukee) to
$23.86 per $1,000 of equalized taxable property value (Milwaukee)
Included in these total net tax rates is the $0.86 per $1,000
(equalized) for the 1980 MMSD debt service.
                              5-90
-------
MMSD has issued this type of bond in the past, there is no
record for investors to examine and the bonds might be
difficult to market.

Under current Wisconsin law, G.O. bonds for financing capital
improvements to the Metropolitan Sewerage System can only be
issued by Milwaukee County.  To change this law would require
legislative action.  Assuming such action is taken, any
combination of the mentioned methods or an innovative financing
scheme could be implemented to finance the local portion of
costs.

5.2.4.1.3  Bond Rating;  Implementation of the MFP could
affect bond ratings of municipalities in Milwaukee County.
Municipal bonds are rated to measure the risk of municipal
default by two major rating agencies:  Moody's and Standard
and Poors.  The greater the risk, the lower the credit
rating and the higher the interest rate that must be paid by
the municipality to attract investors.  Numerous factors
such as accounting practices, financial statements,and past
budget and audit reports are used by the rating agencies to
assess the "credit worthiness" of a municipality.

Another consideration of the credit rating agencies is the
overlapping per capita debt of the residents within a muni-
cipality.  Although the annual debt service and corresponding
tax rate for one bond issue may be slight, it must be evaluated
in the context of all the other tax rates which apply to
property in the municipality.

Milwaukee County has had a history of sound debt and financial
practices and, until recently, had a triple A (Aaa) rating
from both major credit agencies  (the highest rating available).
However, on June 16, 1980, Moody1s Investors Services lowered
the ratings of the County, City, and MMSD bonds issued by
the County from Aaa to Aa.  The June 16th issue of Moody's
Bond Survey characterized the ratings revision: "Although
(the) current financial position and underlying economic
resources remain strong,  (the) magnitude of County funding
required for compliance with stringent environmental regulations
detracts from overall bond security." The article concluded
by stating, "inherent risks of a sewerage program, of this
scale are recognized, as are the potential problems of
managing this program by a district that, as now constituted,
has neither direct taxing nor bonding authority."

The MMSD estimated that Milwaukee County's debt limit would
be reached by 1986 if there is no borrowing for any other
County purposes and all funds for capital improvements are
raised by bonding.  These projections assume that the "non-
fundable" portion of the project costs would be financed by
                              5-91
-------
issuing 20-year G.O. bonds at 6% interest, 0% inflation, and
a 0.4% real annual growth rate in Milwaukee County property
valuation.  Once the debt limit is reached, future projects
could only be financed by means other than G.O. bond issues.
As the legal debt limit is approached, the County's bond
rating might decline.

Even if the Wisconsin statutes are amended to allow the
MMSD, rather than the County, to issue general obligation
bonds and to levy the necessary taxes, the County's bond
rating could be affected.  MMSD bonds would not contribute
to the County's debt, but they would increase the overlapping
per capita debt of Milwaukee County as well as all municipalities
within the County.  Assuming Milwaukee County implements its
1981-1985 Recommended Capital Program and implements the MFP
(by G.O. bonding!, the County debt limit would be reached in
1985.

5.2.4.1.4  Cost Distribution;  If bonds are issued to meet
MFP costs rather than using direct taxation, the payment
schedule for these costs would be spread over a longer
period of time, but the project costs would be increased by
interest payments.  The local portion of the project cost
would be distributed to citizens living in the MMSD service
area by one of several methods of apportionment:  property
tax, flat rate,  use*-based charge, or income tax surcharge.

Wisconsin statutes now require that if Milwaukee County
elects to provide funds to MMSD by issuing G.O. bonds, it
must levy an ad valorem property tax on all taxable property
within its boundaries to provide a direct cash flow to
finance the debt service on the bond issues.  The traditional
argument supporting the property tax as a means of distributing
annual revenue requirements is that all property in Milwaukee
County benefits from the sewer service, so all property
should share the burden of raising the needed capital.
Advocates of the property tax point out that even property
that may not receive sewer service would be enhanced in
value because of its location in a sewered area.  Another
advantage of the property tax is that it is deductible on
income tax returns.

There are also arguments opposing property taxes to support
sewerage improvements.  With such a system, farmers might
have to pay sewer taxes on agricultural land.  Residences in
Milwaukee County with septic systems would have to pay for
the rehabilitation of their septic systems, and they would
be taxed for sewer service they would not receive.  However,
Federal Guideline (PRM 79-8} allows for the establishment of
Septic Tank Management Plans, which could result in federal
funding of septic tank upgrading.  Also, a program of the


                              5-92
-------
Wisconsin Fund makes grants available for the rehabilitation
of septic systems.

The property tax would not charge users in proportion to
their use of the system, but instead according to their
property value.  For example, a valuable property such as a
shopping mall would have to pay a proportionately high
amount of property tax even though it might not be a heavy
user of the sewer system.  On the other hand, some industries
may be heavy contributors to the sewer system, but may have
property of relatively low value and thus pay low taxes.

An alternative method of distributing the debt service from
municipal bonds would be a flat rate system.  Using such a
system, the annual costs would be distributed based on the
number of building connections to the sewerage system.
Residents in the MMSD service area would be charged a set
fee per connection.  Many of the suburban communities surround-
ing Milwaukee County use this system to distribute annual
capital costs.

A use-based system could also be employed to distribute the
capital costs of the MFP.  Such a system would charge each
user of the sewerage system a fee based on the benefits the
user receives.  A payment formula would be developed to
consider the volume and quality Csuspended solids and BOD
concentration, for instance) of the wastewater the user
discharges to the sewer system.

A much greater proportion of the project costs would be
borne by industry with a use-based system than with the
current property tax system.  Industry contributes about 30%
of the total flow to the MMSD.  Thus, under a use-based
system industry would pay at least 30% of the MFP costs (as
opposed to 10% under the current property tax based system).
Certain wet industries  (.those that discharge the highest
volumes of wastewater) including breweries, food processors,
tanneries, and paper producers, would have to pay high
capital charges in addition to the high user charges they
now pay for the operation and maintenance of the MMSD.  For
example, industry paid about 31% of the MMSD's 1980 operation
and maintenance budget.  With a use-based system, location
in Milwaukee County could place these industries at a
competitive disadvantage to similar industries located
outside the County.  Also, since property value would not be
considered with a  use-based system, lower income households
would pay relatively higher bills than they would pay with a
property tax system.
                              5-93
-------
Another method of distributing the MFP costs would be an
income tax surcharge.  Non-profit organizations that are
exempt from State income tax would not pay /the surcharge.
Like the State income tax, the surcharge would be "pro-
gressive" (lower income residents would pay a smaller
percentage of their income than higher income residents).
As with the ad valorem property tax, an income tax surcharge
would be unrelated to the benefits received from the sewerage
system.

Since current Wisconsin law only authorizes a Milwaukee
County ad valorem property tax for raising capital for
sewerage improvements, any other system of cost distribution
would require legislative action.

5.2.4.2  No Action Alternative

It is impossible to measure the severity of fiscal impacts
that the No Action Alternative would have on communities in
the planning area.  Capital recovery costs and user charges
would not change dramatically from the present.  However,
penalties and fines could be imposed on these communities if
they did not comply with court orders, or if their treatment
facilities violated WPDES effluent standards.

Projections of the future costs of the final alternatives
were made by the MMSD using a computer model and were audited
by EPA, DNR, and the EIS consultant.  The model that was used
for these projections is described more fully in the
Fiscal/Economic Appendix to this EIS.

Tables 5.34 and 5.35 summarize the output of the model for
the No Action Alternative.  In Table 5.34, future charges to
communities that now contract with the MMSD for waste disposal
are shown as average yearly charges to each community during
the period from 1985-2005.  Table 5.35 indicates the average
annual tax rate per $1,000 of equalized property value which
is required to finance the MMSD debt service during the same
period as the No Action Alternative.
                              5-94
-------
                          TABLE  5 . 34

        MMSD ANNUAL CHARGES*  TO EACH COMMUNITY  ($xlOOO)

                   - No Action Alternative -
Community                       1980                1985-2005 Avg,

Contract Communities
  Brookfield                    $434                    $508
  Butler                         124                     117
  Elm Grove                      244                     226
  Menomonee Falls                  8                     787
  Mequon                         434                     562
  New Berlin                     566                    1168

MMSD

  Bayside                        209                    165
  Brown Deer                     484                    429
 • Cudahy                        1135                   1002
  Fox Point                      381                    312
  Franklin                       462                    457
  Glendale                       857                    724
  Greendale                      645                    548
  Greenfield                    3011                    881
  Hales Corners                  277                    233
  Milwaukee                    25765                  23166
  Oak Creek                     2031                   1962
  River Hills                    102                     83
  St. Francis                    335                    320
  Shorewood                      513                    423
  Wauwatosa                     2479                   2049
  West Allis                    2611                   2.199
  West Milwaukee                 961                    834
  Whitefish Bay                  638                    513


*Includes O&M as well as Capital Charges.

 Source:  MWPAP
                             5-95
-------
                         TABLE 5.35

                PROPERTY TAX RATES* FOR SEWER
                   SERVICE WITH NO ACTION
                          1980-2005

                              Average
Community                     Year

Milwaukee County              $0.62               $1.18
Butler                         0.65                0.85
Elm Grove                      0.45                0.59
New Berlin                     0.41                0.48
Menomonee Falls                0.39                0.54
Mequon                         0.39                0.54

*Rates are per $1,000 of equalized property
 valuation.

Source:  System Plan EA Volume 2-B.

5.2.4.3  Local Alternative

The fiscal analysis for the Local Alternative was made using
the assumptions outlined in Table 5.36.  The MMSD would
construct all components of the Local Alternative except in
the Caddy Vista Sanitary District, Germantown, Muskego, New
Berlin, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville.  This construction
would total $1,633,194,000 from 1978 to 1992.  Of these
costs, $591,425,000 (36%) would be funded by state and
federal grants, and $1,041,769,000 C64%) would be financed
locally.  Figure 5-4 shows the yearly costs of the project.
The annual distribution of these costs for communities and
households is shown in Table 5.37.  In Milwaukee County, the
average annual tax rate would be $4.33 per $1,000 of equalized
property value.  These taxes are in addition to the property
tax rate for municipal services.

The Caddy Vista Sanitary District, Germantown, Muskego, New
Berlin, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville would finance the
improvements to their local treatment facilities.  These
improvements would total $67,808,000.  Table 5.38 indicates
the annual construction costs to each of those communities
through 1999, assuming no federal or state funding.

If the 208 Plan is amended, there is a possibility that some
of these communities could receive federal or state funding
Cor both).  Table 5.39 illustrates the annual community and
household costs assuming 0%, 60%  (the state limit), and 75%
(federal limit), funding.  The State of Wisconsin limits the
debt that a municipality can incur to 5% of its equalized
                              5-96
-------
                     TABLE  5.36

           ASSUMPTION OF THE FISCAL ANALYSIS
                  LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
The MMSD would operate the Jones Island and South Shore
WWTPs.

The MMSD would construct all elements of the Local
alternative except in Caddy Vista Sanitary District,
Germantown, Thiensville, New Berlin, Muskego, and
South Milwaukee.  All facilities in these six communities
would be constructed and financed locally.

The local municipalities would issue 20-year general
obligation bonds at 7% interest for capital improvements.

Milwaukee County would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at 6% interest for capital improvements.

All projected design flows would be achieved.

The existing contract formula would continue for
communities outside Milwaukee County.

The methods now used by communities outside Milwaukee
County  (whether connected to the MMSD or independent)
to distribute costs to households would continue.

The net annual MMSD debt service after subtracting
payments from contract communities, would be recovered
by ad valorem taxation of property in Milwaukee County.

Grant eligible projects would be 75% funded to an
annual maximum of $60 million.

County equalized property value would rise at a real
growth rate of  .4% per year.

No inflation is assumed.  Costs are in 1980 dollars.
                        5-97
-------
suv~noa
-------
                         TABLE 5.37


             AVERAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS  ( x $1,000)

                      - Local Alternative -
               1985-2005
               Average Annual
               Community Charges**
Community
Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Elm Grove
Fox Point
Franklin
Germantown*
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls*
Mequon*
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
*Outside Milwaukee County

Source:  MWPAP Model 70A
O&M
$ 99
438
366
93
76
1,002
150
207
608
422
541
393
703
179
* 919
626
22,871
435
754
2,518
50
305
303
414
129
1,584
1,829
893
355
Capital
$ 725
789
1,491
190
166
1,910
358
1,204
1,664
815
3,016
2,022
3,127
778
1,664
1,173
41,313
933
2,958
2,674
403
780
1,480
250
356
6,655
6,153
1,064
1,861
1985-2005
Average Annual
Household Charges


O&M
61
61
61
61
204
61
61
61
61
59
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
79
49
61
61
61
61
51
78
61
61
61
61


Capital
498
138
268
41
445
223
143
474
296
114
325
342
266
292
132
129
173
169
191
251
688
206
370
33
215
303
264
219
390
% of
Average
Income
1.1
0.5
1.5
0.4
3.2
1.5
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.7
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.8
1.5
2.1
0.4
1.0
1.5
1.9
2.3
1.3
                              5-99
-------
                         TABLE  5.38

       GASH  FLOWS  FOR LOCAL ALTERNATIVES  (0%  FUNDING)
Muskego
NE To Land
1980 $
81
82
83
84
1994
95
1998
99
$
New Berlin
SE To Land
1980 $
81
82
83
84
1994
95
1998
99



4
4




11




2
15
13
2

1

131
241
837
,797
,116
858
10
482
5
,477


417
770
,676
,332
,156
,581
29
,026
12
        $35,999
South
Milwaukee

$    30
     55
    191
  1,091
    936
    225
      3
  1,275
$ 3,820

Caddy
Vista

$    24
     44
    155
    886
    760
     43
      0
      0
_ 90

 $2,002
Germantown
Land Application

$   115
    211
    735
  4,210
  3,612
    584
      7
    580
      7
                                                     $ 10,061
                                                     Thiensville

                                                     $    50
                                                          93
                                                         323
                                                       1,850
                                                       1,588
                                                         119
                                                           1
                                                         420
                                                           5
 $4,449
All costs x $10

Source:  WPAP Models AL101, 901, 201, 401, 601, 801
                            5-100
-------
cn
ro
in

W

m
<|rH

^ cn
z w
< H

W H
o z
< o

m o
O EH
O
CN cn
 I  EH
m cn
ca O
cn cj
r-H
cn
(4
W

W
ni

EH O
2 2
W H
CH a
ca 2
fr D

H


°°
2
H
s
D
cn
cn
M tn
O tn
HH i Ti —»
4-> CU 0
•H CU 4J O
U !H ,Q O
cn nj 3 CU rH
r~ fi 4J T3
cn (0 3 C X
rH U fa H —
C
0
•H
4J
O —
"3« rH 3 rH O
CO <0 in' 03 O
| -H 4J 4-1 O
O 4-1 W -H rH
03 -H C O)
H M U CJ — '

CU
e
o
0
rH C
03 d° H
0 W *H
EH (0 O
g.
^3
T3 O
rH
O
CU H
tn id
3 -P
O -H
£ a
(0
CJ
«-,
oa
O
4J -—
•H O rH
C 0 03
3 to o 4-1
§4J rH -rH
tn a
O 0 X "3





in ^r cn
r-» cn rH
in ro in
*•*.»*
ro r^ r^
rH
VJ-







cn o C-- rorocN CNOO
vo in cn comcN cNinro
oocoin comcN i-nom
rH CO ro CN O T CN
rH







voujvjo CNCNCN minm
r*r~-r- CNCNCN rororo
 ^> J>

>-i >i !>i
rrj rQ rQ
rrj rrj rrj
03 (0 (0
U CJ U


C C C
!$ 3* 5
ooo
4J 4J 4-1
C C C
(0 (0 03
e e e
M rl M
CU CU 0)
u o o





ooo

CU 01 CU

to tn to
333
S S S


G C C
•H -H -H
rH rH r-H
tl Jj 1 1
CU 0) CU
ra w CQ

555
cu cu cu
•3 2 2

cu cu cu
rH rH rH
r-H rH rH
•rH -iH -H
!> !> t>
in tn tn
C C C
cu cu cu
•H -rl -H
£ x; x
EH EH EH
CU CU CU
CU CU CU
fO ffl (C
555
H rH rH
•H -H -H
s s s

JS X3 X
il Jj I)
333
OOO
cn cn cn
ledonia
(T3
O

LM
O

C
5
0
EH
*
rH
fi
0
cu
4-1

CU
rl
(0

CU
tn
CD
XI
EH
rH
                                                 5-101
-------
property value, so Table 5.39 also compares the initial
capital required during the first five years of construction
to the 1979 remaining debt margin of the community  (debt limit
less existing debt).  These figures can be compared because
inflation would be roughly similar for construction costs
and property values.

As Table 5.39 indicates, without funding most of the communities
would exceed their debt limits very quickly.  This problem
could be avoided if communities could issue revenue bonds
(which are not included in the debt level) rather than G.O.
bonds.  However, the interest rates would increase with
revenue bonds, and there could be difficulties in marketing
the bonds.

5.2.4.4  Regional Alternative

With the Regional Alternative/ the MMSD would operate two
WWTPs to treat all wastewater flows in the planning area:
Jones Island and South Shore.  Since South Milwaukee would
join the MMSD, its residents would pay MMSD user charges,
and they would be assessed at the same property tax rate as
the rest of Milwaukee County to finance the MMSD debt service.
The assumptions used to analyze the fiscal impacts of the
Regional Alternative are outlined in Table 5.40.

Between 1978 and 1992, $1,658,511,000 would have to be
expended to design and construct the Regional Alternative.
Of these costs, only $492,227,000 (36%)  would be grant
funded.  The remaining 64%, $1/066,284,000, would have to be
financed locally.  Figure 5-5 shows the yearly cash expenditures
that would be required for design and construction of the
Regional Alternative.

Because most of these expenditures would have to be financed
locally, additional interest costs would have to be included.
The total MMSD debt service with the Regional Alternative
would be $1,970,574,000.  The average annual debt service
between 1985 and 2005 would be $86,331,000 of which $7,036,000
would be paid by contract communities.  The remainder of the
average annual debt service, $79,295,000, would be distributed
by ad valorem property taxation in Milwaukee County.  The
average annual tax rate, during those years, would be $4.29
per $1,000 of equalized property value.   Table 5.41 shows
the average annual allocation of the costs of the program
and interest payments to the communities of the planning
area.  The table also indicates the average annual cost per
household in each community.
                             5-102
-------
                      TABLE 5.40
      ASSUMPTION USED IN FISCAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
             FOR THE REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
The MMSD would operate two WWTPs:  Jones Island, and
South Shore.

The MMSD would finance the construction of all elements
of the alternative, including sewer rehabilitation and
relief work both inside and outside Milwaukee County,
as well as local connector sewers required beyond
Milwaukee County.

Milwaukee County would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at 6% interest for MMSD capital improvements.

All projected design year flows would be achieved.

The existing contract formula would continue for
communities outside Milwaukee County.

The methods now used by communities outside Milwaukee
County to distribute costs to households would be
continued.

After subtracting contract community payments, the net
amount of annual MMSD debt service would be recovered
by the ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property.

Grant eligible expenditures would be 75% funded, to a
maximum of $60 million per year.

Milwaukee County property value would rise at a real
growth rate of .4% per year.

No inflation is assumed.  Costs are expressed in 1980
dollars.
                       5-103
-------
CO
H    K-0
CO    COC
O    00
O>  Old
                        swnoa
-------
                              TABLE 5.41

                     AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMUNITY AND
                           HOUSEHOLD COSTS

                       - Regional Alternative -
                   1985-2005
                   Average Annual
                   Community Charges**
O&M
$ 93
411
344
88
22
946
140
194
570
391
509
369
660
168
862
588
21,566
293
948
2,381
47
287
284
406
77
1,489
1,720
846
333
Capital
$ 717
742
1,472
179
36
1,888
337
1,192
1,642
676
2,972
1,999
3,087
770
1,561
1,100
40,870
576
1,626
2,632
398
770
1,466
1,841
190
6,588
6,093
1,504
1,843
1985-2005
Average Annual
Household Charges
Community


Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Elm Grove*
Fox Point
Franklin
Germantown*
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls*
Mequon*
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay

* Outside Milwaukee County
**X 1000

  See Tables 3.19 and 3.20 for a comparison of the Community and

  Household costs of Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives.

  Source:  MWPAP and ESEI
                               5-105

O&M
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
50
57
57
57
57
57

Capital
493
131
266
39
95
221
135
470
294
94
322
339
264
290
124
121
172
104
105
249
682
204
367
238
115
300
262
217
386
% of Average
Income
1,1
0.5
1.4
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.6
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.5
1.4
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.8
1.5
2.1
1.4
0.6
1.5
1.8
2.3
1.3
-------
5.2.4.5  Mosaic Alternative

The Mosaic Alternative is very similar to the Regional
Alternative except that with the Mosaic Alternative the City
of South Milwaukee would manage and operate its own WWTP.
The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would be the only
other public WWTPs in operation in the planning area.  The
MMSD would finance and construct all aspects of the MFP both in
and out of Milwaukee County.  The other assumptions used in
determining the fiscal impacts of the Mosaic Alternative are
described in Table 5.42.

With the Mosaic Alternative, $1,656,208,000 would be ex-
pended between 1978 and 1992.  Of this cost, $592,204,000,
or 36%, would be fundable from state and federal sources.
The remaining $1,064,005,000 (64%) would have to be financed
locally.  Figure 5.6 illustrates the annual capital expen-
ditures that would be required to implement the Mosaic
Alternative.

With the Mosaic Alternative, the total MMSD debt service
from 1980 to 2009 would be $1,966,223,000.  The average
annual debt service payments from 1985 to 2005 would be
$86,137,000, of which $7,121,000 would be paid by contract
communities.  The remaining portion of the annual average
debt service, $79,016,000 would be distributed by an ad
valorem taxation of property in Milwaukee County.  For this
property, the average annual tax rate (1985 to 2005) would
be $4.37 per $1,000 equalized property value.  Table 5.43
shows the average annual community and household allocations
of capital costs.

5.2.4.6  Bond Interest Rate Sensitivity

The fiscal analysis has assumed that Milwaukee County would
issue 20-year, general obligation bonds at an interest rate
of 6%.  However, it is possible that future economic conditions
could require the County to market the bonds at a higher
interest rate.  For this reason, the MMSD performed an analysis
to determine the impacts associated with higher interest
rates.  The average annual debt services were calculated for
6%, 7%, 8%, and 9% interest rates.  This analysis used the
MMSD Recommended Plan as an example, but the findings would
be applicable to any of the final alternatives.

This analysis revealed a fairly constant relationship between
the interest rate and the debt service.   Every one percentage
point increase in the interest rate paid on the bonds would
be reflected in an 8% increase in annual debt service.
Table 5.44 shows how increases in interest rates would
affect annual debt payments of the MMSD Recommended Plan.
                             5-106
-------
                     TABLE  5.42


   ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE FISCAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
                MOSAIC ALTERNATIVE
The MMSD would operate two WWTPs:  Jones Island, and
South Shore.  The South Milwaukee WWTP would be locally
owned and operated.

The MMSD would finance the construction of all elements
of the MWPAP,  including sewer rehabilitation and relief
work both in and out of Milwaukee County for MMSD
capital improvements.

Milwaukee County would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at a 6%  interest rate for MMSD capital improvements,

South Milwaukee would issue 20-year general obligation
bonds at a 7%  interest rate for capital improvements.

All projected design year flows would be achieved.

The existing contract formula for communities outside
Milwaukee County would continue.

The current methods for distributing costs to communities
outside Milwaukee County would be continued.

The City of South Milwaukee would distribute costs by
an ad valorem property tax.

After subtracting contract community payments, the net
amount of annual MMSD debt service would be recovered
by ad valorem taxation of Milwaukee County property.

Grant eligible expenditures would be 75% funded to a
maximum of $60 million per year.

Equalized property value within Milwaukee County would
rise at a real growth rate of .4% per year.

No inflation is assumed.  All costs are expressed in
1980 dollars.
                      5-107
-------
   CO

   CO
   o
CO
00
OUJ
   o<
   LU0
§  g?
e>  2u.
Uj  t<»
-j  ^-a
      82
P° 1*4
§es SI
%&. II
   u-JJ  "-J3I—J

   Oo  °oi*J
   o.-^  Q-^u_
                                 in
                                             3?
                                             (O
                                             (O
                                                                   *
                                                                   CM
                                                                        

                                                                            ,/
                                                                           ',S^
                                                                            t^


                                                                            V*
                                                                            Si-
                                                                                CM
                                                                                cn
                                                                                en
                                                           en
                                                                        en
                                                                        co
                                                                        en
                                                                        co
                                                                        co
                                                                        en
                                                                        co
                                                                        co
                                                                        en
                                                                        m
                                                                        co
                                                                        en
                                                                               GO
                                                                               m
                                                                               CD
                                                                               en
                                                                        oo
                                                                        co
                                                                        en
                                                                               co
                                                                        o
                                                                        oo
                                                                       en
                                                                               oo

                                                                               k
  O

  §
         CM
         ro
O
O
ro
in

N
-------
                           TABLE  5.43


           AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD COSTS

                      - Mosaic Alternative -
                 1985-2005
                 Average Annual
                 Coironunity Charges**
Community
Bayside
Brookfield*
Brown Deer
Butler*
Caddy Vista*
Cudahy
Elm Grove*
Fox Point
Franklin
Germahtown*
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Menomonee Falls*
Mequon*
Milwaukee
Muskego*
New Berlin*
Oak Creek
Piver Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
South Milwaukee
Thiensville*
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
O&M
$ 9-4
416
348
89
22
956
142
196
576
396
515
373
668
170
872
594
21,804
297
959
2,405
47
290
288
414
78
1,507
1,739
855
337
Capital
$ 732
750
1,502
181
36
1,926
341
1,216
1,675
684
3,032
2,039
3,149
786
1,580
1,114
41,694
583
1,646
2,685
406
786
1,495
250
192
6,721
6,216
1,075
1,880
1985-2005
Average Annual
Household Charges


O&M
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
51
57
57
57
57
57


Capital
503
131
271
39
96
225
137
478
299
95
328
345
269
295
126
122
175
105
106
253
695
208
374
33
116
306
267
221
393
% of
Average
Income
1.1
0.5
1.5
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.4
1.0
1.5
0.6
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.2
0.7
0~5
1.5
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.8
1.5
2.1
0.4
0.6
1.5
1.9
2.3
1.3
   Outside Milwaukee County

** In Thousands
   See Tables 3.19 and 3.20 for a comparison of the Community and
   Household Costs of the Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives.
   Source: MMSD and ESEI
-------
                          TABLE 5.44

           THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED INTEREST RATES

                    Average Tax Rate
                    Per $1,000
G.O. Bond Interest  Equalized           Total MMSD
Maturity  Rate	  Property Value      Debt Service

20 year   6%        $ 4.37              $1,966,319,000
20 year   7%        $ 4.73              $2,117,550,000
20 year   8%        $ 5.12              $2,273,957,000
20 year   9%        $ 5.53              $2,435,315,000

5.2.4.7  Bond Maturity Sensitivity

Although the Wisconsin Constitution now limits the repayment
period of municipal bonds to twenty years, the effects of
extending this period would decrease annual debt service
payments.  However, since the payments would continue for
a longer period of time, the total interest paid on the
bond would increase.  This analysis evaluates the reduction
in annual payments in relation to the increase in total
interest payments.

Issuing approximately $1.1 billion in 20-year general
obligation bonds during the 1980s would result in an average
debt service of $86,137,000* between 1985 and 2005 and a
total debt service of $1,966,223,000.*  In other words, it
would ultimately cost about $1.9 billion to pay for a $1.1
billion capital expenditure.  By the time the last payment
is made, interest on the bonds would total $870 million.*

If the Wisconsin Constitution is amended, the legislature
could authorize Milwaukee County or the MMSD to issue bonds
with a longer maturity.  Table 5.45 shows the degree to which
extending the maturity on $1.1 billion of G.O. bonds for
sewer improvements would decrease the annual debt service
payments and would increase the total amount of interest
paid by the County.  This analysis was performed for the
Mosaic Alternative (the MMSD Recommended Plan).  However,
the percentages of increase and decrease would remain the
same for any of the final alternatives.
*These figures include a small amount of existing debt service
                             5-110
-------
                   0)
                   U"1 O
                   C  CN


                  6  §
                      in
                                               O
                                               CN
                             0)
                             o
                         Q  -H

                         1  5
                         a  0)
                          Iti  4J
                          •P  X!
                          O  0)
                          EH  Q
                             O
                             O
                             o ^
                              » CM
                             PI I—I
                             CM O
                             (N CN


                             VO O
                             O CO
O
o
o —
 » ro
O tN

w
H
EH
H
W
2
a
C/3
ffl     ^
3     4
~<     #
E->     D
 0)
 en  o
 C  CN
 ITS
js  e

0  2
                             *
                             O
           <*>
           O
           CN
            I
       Q

       §
       ffl
                                    o  in
                                    o  o
                                    o  o
                                      - CN

                                    ro  in
                                    i-H  CO
                                      •• en
                                        o  in
                                        O  rH
                                        o  o
                                          «  CN
                                        r-   i
                                        co  in
                                        ro  co

                                        m  H
                                        r--  -'
                                        Vt
           o  m
           o  CN
           o  o
            •  CN
           r-   i
           ro  in
           r-  co
            -  on
           CO  rH
           VO  •—
                          C   C
                          0   0)
                          PQ  i-3
                             O  vO
                             CN  *—
O
ro
                                                   
                                                   O  vO


C
fd
S

T3
0)
73

0)
O
U
OS
-P
03
O
U
rH
CO
4J
•H
ft
ro
U
i— I
ro
O
^




O
0
o
*
in
o
o
S
o
i-H
•CO-




CD
O
O
^
in
o
o
S
o
rH
<^-




o
o
o
*
m
o
o
S,
vO
o
rH
v>
                                                                                       i-H

                                                                                        O
                                                                                       O
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               vO
                                                                                               a
                                                                                        w
                                                                                        Q
                                                                                        O
O
U
to
•H
JS
JJ

C
•H

CO
rl
-------
As the table shows, increasing the bond maturity to 30 years
would decrease annual payments by 12%, but it would increase
the total debt service by almost $440 million  C20%).  With
40-year bonds, the average annual debt service would be
reduced by 20%, but total debt service would increase by
47%, or more than $920 million.

5.2.4.8  A Worst Case Analysis

The accuracy of the MFP cost estimates, the level of grant
funding ultimately obtained, and the prevailing interest
rates at the time of bond issues, all have the potential of
altering the forecast fiscal impact of the MFP.  As Table
5.46 indicates, the assumptions of the Mosaic Alternative
(MMSD Recommended Plan) include:  1) a $1.66 billion program:
2) 36% grant funding:  and 3} all bonds sold  (to raise the
non-grant-funded portion) at 6% interest.  This worst case
analysis examines the impact of three different deviations
from the assumptions upon which the Mosaic Alternative is
founded.  All worst case scenarios assume district-wide financing,

5.2.4.8.1  Worst Case "A";  The sequence of expenditures
needed to implement the $1.6 billion MFP is technically
referred to as the Project Delivery Analysis  (PDA).  The PDA
is used to establish the annual budget for implementing the
Mosaic Alternative and as a basis for estimating project
design costs.  The PDA would be modified during the design
phase as more refined cost estimates become available.

This PDA has an accuracy range of -15% to +30%.  In other
words, the cost range of the MFP is $1.4 billion to $2.16
billion.  The worst case "A" in Table 5.46 assumes that the
MFP would end up costing 15% more than the PDA estimate of
$1.6 billion.  The total cost would, in this case, increase
by $249 million to $1.9 billion.

At the time the Draft EIS was released, the MMSD had anti-
cipated an overall grant funding level of 36%.  However,
information that has since become available suggests that
36% may be an overly optimistic estimate.  Therefore, the
worst case "A" assumes that the $1.9 billion would be only
25% grant funded.

Recently, interest rates on G. 0. municipal bonds have
exceeded the 6% rate assumed for the Mosaic Alternative.
Therefore, this worst case analysis assumes that the $1.42
billion of needed capital (75% of 1.9 billion) would be
raised with G.O. bonds paying 7.5% interest.  This higher
interest rate assumption increases the equalized tax rate by
12%.
                             5-112
-------
ffl
CrH
•rl >1
•U
0) C
JJ 3
58

X 01
(fl 01
EH y
3
QJJ fO
< 3
&4 rH
§ ''"'


01
4) 0)
JJ 3
(0 01
« 01
H
JJ
01 TJ
01 C
M 0
o) pa
•u
c c
H 0












en
w
tn o>

h3 -rl JJ
*( TJ -H
Z C rH

fTj O
63 (fl
en jj rH
< C -H

M >
W ° *
0
3







^
u
(fl
M
01 3
JJ O
(0 O
E <
•rl
JJ UH
01 O
W
rH
JJ 01
tn >
0 01
U r3













1)
'O JJ
0) (0
N 1-1 E
0) -rl O
OlrH X M
(0 10 (fl UH
M 3 JJ
D tT o in
> 41 >iO O
(0 JJ o o
rH M rH (N
r~ (0 0)  I
m 3 Qj in
. C O M co
•» C M 0) on
 (fl Qj Q4iH

•
T3 OP
C vD
J2 >,
ifl
a a
en
S tn
S 4)
3
rH 01
rH 01
<-rl


r- •
rH O 'O
(fl . . 01
3 C rH TJ
c o m- c
C-H 3
(fl rH •  E
>i o 3
IH o on 01
0 ifl o tn
M m (fl
JJ 3 +
01 O 11
DOOM
U < JJ (0
•O
01
in -a
o e
CO c

O 0
•H O
JJ 01

sac
tn en (0
01 E rH
01
T3 JJ
0) (0
N M E
41 -H o
OlrH X M
(fl [fl (0 U*
M 3 JJ
01 tT o in
> U >iO 0
(0 -POO
rH M rJ OI
O 'O U 1ft- 1
in 3 a in
. C 0 M oo
U3 C M u en
 (0 Q4 04 rH
OP •
in E O
T) • o in
C r~ M •
O MH 1C
(0 01
Q Qj 01 01 O
en jj tn JJ
S 01 (0 (fl
£01 MHO
3 M 00
rH 01 X O •
rH 01 (8 C in

jj
C M
(fl 0
M
O* fc £
C o
^~* U e i^
C -H TJ IH
0 rH O)
•H i-H T3 01
rH -rl C 41
rH .Q 3 01
•rl 4H flj .
j3 r«j 41 o
"*** JJ M co
CO . C 0 .
^T rH (fl g if)
• V> M -H «•
W tT1
41 O
M • JJ JJ jJ
O 13 O fl
— DC M r-
T) n

in 3 in a ^

01
01
• (fl IO
C 0) 10
0 M •
-H O rH
rH C 
rH -r(
•rl C
X) C (fl
0 J=
cn -H -U
• rH
rH rH M
U>-rl 41
E £ •
 4) >iO O
Ifl 4J O O
rH M i-H (N
P» (0 1)  1
in 3 04 in
• C O M co
co c M 41 en
 (0 O4 QjrH

E f
fQ OP o in
C oo n .
O  03 Vt-
X! in M
• co 0
vo T3 X JJ
ro 1) M (B
• 13 o EH P«
vt C ^
3 -
M UH C • f
0 O T3 'W*
— JJ -H 0)
C rH 13 E
OP (fl rH C O
in M -H 3 M
,_! O> X! MH IH


C
0
•rl
• O. rH
C < r-i
O 04 -H IO
•H g E y=

rH 00 rH
•H C en 
J3 (0 •»
r; {/> *_i
vo JJ 1)
rH 10 >
• M O
01 1) -
Xi 4) 1) •
 JJ tn c
O -rl (0 (0 O
x; E oi -ri
JJ -H M rH
01 OP JJ O rH
00 01 C -H
U n 01 -H A




tn
c
o
- -H

s a
jj g
tn 01 3
M 01 01
O (fl 01
3 U <
1)
"O JJ
1) (0
01 N M E
Ol-rl O
(fl rH X M
M (0 Ifl UH
0) 3 JJ
> tT o in
(0 41 >i O O
JJ O O
U3 rH M rH CM
co to i -H M
(fl IH o
Q 04 41 4-1
en jj oi •
S 01 (0 11 rH VO
S 11 M 01 !N CO
3 (fl • •
rH 01 X 01 0 01
rH 01 Ifl M rH rH
<; -H E-I o  



C
0 E
•H 0
rH M
rH MH
•rl
XI 01
01
in T3 tn •
• 01 (fl rH
01 TJ 01 01
to- C M •
3 O 0
>*H C rH
•rl V>
•a jj
01 C CD 0
^ (fl jj jj
CM (0
3 O> M r-
m (*">
JJ X •
OP O 10 T
O C EH in-





• 04
c «c
0 B<
•rl 3
rH £ VO O •
rH IO ^T 11
•rt C • 00 01
XI (0 rH W- (fl
J3 «• 01
in JJ CM
MH < O
01 M O C
«• 0) -H
A 01 •
"JH OlJJ C C
o -H (0 o o
r"* g .,H -iH
JJ -rl rH rH
01 Of JJ rH rH
O O 01 -rl -H
U in ai A 6




01
C
0
S -rl
CJ JJ
' I1
01 11 3
M 01 01
O (0 tn
S U <
                                                                                    tjl
                                                                                    c
                                                                                    • H
                                                                                    O
                                                                                    c
                                                                                    (0
                                                                                    c
                                                                                    0)
                                                                                    •o
                                                                                    •rH
                                                                                    3

                                                                                    JJ
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    •H
                                                                                    M
                                                                                    Jj
                                                                                    01
                                                                                    •rl
                                                                                    Q
                                                                                    3
                                                                                    01
                                                                                    01
                                                                                    (fl
                                                                                    Ifl
                      5-113
-------
The estimated cumulative effect of the above assumptions is
a 49% increase in the Milwaukee County tax rate.  That is,
while the assumptions in the Mosaic Alternative lead to an
average annual equalized tax rate of $4.37 for district-wide
financing, the assumptions outlined in the worst case "A"
lead to $6.50 per $1,000.

5.2.4.8.2  Worst Case "B"t  The worst case "B" assumes that
the $1.6 billion estimate is 30% lower than what the final
cost would be Cin 3.980 dollars}.  This assumption causes the
$1.66 billion to increase by $498 million to $2.16 billion.
In addition, grant funding is assumed to be 15%.

With these two assumptions, the entire $1.8 billion would
have to be raised locally.  Bonding $1.8 billion at 6% would
result in an average annual tax rate of $7.35/$l,000.
However, if bond issues are assumed to average 8%, the tax
rate would increase an additional 16% to $8.57/$l,000.

In summary, the worst case "B" analysis, including a project
cost increase of 30%, 15% grant funding, and 8% interest on
MMSD bonds, would cause the Milwaukee County property tax
rate for the MFP to increase 96% over the tax rate associated
with the Mosaic Alternative, from $4.37 to $8.57/$l,000.

5.2.4.8.3  Worst Case "C":  Worst case "C" assumes that the
capital cost of the MFP would be 50% higher than the estimated
$1.66 billion and that no grant funding would be available
during implementation of the program.  If the $2.5 billion
would be debt financed with 20-year G.O. bonds at 9% by
Milwaukee County, the average annual equalized County tax
rate would be $12.86 per $1,000.

With implementation of the MFP, the 1985-2005 average annual
equalized Milwaukee County property tax rate would likely be
between $4.37 and $12.86 per $1,000, depending upon which of
the possible combinations of cost estimates,  funding levels,
and interest rates ultimately occur.

5.2.4.9  Fiscal Impacts of CSO

The MMSD Recommended Plan assumes that all capital costs of
the MFP would be spread district-wide, and that all operation
and maintenance costs would be distributed through the User
Charge Program.   Since the CSO program is part of the MFP,
all CSO-related capital and O&M costs are assumed to be
shared district-wide.

However, the costs of some MFP projects have more priority
on the Wisconsin Project Priority List than CSO abatement,
                             5-114
-------
and the cost of implementing the MFP would exceed the $60
million per year ceiling for federal and state grants during
most years.  Therefore, grant funds would not be available
for CSO abatement.  The effect on the property tax rate
produced by different CSO solutions can be predicted by
applying the percentage differences in cost among alternatives
to the tax rate.  For example, given that a $1,064 billion
alternative (Mosaic), would result in a $4.37 per $1,000 tax
rate, then a $1.098 billion solution, which is a 3.2% increase,
would result in a $4.51/$1,000 tax rate Csee Table 5.47).

Assuming the continuation of the current contract formula,
costs to communities outside of Milwaukee County would also
increase, but not as much as in-County costs.  The contract
formula is not as sensitive to changes in MMSD capital
expenditures as the property tax system, because the charges
to contract communities are based on a 2% depreciation of
MMSD assets in place.  The contract formula distributes costs
based on a 50-year payback period as opposed to 20-year
bonds in Milwaukee County.

5.2.4.10  Individual Community Financing

On June 5th, 1980, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission approved the district-wide financing of all com-
ponents of the MFP.  However in the past, all communities
in the MMSD planning area have financed their own local
sewer rehabilitation and relief, CSO abatement, and trunk
sewer connections to the Milwaukee County line.  Historically,
the MMSD has financed Metropolitan Intercepting Sewer (MIS)
construction and treatment plant construction or improvement.

District-wide financing of the entire MFP has been con-
troversial.  A lawsuit has been filed against the MMSD by 15
suburbs to challenge the legality of district-wide financing.
Due to the uncertain outcome of this lawsuit, the EIS provides
a parallel fiscal impact analysis that assumes the CSO
abatement, local sewer rehabilitation, and trunk sewer
connections to the Milwaukee County line are financed by the
individual communities that own, or would own, the sewers.
This financial arrangement is referred to as the Individual
Community Financing Alternative.

The following assumptions underlie this analysis.  These
assumptions are used because they enable the results under
the Individual Community Financing Alternative to be compared
to the District-Wide Financing Alternative.
                             5-115
-------
                                TABLE 5.47

                 FISCAL  IMPACTS OF CSO ALTERNATIVES
Alternative

1.  Inline
2.  CST/Inline
3.  Modified
   Total Storage
4.  Complete
   Separation

*Costs in thousands
Source:  ESEI
Total Initial
MWPAP Capital:
Local Share*

$1 ,064 ,005
 1,074,535

 1,088,085

 1,097,925
          Average   Annual  Burden
Percent   Annual    to  a  $50,000
Increase  Tax Rate  Home  in Milwaukee
Base
1%

2 . 3%

3.2%
$4.37
  4. 41

  4.47

  4. 51
218
220

223

225
                                5-116
-------
1.)   Each community would finance its own sewer rehabilitation
     and relief with. 20-year G.O. bonds at 7% interest.

2.1   Each community joining the MMSD would finance its own
     connecting trunk sewer with 20-year bonds at 7% interest.

3.)   Both the City of Milwaukee and Shorewood would finance
     their own costs for CSO abatement with 20-year bonds at
     7% interest.  CSO costs include only CSO components,
     not interceptor and relief components.

4.)   All program elements not identified in 1, 2, or 3 above
     would be financed district-wide with 20-year G.O. bonds
     issued by Milwaukee County at 6% interest.  The debt
     service would be recovered by the existing contract
     formula and the Milwaukee County ad valorem property
     tax.

5.)   Grant funding would be distributed proportionally among
     all program elements (e.g., CSO abatement, interceptors,
     or WWTP upgrading and expansion), regardless of which
     municipality assumes the financing.

Table 5.48 compares the average annual debt service of indi-
vidual community financing with district-wide financing.  Table
5.49 compares average tax rates.  Major differences observed be-
tween the two methods of financing are discussed below:

1.)   Average annual costs to the City of Milwaukee and the
     Village of Shorewood would be lower under the District-
     Wide Financing Alternative.  Costs of the City of Milwaukee
     would decrease 30%; Shorewood's by 24%.  This decrease
     would occur because, with district-wide financing,
     about $400 million for CSO abatement in these two
     municipalities would be distributed to all planning
     area communities.

2.)   The average annual costs to each of the remaining MMSD
     communities within Milwaukee County would increase under
     the District-Wide Financing Alternative  (relative to
     the Individual Community Financing Alternative).  This
     increase would occur because these communities would
     share the costs of CSO abatement in the City Milwaukee
     and Shorewood.

3.)   However, when all the average annual costs for Milwaukee
     County communities from 1985-2005 are totaled, the sum
     for the District-Wide Financing Alternative would be
     less than the sum for the Individual Community Financing
     Alternative.  The bond interest rate for the District-
     Wide Financing Alternative is assumed to be 6%, whereas
                             5-117
-------
                           TABLE  5 .48

   INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY FINANCING VS. DISTRICT-WIDE FINANCING"1
            1985 - 2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
MILWAUKEE
COUNTY
COMMUNITIES
Bay side
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa-
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
Subtotal
INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITY™
FINANCING
$ 467
905
1,281
922
985
1,773
1,188
1,871
474
59,578
1,563
259
513
1,965
4,256
4,460
652
1,214
$ 84,326
DISTRICT-
WIDE ,
FINANCING
$ 732
1,502
1,926
1,216
1,675
3,032
2,039
3,149
786
41,694
2,685
406
786
1,495
6,721
6,216
1,075
1,880
$ 79,015
PERCENTAGE
CHANGE
FROM 1 TO 2
57%
66
50
32
70
71
72
68
66
-30
72
57
53
-24
58
39
65
55
-6%
CONTRACT COMMUNITIES
Brookf ield
Butler
Caddy Vista
Elm Grove
German town
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
Subtotal
$ 487
113
47
230
761
989
769
574
1,223
164
$ 5,431
$ 750
181
36
341
684
1,580
1.114
583
1,646
192
$ 7,107
54%
60
-23
48
-10
60
28
2
35
17
31%
 All costs in thousands.

 Column 1 is derived from Table 4, Column 5.

 Column 2 is derived from Table 51, Appendix X.

Source:  MMSD and ESEI
                             5-113
-------
                                     TABLE  5.49
               INDIVIDUAL  COMMUNITY FINANCING VS. DISTRICT-WIDE FINANCING:
                     1985  -  2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL EQUALIZED TAX RATES1
MILWAUKEE
COUNTY
COMMUNITIES
Bayside
Brown Deer
Cudahy
Fox Point
Franklin
Glendale
Greendale
Greenfield
Hales Corners
Milwaukee
Oak Creek
River Hills
St. Francis
Shorewood
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay

SEWER ,
REHABILITATION
.24/$1000
.15
.42
.55
.08
.08
.05
.10
.13
.31
.07
.03
.37
.16
.26
.63
.14
.32
TRUNK
SEWER
CONNECTORS
/$1000

















CONTRACT COMMUNITIES
Brookfield^
Butler
Caddy Vista
Elm Grove
Germantown
Menomonee Falls
Mequon
Muskego
New Berlin
Thiensville
.03
.05

.08
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.20


1.63

1.13

.30
.57
.20
.30
                                            cso
                                                3,4
                                            ABATEMENT
MMSD
CHARGES
                                                /$1000 2.50/$1000
                                            3.42
                                            3.08
  50
  50
  50
  50
  50
  50
  50
  50
  50
  50
                                                       2.50
 ,50
 .50
 ,50
 .50
2.50
2.50
COMMUNITY
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL
2.74/$1000
2.65
2.92
3.05
2.58
2.58
2.55
2.60
2.63
6.23
2.57
2.83
2.87
5.74
2.76
3. 13
2.64
2.82
DISTRICT- WIDE
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL
4.37/$1000
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
                                                         36
                                                         39
                                                         32
                                                         77
                                                         35
                                                         14
                                                         05
                                                        .98
                                                       1.04
                                                       1.24
             .39
            1.44
            2.95
             .85
            2.52
            1.18
            1.39
            1.58
            1.27
            1.74
 .59
2.28
2.26
1.27
2.22
  86
  73
1.62
  72
  03
1All values are expressed in dollars  per  $1000  of equalized value.

2The tax rates for the contract communities  (Brookfield  through Thiensville) are based
 on all taxable property within the communities (e.g., only 40% of Brookfield1s property
 is Tn~the contract area).   For commparison  purposes  only, this table  assumes contract
 communities would use the property tax to pay  the  contract charges.

3These rates are subject to change depending on the results of the ongoing  Sewer System
 Evaluation Survey.

 These rates are based upon the Inline Storage  Alternative.

 Property value estimated.


Source:   MMSD and ESEI
                                          5-119
-------
     the local bond issues  Cfor the Community Financing
     Alternative! are assumed to be 7%.  As a result, the
     average annual debt service  Cfrom 1385-20051 with the
     Individual Community Financing Alternative would be $84
     million as opposed to an average $79 million annually
     for the District-Wide Financing Alternative.

4.1  Average annual costs for all MMSD contract communities
     Ci.e. outside Milwaukee County!, except Germantown and
     Caddy Vista, would be higher with the District-Wide
     Financing Alternative than with the Individual Community
     Financing Alternative.  The cost increase would occur
     because these communities would share the cost of CSO
     abatement in Milwaukee and Shorewood.

5.}  The tax rates for the City of Milwaukee and Shorewood
     would decrease with the District-Wide Financing Alternative
     from $6.23 and $5.74, respectively, to $4.37.

6.)  Except for Germantown and Caddy Vista (discussed above),
     tax rates would increase for non-Milwaukee County
     communities with the District-Wide Financing Alternative.

Table 5.50 compares the average annual household charges by
community for Milwaukee County communities with the District-Wide
and Individual Community Financing Alternatives.  These
household costs are calculated by multiplying either the
assessed tax rate times the average assessed home value or
the equalized tax rate times the average equalized home
value.   (Both methods produce the same tax payment.)  The
contract communities' cost distribution methods were simulated
to determine the household costs in this table.

The greatest difference between the Individual Community
Financing Alternative and the District-Wide Financing Alternative
is the shifting of CSO abatement costs.  Assuming Milwaukee
and Shorewood would finance their own CSO abatement, peak
year (.19901 tax rates would be $7.20 per $1,000  (equalized)
for the City of Milwaukee and $6.65 (equalized) for Shorewood.
These rates incorporate the proportionate funding assumption
discussed above for CSO abatement.  If CSO abatement received
no grant funding, these peak tax rates would be $11.25 and
$10.40, respectively.  For a more detailed comparison of
these two financing methods, the reader is referred to
Section 2.0 of the Addendum to Appendix X, Fiscal/Economic
Impacts.

5.2.4.11  Other Methods of Distributing Project Costs

As mentioned previously, there are other methods that could
be used to distribute project costs.  A use-based system
                             5-120
-------
                          TABLE 5.50

  INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY FINANCING AND DISTRICT-WIDE  FINANCING
               COMPARED TO NET PROPERTY TAXES:
         1935 - 2005 AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD CHARGES
MILWAUKEE
COUNTY
COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITY
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE
Bayside              $315
Brown Deer            164
Cudahy                150
Fox Point             334
Franklin              177
Glendale              194
Greendale             201
Greenfield            160
Hales Corners         178
Milwaukee             249
Oak Creek             149
River Hills           450
St. Francis           136
Shorewood             491
Wauwatosa             193
West Allis            191
West Milwaukee        133
Whitefish Bay       2 254
CONTRACT COMMUNITIES
Brookfield86
Butler                 25
Caddy Vista           126
Elm Grove              92
Germantown            106
Menomonee Falls        79
Mequon                 95
Muskego               104
New Berlin             79
Thiensville            99
DISTRICT-WIDE
FINANCING
ALTERNATIVE

   $503
    271
    225
    478
    299
    328
    354
    269
    295
    175
    253
    695
    208
    374
    306
    267
    221
    393

    131
     39
     96
    137
     95
    126
    122
    105
    106
    116
1981
AVERAGE
NET
PROPERTY TAX1

   $2,347
    1,457
    1,172
    2,376
    1,505
    1,457
    1,872
    1,351
    1,553
    1,103
    1,032
    3,870
    1,234
    2,217
    1,568
    1,558
    1,179
    2,138

    1,716
    1,056
      N/A
    2,200.,
    1,382
    1,443
    1,853
    1,132
    1,360
    1,517
 This  figure  is  derived  from the  1981 Net  Tax Rates  in the
 Citizens Government  Research Bureau, Bulletin,  March 7,  1981
 and updated  property values in Table 20 of Appendix X.
2
 This  table assumes the  contract  communities would use their
 present methods of cost apportionment.

 1980  Average Net Property  Tax

N/A:   Not Available.
 Source:   MMSD and ESEI
                           5-121
-------
could be implemented, by which, each community would pay
according to the percentage of the total flow they contribute
to the MMSD.  Another form of cost apportionment would be
the ad valorem taxation of all property served by the sewer
system, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries.  The costs
to the communities in the planning area under the use-based
or service area tax systems are compared to present distribution
methods in Table 5.51.  The assumptions used to determine
these costs are listed in Table 5.52.

A use-based distribution of MFP costs would result in an
average increase of charges to contract communities of 8%
over the charges associated with the Mosaic Alternative.  In
addition, the charges to some Milwaukee County communities
would increase even more dramatically:  Cudahy by 45%;
Milwaukee by 20%; Oak Creek by 44%; St. Francis by 19%; and
West Milwaukee by 113%.  Although these communities have
relatively low property values, they contribute large amounts
of wastewater, which accounts for their increased costs.

The costs to the 13 remaining Milwaukee County communities
would be reduced from the costs associated with the Mosaic
Alternative.  This reduction would range from 16% to 66%.
These communities have relatively higher property values and
would pay more if costs are distributed by ad valorem property
taxation.

If the MFP costs are distributed by an ad valorem tax of all
property in the entire MMSD sewer service area, the costs to
suburbs outside Milwaukee County would increase an average
of 94% over the charges imposed by the current MMSD Contract
Formula.  At the same time, charges to communities in Milwaukee
County would decrease an average of 8%.

5.2.4.12 The EPA Preferred Alternative

Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide that the CSO abatement
facilities need not be designed for the worst storm on
record  Ca 40-year recurrence interval), the MMSD would have
to comply with the DNR Stipulation Csee Chapter 2).
The DNR Stipulation states that if Federal and/or State
financial assistance is not available, the Sewerage Commission
must spend $13 million annually in 1976 dollars C$20.3
million in 1980 dollars! between 1983 and 1996 toward the
CSO abatement project.  After 1996, the Sewerage Commission
must continue to spend the 1996 dollar equivalent of $13
million in 1976 dollars.  This amount would not have to
be adjusted for inflation after 1996.  Because of the very
low position of the CSO project on the State priority list,
it is very likely that the CSO abatement would have to be
financed entirely with local funds.
                             5-122
-------
                       CB  ^.
                       01 H
                       c  •—
                       fB

                      g  §
                          SH
                      dt?  HH
                                       I  H   I   +  +  I  CN
                                                                     I    I   i
                                                                                        I++I++I    I    I   IJ+I    I    I   I
                      M-l   cfl

                       °S
co  CN  H r- vo
r-i  o  vo PI o
    r-


CN  H  rH
               rH r-- in  CM
               CN vo H  o
                                                                                           nfN'S'rHroCM
                                                                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                                                                        o
in
OQ
0)
jj
0)
U3

>-v
m
'*"••''


EH

W

13
o
M
EH
Si
O
CM
— 4
^
EH
0
o
Pa
o
W
Q
0
ffi
EH
W
S
H
«c
5*°
(?
H
EH








£*•<
 m a
SH CD O X
d) rl M (D
cn «C cu EH
Cn H
G *-'
rfl

U 0
SH
dP fu




r-H
VH a)
O 4-1
0
dP £H


^
tn
ffl

U
^ 0
CN rH
-- PH

, — {
M-l (fl
O 4-J
O
* EH

•o o
CIJ O
Q "O O
CO G rH
S CD
o c
^» o fd
H 0) H
*—* PH P|
                                                                                                                                     ro  n  d CN
                                                        iHr-liHH     fNH(N      POr-IOOi-lrNCN         rHO      VOID
                                                                                                  ro                         iJ
                                         in
                                                 in
                                                            co  o
                                                                               cnvoinr—icncNcoocNPicnoo
                                                                                                                                 r-  vo  r»  CN CM
cocNvocT>picnrH^ip)inot~-ocnvOPir~-cNCnvor~-cocMCTirH  IOCNVOCNCMCO
                                      co co
                                                        CN
                                                 rH  ^1*  P)
                                                 CN  O  CN
                                                                                                  cn
                                                                                                              PI
                                                                    cn
                                      CN  r~  vo  rH  pi cn
                                      in  PI  vO  cn  co CN
                                              CO  rH CN
                                              vo  cn rH
                                                                                                                      cn
                                                                                                                                         in  CN
           i 0  0
                                                     tn
                                                     •rl
                                                             CU 4-1
                                                                 ceo
                                                                •rl  -rl  4-1
                                                         >i  in  0  rH  c
                                                 rH  T3  a
                  i x; o  cn  ^
                                                                     G
                                                                     (T)
                                                 4-1  13  H3  g  X
                                      (fl!HSH3
                                           0)
                                           0)
                                                                                                                  tn  tn
                                                                                                                  H  -H
                                                                                                                              i
    M  a
     v  «
 tn   us
•rl   3  4=
        tn
                   i-H  H
               O  rH  -rl -H
               4J  
               3  tn  tn
               10  CU  CU
                                                                             S  3 S  S
                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                           rH
                                                                                                           •H
                                                                                                           S
                                                                                                                                                                    tn
                                                                                                                                                                   4-)
                                                                             5-123
-------
                           TABLE  5.52

         ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUNDING ANALYSIS

Assumptions of Mosaic Alternative  (MMSD Recommended Plan)

      Existing contract formula for non-Milwaukee County
      Suburbs

      MMSD annual debt service (after reduced by contract
      communities' payments) is recovered by ad valorem
      taxation of Milwaukee County property.

      County equalized property valuation is assumed to rise
      at a real growth rate of .4% per year.

Assumptions of Flow Based Analysis

      Flows used to determine the percent of total are 1995
      estimates (Base flow + I/I).  The estimates are averages
      between 1985 and 2005 design year flows.

      Community percentages are calculated by dividing each
      community's 1995 flow by the total 1995 flow.

      Each community's percentage is multiplied times the
      MMSD average annual  (1985-2005)  debt service, which -is
      about $86 million.

      No assumption is made on how the communities would
      distribute the cost to the household level.

      County boundaries are ignored.

Assumptions of Service Area Property Tax

      Only the property in each community that is served by
      the sewerage system is considered in the analysis.

      1985-2005 average annual tax rate is $4,06 per $1000.
      of equalized property value.

      The tax rate is applied equally to all served property
      in the sewer service area regardless of jurisdictional
      boundaries.
                            5-124
-------
Assuming that the U.S. District Court Order is overturned,
the Preferred CSO abatement facilities would be designed for
a 2- to 5-year storm recurrence interval  Cmeaning that the
system's capacity would be exceeded only once during the
average 2- to 5-year periodl.

The capital cost of this alternative would range between
$350 and $520 million.  If between $350 and $520 million is
spent at the rate of $20 million per year, $203 million
would be spent fay 1932 and $284 million by 1996 (in 1980
dollars).  If approximately $20 million (in 1980 dollars)
would be spent annually on the CSO project after 1996, a
total of $350 million would be  spent by 1999, $467 million by
2005, and $520 million by 2008.

The fiscal impacts of the EPA Preferred Alternative are
discussed below for a district-wide as well as an individual
community financing scheme and summarized in Table 5.53.

5.2.4.12.1  District-Wide Financing:  With a district-wide
financing arrangement, the MMSD would spend about $203
million on CSO abatement and about $1.1 billion on the
balance of the EPA Preferred Alternative for a total of
about $1.3 billion by 1992.  Beyond 1992,  the MMSD would
continue to spend $20 million a year (1980 dollars) for 7 to
15 more years until between $350 and $520 million had been
spent on the CSO project.  The total cost for the EPA
Preferred Alternative would be between $1.47 and $1.64
billion.

Assuming that the $1.3 billion is expended by 1992, that
$20 million per year is spent on CSO thereafter, that the
expenditures are 36% grant funded, and that G.O. bonds are
issued at a 6% interest rate, the 1985-2005 average annual
equalized property tax rate for Milwaukee County would be about
$3.50 per $1,000 to finance the local portion.

Assuming that the $1.3 billion (and $20 million per year
after 1992) would be 0% grant funded and that interest rates
on the bonds would average 9%, the 1985-2005 average annual
equalized tax rate would be about $6.80 per $1,000.

Thus under a district-wide financed scheme, the average
annual equalized Milwaukee County tax rate  (1985-2005) to
finance the EPA Preferred Alternative would range from $3.50
to $6.80 per $1,000 depending upon available grant funds and
prevailing interest rates on G.O. bonds.
                              5-125
-------
Ed
2 O
O K
X •
< 0
EH 0
O
< a
D m
2 to-
a
< <
tn
M
3
•8
CO

m o
r** ^*
i— I ro




H m o
•P r^ ^?
•H H ro
O| 

EH i^ i^ OS
PS D W
H Q 2 ft
cu w 2
O S < C/3
On CM [V]
ft W H EH
b O  <
r3 < <: EH
< ft
D Ed in Q
O< 0 W
ro Cd Ed ON
in K CN H
• i-J EH 1 f— I
in < in sC
D PS co D
Ed 2O  







0)
I)

O 3
(d

•P rH
•H -H
O S


0 O
m co
• •
ro u3
•c/> -co-


rt! Ed
EH HO
CD HH
2 PS
> CO
rtj
EH
Q 03
W Ed
EH Q
<; tn en
H ffi C G
EH EH O O
co mm
Ed Ed
O
in 2 O O
0 < •
02 t3
CN H 0)
1 b U
m c
CO O rB
CTi SH g
rH -H
b
0)
CO
a
o
H
£n
ft
^1
D
CO
CO
 T3 -P
(U (d 0) fd
T3 PS T3 PS
C G
34J 3 4J
PD 01 fTi W
0) 0)
4-1 M 4-1 SH
CO) CO)
(04-) (d 4J
t, (-1 tj r»
M >-« W i-«
OH OH

dP dP dP dP
VO v£ O CTi
ro










































































O 0 0

M i-H




0 0 O
CTi ^3* PO
•-H CN
to- 






O 0
O CO CO
• • •
O CN CN
•CO- 









000
co co kO
• • •
H CN f
 






(I)

•H
4-1
fd
O >-!
2 (1)
H 4J
U i-l
a co <;
f^ *&
z c n
H O 0)
b CQ M
T3 M
>" C • 0)
EH rd O M-i
H •  OH ft c hi
H (d <
Q dP d(= O rH EH
2 vO ^ CO rd O
H ro O 03 EH

O m in
r^ r^*
CN CN




in in o
f**- r^ in
rH CN ^P
 V>






o o
o m in
• • •
o m m
 









0 0 O
in m o
• • •
ro m r?i
 
•H
p

g
OJ
P
rH
in <
r0
C T3
O 0)
CQ SH
'O M
G • 0)
cd O 4-1
Q)
T3 ft

<1) C ft EH H
S 3 4J W i^ W
3 b en G P K co
tn oj CD o MH ry
tn 4-1 M £ 
-------
5.2.4.12.2  Individual Community Financing;  If the City of
Milwaukee finances the EPA Preferred CSO alternative with
36% grant funding and issues $20.3 million worth of bonds
each year at 6% interest, the 1985-2005 average annual
equalized tax rate would be about $1.80.  The balance of the
MFP would cost City of Milwaukee taxpayers another $2.80 per
$1,000 equalized, increasing the total to $4.60.  The rest
of Milwaukee County would be taxed at a rate of about $2.80
per $1,000 equalized.

Assuming 0% grant funding and 9% interest on the bonds for
both the City and the County, the City of Milwaukee would be
taxed at the rate of about $9.00 per $1,000 equalized C$3.50
for CSO plus $5.50 for the balance of the EPA Preferred
Alternative}.  The rest of Milwaukee County would be taxed
at about $5.50 per $1,000 equalized.

Thus, under an Individual Community Financing arrangement,
the 1985-2005 average annual equalized City of Milwaukee
property tax rate to finance the EPA Preferred Alternative
would range from $4.60 to $9.00, depending upon available
grant funding and prevailing interest rates.  The costs to the
rest of Milwaukee County would range from $2.80 to $5.50 per
$1,000.

With either District-Wide or Individual Community Financing,
households in the contract communities would be charged
about one-half as much as households in Milwaukee County
suburbs  (assuming the current contract formula).

5.2.5  Economic Impacts

5.2.5.1  Introduction

Any of the MFP final alternatives, except No Action, would
have both positive and negative impacts on the economy of
the Milwaukee area.  The massive amount of money spent in
the Milwaukee area to implement the MFP would have positive
impacts by stimulating the economy, creating jobs, and
increasing income levels.  However, negative impacts would
also occur because 64% of this money would come from the
taxation of citizens in the Milwaukee area, thus reducing
the amount of money that these taxpayers could otherwise
save or spend within or outside of the region.

Any change in the region's economy affects all aspects of
the area's economy.  For example, contracting a construction
firm to build a treatment plant could cause that firm to
hire more employees in addition to purchasing the materials
needed for the job.  This is called a direct effect.  Also,
the firms that do business with the firms supplying the
                             5-127
-------
construction company would be stimulated.  These many levels
of economic interactions, coupled with, the effects of the
increased consumer spending due to increased income, are
called indirect or induced effects.  At the same time, a
reduction in spendable income due to increases in the tax
rate could reduce the money being spent locally, thus having
a negative indirect effect on local businesses.

The Regional Industrial Mutiplier System  CRIMSl model,
developed by the United States Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, was used by the MMSD to estimate
specific economic impacts of the program.  The EPA, DNR,,and
EIS consultant evaluated the RIMS model and determined that
it was an acceptable method of evaluating potential economic
impacts.

The RIMS model is a method of quantitatively estimating the
total effect of a major project like the MFP on the local
economy by tracking the many levels of economic effects
it sets off.  The RIMS model was used to measure how the MFP
would affect gross output Cregional economic production),
earnings (.income) , and employment in the study area.  The
results of the RIMS analyses for all final alternatives were
similar, so the Mosaic Alternative is used as the basis for
the discussion in this chapter.  For a detailed description
of the RIMS model and its application to this project, the
reader is referred to Appendix X, Fiscal/Economic Impacts.

Because 64% of the project costs are projected to be locally
funded, both the positive and negative impacts of the project
must be considered.  The positive and negative impacts of
the Mosaic Alternative are discussed separately  and then
are combined to determine the program's net impact on the
local economy.

5.2.5.2  Positive Economic Impacts

The total dollar amounts of gross output, earnings, and
employment stimulated by the direct and indirect effects of
the Mosaic Alternative are listed below.

     Gross Output = $4,544,452,000
     Earnings     = $1,173,626,000
     Employment   = 55,097 man-years

Thus, although the MFP would cost $1.6 billion, it would
stimulate the local economy to increase its output by $4.5
billion.  The MFP would directly and indirectly create
55,097 man-years of work increasing local earnings by $1.2
billion.
                             5-128
-------
5.2.5.3  Negative Economic Impacts

The negative economic impacts of the MFP are more difficult
to assess.  Quantification of the negative impacts of the
project requires analysis of how consumers (the taxpayers)
would have spent the tax money used to support the MFP.

There are two extremes to measure the range of negative
economic impacts.  The "least case" assumes that none of the
tax money raised to support the debt service would have been
spent within the region.  Therefore, there would be no
ripple effect on the local economy from the lost consumer
income.  The negative impacts of the MFP under this "least
case" assumption are shown below.

              "Least Case;"

     Gross Output = -$1,966,319,000
     Earnings     = -$  333,584,000
     Employment   = -23,707 man-years

The second way that the negative impacts could be generated
is termed a "worst case", which assumes that all of the
money taken out of the private sector to support the debt
service would have been spent in the local economy.  This
spending shortfall would, therefore, have repercussions
throughout the local economy.  Just as the $1.6 billion
program expenditure multiplies into a total of $4.5 billion,
the $1.97 billion spent on debt service must also be represented
in its multiplied form.  The $1.97 billion would ripple
through the economy by way of direct and indirect effects
and create a multiplied total of $5.5 billion.  The same
procedure was carried out for earnings and employment,
listed below.

               "Worst Case;"

     Gross Output = -$5,525,758,000
     Earnings     = -$1,137,313,000
     Employment   = -72,197 man-years

In other words, if the negative effects of the MFP, i.e. the
local burden in terms of gross output, earnings, and employment,
are subjected to the same "multiplier," or ripple effect,
as the positive effects, the resulting "worst case" negative
effects could potentially cost $5.5 billion in gross output,
$1.1 billion in earnings, and 72,197 in man-years.

The actual negative impacts of the MFP would probably fall
somewhere between the "least case" and "worst case" scenarios.
                             5-129
-------
5.2.5.4  Net Impacts

To measure the net impacts to the local economy of the MFP,
the negative impacts are subtracted from the positive.  Table
5.54 summarizes the net impact of the MFP, assuming the least
and worst case scenarios.  The economic impact of the MFP
may be characterized as having an initial positive effect,
quickly followed by a period of negative effects in the form
of debt service payments.

5.2.5.5  Impacts of CSO Alternatives on Area Employment

The RIMS model was not used for the final CSO alternatives.
Therefore, no method exists for quantitatively assessing
and comparing the direct and indirect impacts of each final
CSO alternative on the Milwaukee area economy.  However,
certain manpower requirements for CSO alternatives can be
estimated, and statements regarding the requirements of local
labor can be made.

The EIS assumes that the implementation of a CSO alternative
which utilizes the local labor and materials market would
have a greater positive impact on the area economy than an
alternative which relies to a greater extent on non-local
labor and materials.  Generally, much of the sophisticated
equipment and specialized labor required for cavern and deep
tunnel construction is not available in the local area  (this
specialized labor and equipment represents only a small portion
of the labor and equipment required for any alternative).
Therefore, the positive employment impacts of a sewer separation
alternative, which relies on more local labor, will probably
be greater than the positive employment impacts of a storage
alternative.  The employment impacts of the Complete Sewer
Separation Alternative are compated below to those of the
MMSD Recommended CSO Alternative (Inline Storage) since they
represent two extremes in terms of employment impacts.

According to Appendix 6D of the MMSD CSO Facility Plan, complete
sewer separation would require an average of 190 construction
workers per year for ten years to complete the main line
sanitary sewer construction.  In addition, a minimum average
of 150 workers per year for ten years would be required for
separating residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
The Complete Sewer Separation Alternative would require 340
(190+150)  man-years per year for ten years, for a total of
3,400 (340 x 10)  man-years (a man-year is employment for
one person for one year; thus, this does not necessarily
mean 3,400 new jobs would be created).
                             5-130
-------
                         TABLE 5.54


     NET ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSUMING LEAST CASE NEGATIVE



                  Positive   -   Negative   =   Net Impact

Gross Output
  (x 1000)        $4,544,452     $1,966,319     $2,578,133

Earnings
  (x 1000)        $1,173,626     $  333,584     $  840,042

Employment
  (man-years)         55,097         23,707         31,390
     NET ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSUMING WORST CASE NEGATIVE


                  Positive   -   Negative   =   Net Impact

Gross Output
  (x 1000)        $  544,452     $5,525,758     -$  981,306

Earnings
  (x 1000)        $1,173,626     $1,137,313      $   36,313

Employment
 (man-years)          55,097         72,192          17,100
Source:  MMSD and ESEI
                            5-131
-------
According to Chapter 8 of the MMSD CSO Facility Plan,
the MMSD Recommended CSO Abatement Alternative would
require an average of 310 construction-related personnel
per year, for 9 years, for a total of 2,790 man-years.

The comparison would be 3,400 man-years for complete
sewer separation as opposed to 2,790 man-years for the
construction of new storm sewers and storage facilities
(MMSD Recommended Plan).  However, if it is assumed that
10% of the work force for the recommended alternative
would be imported, then the comparison would be:  3,400
man-years required for complete sewer separation vs.
2,511 man-years for the MMSD Recommended CSO Alternative.

Although the Complete Sewer Separation Alternative has
the potential to employ a greater number of local construction-
related workers, the rather intense disruption to CSSA
businesses caused by the Complete Sewer Separation Alternative
could offset the positive impact of greater local employment.

It would be difficult to differentiate between the negative
economic impacts of the Inline, Complete Sewer Separation,
Modified GST/Inline, and Modified Total Storage Alternatives
for CSO and I/I abatement because the amount of local
tax dollars raised to finance construction of any of
these alternatives would be nearly equal.  Table 5.55
summarizes the employment impacts of the final CSO alternatives,

5.2.5.6  Tax Climate

Historically, Milwaukee and Wisconsin have had reputations
as high tax areas.  However, two important changes have
recently been made in the state tax policy:  the property
tax exemption for manufacturing machinery and equipment and
the exemption of inventories and livestock.  These tax
exemptions should affect the manufacturing sector because
their taxable property will be reduced substantially.
Businessmen in the manufacturing sector who were interviewed
by the MMSD indicated that the machinery and equipment
exemptions have changed their attitudes about Wisconsin's
tax climate.  The inventory exemption would have similar
effects on retail and wholesale businesses.

Another factor would be the increases in property taxes that
could be deducted on federal and state income tax forms.
Due to recent State law changes, residential property taxes
can no longer be an itemized deduction on state income tax
forms.  Since 1979, property taxes have been treated as a
tax credit which can be claimed by all persons filing a
Wisconsin State income tax return.
                             5-132
-------
                        TABLE 5.55
              CSO ALTERNATIVES:  ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Inline:  The 11% complete separation and 89% partial
separation required could almost totally draw from the
local labor supply.  A small amount of non-local labor
could be supplemented with local labor to satisfy the
deep tunnel, dropshaft, and cavern construction.


Complete Separation:  Although this alternative involves
100% separation, it would require 440 miles of sanitary
sewers, as opposed to 460 miles of storm sewers, with the
Inline alternative.  The positive economic impacts may be
slightly less than with the Inline alternative.

The local labor required for separation is nearly identical
to Inline, but there would be less local labor required
for near-surface facilities, soft-ground tunnels, screening
structures, and access shafts (the "all other" category).

If current financing practices were applied to the analysis
of the complete separation alternative, homeowners in the
CSSA could be severely burdened with additional costs.
Specifically, current MMSD practices require that homeowners
pay for the costs of connections and repairs made from the
street to the home.  Under the complete separation alternative,
there could be this additional fiscal burden to CSSA home-
owners, unless the opinion of the MMSD Legal Staff is
confirmed, that the entire MMSD would pay the costs of
street-to-house connections in the CSSA.


GST/Inline:  This alternative involves 120 miles of con-
struction, with 11% complete separation, 21% partial
separation, and 68% complete storage.  This may have fewer
positive economic impacts than Inline, but no comparison
with complete separation is possible.

Total Storage:  With no sewer separation, the local labor
needs would be more intensified in the tunnel and storage
facility construction.  Positive economic impacts will be
limited to the "all other" category, yielding much less
of an economic benefit than Inline or CST/Inlirte.
                           5-133
-------
5.2.5.7  Business Relocation

Taxes are often an important factor when businesses choose
to locate or remain within the planning area.  To study how
tax increases might affect specific industries in the Milwaukee
area, the EIS has relied on a MMSD survey of 47 firms and on
interviews by the EIS consultant with trade associations.
The businesses sampled represented each major industrial
sector throughout the region.  Interviews were conducted
with senior executives of each participating firm.

The objectives of the MMSD survey were to provide infor-
mation on the project, to discuss estimates of the firms'
sewer related tax increases due to the project, and to
elicit the companies reactions to the future changes.

Few of the firms surveyed indicated that the tax increases
would put them at a competitive disadvantage to similar
companies outside'the planning area.  No firm stated a
desire to move outside the planning area to avoid MFP costs.
This response may partly be explained by the large exemption
to property valuation granted to the industrial sector.

5.2.5.8  Impacts on Selected Industries

Table 5.56 compares projected 1985 sewerage costs for selected
industries with their 1979 costs.  These sewerage costs
include user charges for O&M and property taxes for capital
debt service.  For this comparison, the 31 major industrial
firms were grouped into three categories:  heavy machinery;
breweries and dairy products; and manufacturing.  For these
three categories of industries, sewerage costs would increase
by 24% on the average, with the highest increase (67%)  in
the heavy machinery industry.

In all these industries, sewerage costs are now and will
continue to be only a small portion of the cost of doing
business.  Table 5.57 illustrates the small percentage of
present and projected value added  (.the value of a firm's
finished product less the cost of materials} attributable to
sewerage costs.  Only in the chemical industry are sewerage
costs a significant portion of value added, and the percentage
of operating cost attributable to sewer costs would not
change drastically if the MFP is implemented.  The effects
on other industries and households are summarized below.

5.2.5.8.1  Brewing;  The project would probably not have any
adverse effect on the brewing industry because capital costs
are recovered by property taxes and not by user charges.
The brewing industry is a heavy water user, but its taxable
property values are not especially high.
                             5-134
-------
w





























tn

2
M


J
f£
M
OS
EH
cn

Q
Z
H
rH
n
PS
o
b

Ul
EH
cn
o
U
a
o

ex
H
3
U
cn
m
00
(TV
rH

Q
2
^J

cn
p-
cn
i-H


















































CN — •
01 in
4J )4
tn id
O rH
CJ rH
O
oi a
0*
id o
M ao
cu an
SrH
CU
a] IM
O
in
00 01
cn *o
rH C
id
13 01
•





CU
W
(d
cu
M
O
C
dP H


dP dP dP
r- rH in
e • 0
rH VO t~
in ao cn
i-H CN rH





^,
•M
M
0)
a
o x
IH it)
CM EH
rH rH Ul
• • •
in T o
r— 




CU
01
CU
IH
O
C
dp H


dP dP dP
m r- co
• • •
r- rH cn
rH




01
cn
rl M
cu id
01 JZ
D U
in 10 oo
• • •
o n o
r- cr> CN
r** n cn
* «

to-
rH CN CO
t e t
rn co in
rH
10
•P
o
EH
CN in cn
CM rH in

rH fl ff)






>,
4-1
^4

(8 rH
01
3 CU
O 0
C
o
-H
4J
a
•H
M
0
01
CU
a
x: -H
4J ^J
a < a: o
c
•rl 0 CM CM Oi
00 333
en cn O O O
4-> rH rl ^4 rl
01 C3 C3 U
o -n
u id



dP
o
•
*J>
CN
^
^1
cn
CO
en
°







dP
CN
0
00
r^
rH





VO
•
cn
o
CO
^
rH
t/>






dP
f>
•
O
rH




cn
•
*4*
CO
0
•,
CO
to-
rH
•
r-
r-
cn
^
r^.
to-







m
•
0
in
10
t/v






ao

\Q
CN
ro
«
^- C
to- o
f4 ^


J3 'H
•rH Q|
i-4 id
4J CJ
CD
•r( G S
T3 CO 
rH CU O
K) 4J 3
4J 01 4J T3
O 0 
4-)
OP
dP O
o o
in rH

•^ ,y
o u
o o
4J 4-1
in 01

~ •
01 0}
4J 4-1
C C
id ra
x; x!
o o

cu cu
s s

•a -a
c c


~ ~
tn eg
V4 ^-1
cu ,
U
•rl
id

£^
QI trt tri
c c c
•rl H) -rl
XI V4
O 01 3
IB CU 4J
S -rl O
rl Id
> 0) <*->
> S 3
n) cu C
CU rl Id
K 03 2

1 1 1

< a cj

CM CM CM
333
O O 0

U O U



































































c
rH
rH
1
r^
«
^
w

^
c
id
rH
CM

E
CU
4J
tn
>^
cn

Vl
0)
4-1
id

cu

0]
id
S

Q
Ul
;g
jgj


••
CU
O
IH
3
O
CO
                               5-135
-------
                               TABLE 5.57
              SEWERAGE COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF VALUE ADDED
                                  Sewerage Cost as a Percent
                                  of Estimated 1976 Value Added
Description

Heavy Machinery
  Paints and Allied Products
  Primary Metals
  Fabricated Metals
  Machinery Except Electrical
  Electric and Electronic
    Equipment
  Transportation Equipment

Total

Beverages and Dairy Products
  Malt Beverages
  Dairy Products

Total

Other Manufacturing
  Food Processing Excluding
    Beverages and Dairy
    Products
  Paperboard Products
  Misc. Chemicals
  Leather Tanning

Total

All Groups, Total
                        1979  Sewerage
                        Cost1
                          0.2%
                          0.2
                          *
                          0.1

                          0.1
                          *

                          0.1%
                          0.8%
                          0.2

                          0.7%
                         2.2%
                         N/A
                        16.2
                         3.2

                         4.0%

                         0.3%
                   Projected 1985
                   Sewerage Cost
                      0.5%
                      0
                      0
                      0.1
                      0
                      0
                      0.2%
                      1.1%
                      0.2

                      0.9%
                      2.5%
                      N/A
                     18.2
                      3.6

                      4.5%

                      0.4%
*Less than 0.05%
N/A - Not Available
 Manufacturers'
2
 Manufacturers'

Source:
       and merchants'
       and merchants'
stocks 50% tax exempt.
stocks 100% tax exempt,
Table 7-12
WSP:   Environmental Assessment.
                              5-136
-------
5.2.5.8.2  Leather Tanners;  The leather tanning industry
faces severe foreign competition and consequently has had
great difficulty passing price increases to its customers.
Interviews revealed that the projected increases in property
taxes would not adversely affect this industry.

5.2.5.8.3  Construction;  The MFP could create a temporary
upsurge in the construction industry in Milwaukee.  In 1984,
employment in construction is expected to rise to a high of
3,000 man-years.  The annual average through 1990 would be
1,800 man-years.  This average figure would represent an
increase of about 10% over average annual construction
employment in the Milwaukee area over the past decade.

Representatives of the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of
Construction Services, several of its branch offices, and
construction experts at the U.S. EPA all concurred that the
surge in employment created by the MFP is not a critical
issue.  The construction industry tends to have employment
swings as projects are completed or new projects start up.

5.2.5.9  Impacts on Households

Household property would be the most seriously affected by
increases in property taxes.  This property does not have
some of the benefits  (e.g., inventory exemptions)  which
lessen the burden to industries.

Milwaukee should receive some additional state property tax
credits due to the increase in property taxes associated
with the MFP, which would lower the net tax levy.   Home-
owners who itemize their income tax deductions (usually in
the middle or upper income brackets)  would be able to itemize
their increased property tax levy on their federal income
tax forms and claim a portion of their property taxes as an
income tax credit on their State income tax form.   For
detailed information on the fiscal impacts to households,
see Appendix X, Fiscal/Economic Impacts.

5.2.5.10  Construction Impacts on Local Businesses

The construction of various components of the MFP would
reduce available parking spaces and disrupt traffic patterns
and access to some businesses.  The MMSD has estimated that
the MFP construction projects would have durations lasting
from two weeks to two months per block.  The disruption of
traffic and access could also disturb businesses in the
vicinity.  Businesses which rely on impulse buying (e.g.,
record or book stores) would be more severely affected than
those that sell necessities.  Also severely affected would
                            5-137
-------
be businesses that have a high business threshold  (require
greater numbers of daily receipts to remain solvent}.

Retailers outside the central business district could also
be affected by MFP construction because they must rely
heavily on customers using private automobiles.  The central
business district has a large customer market readily available
from retail, financial, and other businesses.  Pedestrian
access would be less disrupted than vehicular traffic.

Further discussion of impacts to traffic and access can be
found in Section 5.2.12 of this volume and in the CSO Appendix.

5.2.6  Noise

5.2.6.1  No Action Alternative

The operation of wastewater treatment facilities does not
significantly affect the noise levels in the planning area.
Most of the WWTPs are located in residential areas, but
there have been no complaints that noise levels are increased
by  WWTP operations.  The Jones Island treatment plant is
located near residential development, but it is surrounded
by heavy industry; and thus noise from the WWTP is not
considered a hazard.

5.2.6.2  Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

The Local Alternative includes the construction of six
interceptors of relief systems and three new wastewater
treatment facilities as well as the rehabilitation and
expansion of the Jones Island and South Shore treatment
plants.  In addition, five public and two private WWTPs
would be upgraded or expanded.  The Regional and Mosaic
Alternatives include eight interceptors and the rehabili-
tation and expansion of the Jones Island and South Shore
treatment plants.  All this construction would require heavy
machinery.  This equipment should have internal noise muffling
equipment.  Construction noise would be temporary, although
some construction periods could be several years; the South
Shore WWTP would require three and one half years for expansion.

The MMSD has estimated that construction of sewers, dropshafts,
cavern access shafts, and near-surface conveyance and storage
facilities for the abatement of CSO and attenuation of peak
flows would result in outdoor noise levels of approximately
55 decibels CdBA) in the A-weighted scale at a distance of
57Q feet C174 m), approximately one and one-half blocks.
This 55 dBA noise level has been identified by EPA as requisite
to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin
of safety CU.S. EPA, MCD-20, 1976).  Some blasting might be
                             5-138
-------
required for tunnels and storage caverns.  The durations of
construction activities to abate CSO are outlined in Table
5.58.

Most sewer construction would occur in streets 50 to 90 feet
C15 to 27ml from residences.  Outdoor noise levels from this
construction have been estimated to be in the range of 75 to
87 dBA (CSO FP).  Indoor noise levels would be less (by
approximately 15 dBA) due to the typical noise attenuation
qualities of residential buildings.  Exposure to peak sewer
construction noise levels would generally be limited to a
period of one to two days per residence.

The noise associated with the construction of dropshafts,
cavern access shafts, and near-surface conveyance and storage
silos would be in the same range as those expected for sewer
construction.  Noise from the construction of screening
facilities for the Modified CST/Inline and Modified Total
Storage Alternatives would be substantially higher due to
the need for pile driving operations.  The distance from
residential areas to dropshafts construction sites would be
greater than 600 feet (183 m) for all but four dropshafts.
Of those four, one is located 100 feet  C30 m) from residences,
two are 200 feet C61 m)  from residences, and one is 300 feet
C91 m) from residences.   Construction at these sensitive
sites should employ the best available noise control methods.
The duration of construction at these sites would be approximately
one year.

In general, the CSO alternatives that involve sewer con-
struction would cause the greatest noise disruption through-
out the CSSA.  However,  specific locations would only be
affected on a short-term basis.  Conversely, facilities
requiring long duration construction at specific sites could
have major long-term noise impacts in sensitive residential
areas.  Operating noise from the treatment facilities could
potentially have long-term impacts on the surrounding environment,
since most of the facilities are located near residential
land.  However, these operations have not in the past disrupted
the surrounding communities.

Noise generated during operation and maintenance of any CSO
abatement component would be minimal.  Most facilities would
be underground, thus preventing the transmission of operation
and maintenance noise to the human environment.  Some minor
intermittent noise would be generated by maintenance vehicles
and personnel entering and leaving a particular facility.
Ventilation equipment would be operated prior to entry of
sewers, deep tunnels, and caverns.  The noise produced by
ventilation equipment could be minimized by proper vent
location, baffling, and vegetative screens.
                             5-139
-------
                                             TABLE 5.58
                             DURATION OF CSO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Alternative         Extent

Complete Sewer      Entire CSSA affected by sewer construction within
  Separation        50 feet to 90 feet of buildings.

                    15 lift stations.
                                                       Duration

                                                       10 years total, 1 to 2 weeks
                                                       per residential block.

                                                       6 months each
Inline Storage      Entire CSSA affected by sewer construction within
                    50 feet to 90 feet of buildings.

                    9 miles of near surface collector sewers.
                    6.5 miles of shallow tunnels w/access shaft
                    every 1000 feet.

                    14 dropshafts  (no screening facilities).

                    4 near surface storage facilities  (without screening),

                    1 cavern access shaft.
                                                       10 years total, 1 to 2 weeks
                                                       per residential block.

                                                       1 to 2 weeks per residential
                                                       block.

                                                       2-6 months per access shaft.
                                                       1 year at each site.

                                                       3 years each site.

                                                       31! years at this site.
Modified CST/
  Inline Storage
 Modified  CST/
   Inline  Storage
    (cont.)
21% of CSSA  affected by sewer construction within
50 feet to 90 feet of buildings.

9 miles of near surface collector sewers.

6.5 miles of shallow tunnels with access shafts
every 1000 feet.

14 dropshafts (with screening).


 4  near  surface  storage  facilities  (with  screening).

 2  cavern access shafts.
1 to 2 weeks per residential block.


1-2 weeks per residential block.

2-6 months per access shaft.


1 year each.


 3 years  each.

 3"i  years each.
Modified Total
   Storage
9 miles of near surface collector  sewers.

6.5 miles of shallow tunnels with  access  shafts
every 1000 feet.

14 dropshafts  (with screening).

4 near surface storage facilities  (with screening)

2 cavern access shafts
1-2 weeks per residential block.

2-6 months per access shaft.


1 year each.

3 years each

3H years each
1 Mile = 1.609 Kilometers
1 Foot = 0.3048 Meters
Source:  ESEI, 1980.
                                                5-140
-------
Pump stations and screening facilities would present the
greatest potential for producing long-term noise impacts.
Proper acoustical treatment of the structures housing these
facilities would limit objectionable noise to the confines
of the buildings.  Additional protection could be achieved
by providing buffer zones with vegetative screening around
the facilities.

5.2.7  Public Sealth

Public health concerns associated with the MFP are related
to the exposure to disease-producing organisms or toxic
substances.  Potential risks to public health affected by
the MFP include the following issues:

1.   Sewerage system or treatment plant discharges of disease-
     producing organisms,

2.   The use of chlorination for WWTP effluent disinfection,

3.   Priority pollutants discharged from WWTPs,

4.   Aerosal emissions from WWTPs, and

5.   Groundwater quality impacts of the deep tunnel CSO
     abatement system.

All of these issues are discussed below.

5.2.7.1  No Action Alternative

With the No Action Alternative, untreated or inadequately
treated sewage would continue to be discharged to surface
waters from combined sewer overflow outfalls, dry weather
and wet weather bypasses from the separate sewer systems,
overloaded wastewater treatment plants, and malfunctioning
septic systems.

Pathogens discharged in  sewage can contaminate water and
infect humans and other animals through water consumption or
direct body contact.  Water-borne diseases include cholera,
hepatitis-A, typhoid fever, salmomellosis, and gastroenteritis,
Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicator organisms for
the presence of viral, bacterial, protozoan, and fungal
pathogens.  The number of fecal coliform organisms in the
water is an indication of the bacteriological safety of the
water and the public health hazard associated with its use.

With the No Action Alternative, all major streams in the
planning area, the Inner Harbor, and the Outer Harbor would
continue to violate the fecal coliform standards established
                             5-141
-------
by the DNR and recommended in the 208 Plan.  The direct
relationship between fecal coliform organisms and the actual
occurance of water-borne diseases is difficult to determine.
Nonetheless, the excessive fecal coliform levels expected
under the No Action Alternative could pose a substantial
risk to public health if these waters were consumed or used
for body-contact recreational activities.  Milwaukee area
beaches would probably continue to be closed due to high
fecal coliform levels in Lake Michigan.

Wastewater effluent is now disinfected by chlorination and this
process would continue with the No Action Alternative.
Chlorination produces by-products which are carcinogens or
suspected carcinogens.  With the No Action Alternative, the
concentrations of residual chlorine in the receiving waters
would be very similar to existing concentrations.  Based on
the limited data available, concentrations of chlorination
by-products are currently well below the EPA proposed drinking
water criteria.

The chlorination process does, however, pose another risk to
human health due to possible accidents associated with the
storage, handling, and transportation of the chlorine gas.
Proper precautionary measures would minimize this risk.

There are numerous other substances that would be discharged
from wastewater treatment plants which, if present in high
enough concentrations, can be toxic to humans.  These  priority
pollutants are discussed in Section 4.3 of Appendix VII,
Water Quality.  Concentrations of priority pollutants in the
Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor, near-shore Lake Michigan, and at
the Lake Michigan water supply intakes were measured in
1980.  Because of the scarcity of data available, it is not
possible to quantitatively predict concentrations of these
priority pollutants in the future.

However, the existing data and EPA water quality criteria
were used to assess the impacts of discharges from the Jones
Island and South Shore WWTPs on near-shore Lake Michigan
water quality.  No pollutant concentrations measured exceeded
the EPA criteria established to protect human health.
Phthalate esters, a group of organic compounds, were detected
at levels which could have chronic toxic effects on aquatic
life.  However, these concentrations were less than 0.2% of
the concentrations determined to be toxic to humans.

Public concern has also been expressed about health hazards
posed by aerosol emissions from wastewater treatment plants.
Under the No Action Alternative, aerosol emissions from
treatment plants would be expected to continue at approx-
imately the existing levels.  The following studies have
                             5-142
-------
addressed the risks to public health associated with aerosol
emissions from wastewater treatment plants:

"Health Effects of Aerosols Emitted from an Activated Sludge
Plant," EPA-60Q/1-79--OJ.9,

"Health Implications of Sewage Treatment Facilities," EPA-
600/1-78-032,

"Health Effects of a Wastewater Treatment System," EPA-
700/1-78-062,

"Assessment of Disease Rates among Sewer Workers in Copenhagen,
Denmark," EPA-600/1-78-007,

"Environmental Monitoring of a Wastewater Treatment Plant,"
EPA.  In publication,

"The Evaluation of Microbiological Aerosols Associated With
the Application of Wastewater to Land:  Pleasonton, CA.,"
Department of the Army, and

"Health Risk of Human Exposure to Wastewater," EPA, in
publication.

Some of the studies concluded that some wastewater treatment
plants produce aerosol emissions which contain fecal coliforms,
pathogens, enteroviruses, mercury, and other toxic sub-
stances.  However, the studies did not indicate that the
wastewater treatment plants contributed to a higher incidence
of disease near the plants.  Nevertheless, the presence of
these organisms and substances at higher levels than would
otherwise occur indicates an increased risk to public health.

5.2.7.2  Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

All of the action alternatives would include abatement of
CSO.  These alternatives would eliminate the discharge of
untreated or inadequately treated sewage to surface waters
from combined sewer overflows, dry weather and wet weather
bypassing from separated sewer systems, malfunctioning
septic systems, and overloaded wastewater treatment plants.
Thus, these alternatives would reduce the risk to public
health from the discharge of pathogens.  The implementation
of these alternatives, together with implementation of the
208 Plan, would allow all streams in the planning area to
meet both the existing DNR and 208 recommended fecal coliform
standards.

Risks to public health resulting from chlorination of WWTP
                             5-143
-------
effluent would be less with an action alternative than with
the No Action Alternative because smaller amounts of residual
chlorine would be discharged to inland streams.  If the EPA
recommendations  CSection 3.13.6.1) are acted upon, dechlorination
processes would be implemented at the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs, further reducing inputs of chlorine to Lake
Michigan.

With any action alternative, the discharge of priority
pollutants to Lake Michigan would be similar to the No
Action Alternative.  If priority pollutants are contained
within effluent discharges to inland streams, these pollutant
discharges would cease when these WWTPs are abandoned.

Aerosol emissions from the Jones Island and South Shore
WWTPs with the action alternatives would also be similar to
the No Action Alternative.  Aerosol emissions would cease
from WWTPs which are abandoned.  However, aersol emissions
would continue from those WWTPs that would utilize land
application of sewage effluent.  The infiltration-percolation
ponds, which would not be covered, could emit some pollutants
into the atmosphere.

Public concerns have been raised about the possibility that
the proposed construction of approximately 17 miles of 20-
to 30-foot diameter tunnels beneath Milwaukee County may
pollute groundwater.  This issue is addressed in detail in
an attachment to the Addendum to Appendix V, Combined Sewer
Overflow which includes a study by Converse Ward Davis
Dixon,Inc.  The study concludes that that the escape of
pollutants from the tunnels into the groundwater could be
mitigated in final design.  However, such mitigating measures
may not be cost-effective.  The study recommends a series of
followup studies and procedures to minimize the impacts of
the tunnels.  In addition, an extensive groundwater monitoring
system is recommended.  If implemented, these measures
should adequately protect the groundwater resources in the
planning area.

5.2.8  Safety

5.2.8.1  No Action Alternative

Other than risks to the public health,  safety is primarily a
concern during new construction activities.  Because the No
Action Alternative calls for no new development, safety is
not a significant issue.

5.2.8.2  Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

Any major construction project poses a potential threat to
                             5-144
-------
the safety of workers and the public.  For the construction
necessary to implement the MFP, the MMSD requires the contractor
to adhere to laws and local ordinances governing safety
and be responsible for the construction sites.  Generally, the
hazards associated with construction are temporary and they
would end when work is completed.  Measures to reduce safety
hazards during construction are listed in Table 5.59.

There are also hazards associated with the operation of
treatment facilities.  Workmen or the public could be exposed
to dangerous chemical or biological substances including
toxic chemicals, corrosives, dust, fumes, smoke, noise,
biological infective agents, and gases.  Physical hazards
also exist, including fire, electrical shock, falls, explosions
and equipment related accidents.  However, precautions are
taken at existing WWTPs to minimize these dangers, and it is
assumed that adequate precautions would be taken in the
future.

5.2.9  Traffic and Access

5.2.9.1  No Action Alternative

Because the No Action Alternative requires no construction
other than for projects now underway or projects that have
received "Findings of No Significant Impact" designations,
no major affect on transportation patterns or pedestrian
access to residential, commercial, or industrial establish-
ments is expected.

5.2.9.2  Local Alternative

Most of the construction activities required to implement
this alternative would take place in the existing public
right-of-way, mainly in streets with some use of easements
and other public lands.  Construction projects of this
nature tend to disrupt traffic patterns, increase traffic
congestion in both arterial and non-arterial streets near
the construction site, decrease parking availability, and
limit accessibility to residences and local commercial
establishments.  Table 5.60 summarizes the impacts of the
program elements on traffic and access.

The Local Alternative would create impacts of both short and
moderate duration.  Construction activities at the Jones
Island, South Shore, South Milwaukee, Caddy Vista, Muskego
Northeast, New Berlin Southeast, Germantown, and Thiensville
WWTPs would range from minor upgrading to complete reconstruction,
It has been estimated by the MMSD that construction activities
at the Jones Island WWTP would require approximately five
years to complete.  South Shore WWTP construction duration
                             5-145
-------
                          TABLE 5.59

               MEASURES TO REDUCE SAFETY HAZARDS
                     AT CONSTRUCTION SITES
1.    Confer with local utilities to obtain locations and
      routes of all utility facilities that might interfere
      with the chosen route.  Utilities might include water,
      storm and sanitary sewer, fuel, gas, steam and elec-
      tricity both aerial and underground.

2.    Hold traffic interference from construction activities
      to a minimum.  This can be done by use of warning
      signs, obstruction lights and detouring.

3.    Begin trenching and tunneling at lower end of route
      to help protect against flooding.  Keep water out
      of trenches by pumping or well points.

4.    Check that adequate shoring and sheeting is used at
      excavations.

5.    Be sure that methods and equipment used for construction
      are the safest alternatives.   (Example:  Loads should
      not be swung over workmen's head as they work in the
      excavations.)

6.    Sites must have a-system of security., to protect the
      public from unknowingly coming onto the site.  This
      could be done with placement of -equipment and barriers
      both during construction activities and off-hours.
                           5-146
-------
                                             TABLE 5.60

                           CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
FACILITY

CSO FACILITIES:
A.  Complete
    Separation
                         WORK INVOLVED
                     Open-cut sewer con-
                     struction,  public and
                     private

                     15 Lift stations
                                              SEVERITY AND
                                              TYPE OF IMPACT
Entire CSSA affected,
Separation in most
buildings

Minimal traffic impact
Localized access im-
pact
DURATION


1 to 2 weeks per
residential block,
10 yrs. total

6 months each,
10 yr. total
B.  Inline Storage
                         Open-cut sewer con-
                         struction on public
                         property

                         9 miles of near sur-
                         face collector sewers
                                              Entire  CSSA affected
                                              within  50 to 90  feet
                                              of buildings
                                              Complete disruption
                                              to the  9 Tiile area
                         1 to 2 weeks per
                         residential block,
                         10 yrs. total
                         1 to 2 weeks per
                         residential block
                         6.5 mi. of shallow
                         tunnels with access
                         shaft every 1000 ft.

                         14 dropshafts (no
                         screening facilities)
                         4 near surface stor-
                         age facilities (with-
                         out screening)

                         4 access shafts for
                         deep tunnel construc-
                         tion
                                              Localized disruption
                                              at dropshaft  sites
                                              Localized  disruption,
                                              increased  truck
                                              traffic

                                              Localized  disruption,
                                              increased  truck traffic
                                              10 acres  of complete
                                              disruption  per access
                                              shaft
                         2-6 months per
                         access shaft
                         1 year at each site
                         3 years each site
                         3 1/2 years per
                         access shaft
C.  Modified CST/Inline
    Storage
                     Open-cut sewer con-
                     struction on public
                     property

                     9 mi.  of near sur-
                     face collector sewers

                     6.5 mi.  of shallow
                     tunnels  with access
                     shaft every 1000 ft.

                     14 dropshafts with
                     screening

                     4 near surface storage
                     facilities with
                     screening

                     4 cavern access shafts
21% of CSSA affected     1 to 2 weeks per
within 50 to 90 ft. of   residential block
buildings
                                                  Complete disruption
                                                  to the 9 mile area

                                                  Localized disruption
                                                  at dropshaft sites
                         1 to 2 weeks per
                         residential block

                         2-6 months per
                         access shaft
                                                  Localized disruption,    18 months at each
                                                  Increased truck traffic  site

                                                  Localized disruption,    3 yrs. each site
                                                  Increased truck traffic
                                                  10 acres of complete
                                                  disruption per access
                                                  shaft
                         3 1/2 years per
                         access shaft
•D.
Modified Total
Storage
                         9 miles of near sur-
                         face collector sewers

                         6.5 mi. of shallow
                         tunnels with access
                         shafts every 1000 ft.

                         14 dropshafts with
                         screening

                         4 near surface stor-
                         age facilities with
                         screening

                         4 cavern acess shafts

                            5-147
Complete disruption to   1 to 2 weeks per
the 9 mile area          residential block
                                              Localized disruption
                                              at access shafts
                         2-6 months per ac
                         shaft
                                              Localized disruption,    1 year each
                                              Increased truck traffic

                                              Localized disruption,    3 years each
                                              Increased truck traffic
                                              10 acres of complete
                                              disruption per access
                                              shaft
                                                                       3 1/2 years each
-------
                                       TABLE  5.60  (continued)

                            CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS  ON  TRAFFIC  AND  ACCESS
FACILITY

INTERCEPTORS
A.  Open-cut
B.  Tunnel
                          WORK  INVOLVED
Open-cut at depths
of 0 to 25 feet.
Often along right-
of-ways
                          Tunnels with  surface
                          construction  limited
                          to  shaft  and  storage
                          sites
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
A.  Jones Island WWTP    Upgrading  and expan-
                         sion of  facility, demo-
                         lition of  equipment to
                         be replaced
                         Transportation of
                         new equipment and con-
                         struction waste  in  and
                         out of WWTP

                         Lakefill
                         Relocation of Jones
                         Street
                         Disposal of demolition
                         material and construc-
                         tion byproducts

                         Normal plant operation
B.  South Shore WWTP
                         Upgrading and expan-
                         sion of facility
                         Lakefill
                         Normal Plant
                         Operation

                               5-148
                                                   SEVERITY  AND
                                                   TYPE  OF IMPACT
Moderate to severe
traffic disruption.
Much less disruption
if not constructed
along a right-of-way.

Minimal traffic im-
pacts, but heavier
equipment can be
expected.  Minor
access problems.
                         Slight impact caused
                         by on-site work.  WWTP
                         is in an industrial
                         area which is removed
                         from major arterials
                         Moderate to severe
                         over a short term
                         period, localized near
                         the WWTP

                         Could affect Outer
                         Harbor shipping and
                         boating

                         Port of Milwaukee
                         would be affected by
                         all work involved,
                         including street
                         location

                         510,000 cubic yards
                         would have to be dis-
                         posed of

                         This could be affected,
                         e.g.  transportation
                         of pickle liquor,
                         chlorine and could be
                         a safety problem

                         Localized impact caused
                         by transportation of
                         new equipment into
                         plant.   Nearby resi-
                         dents along major tran-
                         portation routes could
                         be impacted.   Approx-
                         imately 33,000 cubic
                         yards of concrete and
                         36,000  cubic yards of
                         stone and gravel would
                         be hauled in (Alt.
                         No. 1.)

                         Op to 510,000 cubic
                         yards of net fill
                         would be required.
                         This could be a severe
                         impact during the
                         hauling period
                         This could be impacted   Mid 1981 - mid 1984
                         by bringing in construc-
                         tion materials
                                                                           DURATION
About two weeks per
city block.  Two
years total.
                                                  Long duration at
                                                  shaft sites.   Two
                                                  years total.
                         Majority of work
                         would occur during
                         1982-1983,  Although
                         some work could
                         start in mid 1981
                         and run through 1986

                         1981-1986 construc-
                         tion period
                         Mid 1982 - mid 1984
                         1981-1986 construc-
                         tion period
                         1981-1986 construc-
                         tion period
                         1981-1986 construc-
                         tion period
                         Most construction
                         occurs  during 1982
                         through 1983,
                         although some starts
                         in mid  1981  and some
                         ends in mid  1984
                                                                           Mid 1981 - mid 1982
-------
                                     TABLE  5.60  (continued)

                           CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

                                                 SEVERITY AND
FACILITY                 WORK INVOLVED            TYPE OF IMPACT           DURATION

LOCAL TREATMENT PLANTS
(Caddy Vista,  German-     Upgrading and expan-     Increased truck traffic  1 to 2 years each
town, Muskego,  New       sion of  facility, demo-  in and near residential
Berlin,  Thiensville,      lition of equipment      areas.
South Milwaukee)          to be replaced.
                         Transportation of new    Noise and dust
                         equipment and construc-
                         tion waste in and out
                         of WWTP
                              5-149
-------
has been estimated to be approximately three years.  The
upgrading or new construction at the other local WWTPs would
require one to two years.  Heavy machinery and truck traffic
would be the primary impacts of these construction activities.

Short-term disruption would also occur along the routes
chosen to connect the Germantown, New Berlin Southeast, and
Muskego WWTPs to their proposed land application sites, as
well as to connect outlying portions of New Berlin to the
new treatment plant site.  Much of the construction of these
connector sewers would be open-cut.  Many routes would
follow roads with average to wide right-of-ways.  Traffic
might be impaired, but detours would be unnecessary.  Many
of these connection sewers would be routed through rural and
undeveloped areas and would have little impact on traffic or
access.

Also included in the Local Alternative are six interceptors
which would extend the MIS system within Milwaukee County
Csee section 3.13.2.2)..  The Franklin portion of the Franklin-
Muskego Interceptor, Oak Creek North Branch, Underwood
Creek, Root River Interceptor, the Northeast Side Relief
System, and the Franklin Northeast pump station would be
constructed early in the planning period.  Large portions of
these interceptors would be tunnelled, but some would also
use open-cut construction methods.

Interceptor construction would take approximately two years.
Open-cut sewers would cause moderate to severe disruptions
to traffic.  Portions in the Franklin-Muskego and Oak Creek
North Branch would be routed through rural areas.  Their
impacts would be similar to those for connection to land
application sites.  The impacts from tunnel construction
would not be as severe because surface construction would be
limited to access shaft and storage sites.  Heavier traffic
can be expected in the area due to the large amounts of soil
and concrete that must be transported for such projects.
Access problems associated with tunneling would be minor.
Impacts near access shafts would be of longer duration than
for open-cut methods.

Construction for the Northeast Side, Underwood Creek, and
Root River Interceptors would have more severe impacts
because they are routed through moderately developed areas,
which would increase the likelihood and severity of interruptions
of access to business and residential units.

5.2.9.3  Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

Traffic and access impacts tinder the Regional and Mosaic
Alternatives are similar to those identified under the Local
                             5-150
-------
Alternative,  The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would
have the same construction durations and impacts identified
above.  All other WWTPs in the planning area would be abandoned
under the Regional and Mosaic Alternative.  Instead, connecting
sewers would be constructed to transport flows from existing
local plants to the MIS system.  The methods for this construction
would be similar to those used for interceptor construction,
and thus they would have the impacts discussed for the Local
Alternative.  The construction of sewers would take place
mainly in rural areas except for the South Milwaukee connector.
This sewer would be constructed in South 5th Street in a
medium residential area.  This sewer would not be built
under the Mosaic Alternative because the South Milwaukee
WWTP would be upgraded and would continue to operate throughout
the planning period.

Six MIS extension interceptors are proposed under the Local
Alternative.  Under both the Regional and Mosaic Alternatives,
three additional interceptors would be built: Menomonee
Falls-Germantown, Hales Corners, and the Muskego portion of
Franklin-Muskego.  The construction of Menomonee Falls-
Germantown and Hales Corners Interceptors would not severely
disrupt traffic and access because both interceptors would
be constructed by tunneling methods.  In addition, the
Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor would be located in a
rural area.  The Franklin-Muskego Interceptor portion which
would serve Muskego would be constructed by open-cut methods
along Forest Home Avenue and open fields in Franklin.
Although the construction would disrupt traffic flow on
Forest Home Avenue, it is not expected that detouring of
traffic would be necessary.

Under the MMSD Recommended Plan, the Franklin-Northeast
Interceptor would be constructed instead of upgrading the
pump stations.  If constructed, the interceptor would pass
through open fields for most of its route and accordingly
would not cause major traffic or access problems.

5.2.9.4  CSO/Peak Flow Alternatives

Facilities for the abatement of CSO and the attenuation of
peak flows would be constructed under the Local, Regional
and Mosaic Alternatives.  Because these facilities would be
located in areas which contain much of the major industrial
and commercial activities and most of the high density
residential areas in the planning area, the potential for
major disruption of traffic and reduction in access exists.

The disruption to traffic, mass transit, and access to
industry, commercial centers, and residential areas is
discussed in detail in section 5.12 of Appendix V, Combined
                             5-151
-------
Sewer Overflow.  Table 5.58 outlines the duration for specific
components of the different alternatives for CSO abatement
and peak flow attenuation.

The Complete Sewer Separation Alternative would create the
most access problems because sewer construction  Cmost of it
open-cut^ would take place in 92% of the combined sewer
service area (CSSA).  The construction of sanitary sewers
and laterals from buildings would affect  access to major
transportation corridors and affected properties and parking
availability.  About 440 miles of new sanitary sewer would
be placed in street right-of-way.  There are more than 500
miles of street in the CSSA.  Sewer construction would
necessitate the closing of some residential streets to
through traffic for a minimum of two weeks.  Residences with
alleys would continue to have direct access to their houses
during the construction period.  In those areas without
alleys, inhabitants would have to park their vehicles on
nearby streets.

Traffic would be maintained in commercial areas; however,
some lanes would be closed and on-street parking would be
prohibited.  The central business district would be the area
most susceptable to severe traffic impacts.  Mitigative
measures, such as suspension of construction work during
peak traffic hours and the proper sequencing of work projects,
would be needed to prevent severe restrictions to traffic in
this area.

The Inline Storage Alternative would cause disruption similar
to the Complete Sewer Separation Alternative because the
same amount of area would be affected by sewer separation.
The effects would be slightly lessened because no private
property work would be required.

The Modified CST/Inline Storage System would require sewer
construction in only 24% of the combined area; 21% would
require partial separation with no private property work,
and the remaining 3% would be separated with only minor
localized modifications to the existing system.  Although
some commercial areas would be affected, the bulk of the
separation activities would take place in residential areas,
minimizing short-term access problems.

The Modified Total Storage System would require only minor
modifications of the existing system to complete any planned
sewer separation.  Impacts on access would be minimal.
Sewer construction would occur in small areas in discrete
corners of the service area so that only small areas would
be affected at any one time.
                             5-152
-------
Storage facility construction would require three to four
years of construction activity.  Traffic problems would be
local and would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the
construction site (near-surface storage site or dropshaft
site).  The major impact would be construction traffic.

Because construction of CSO facilities would cause congestion
in the central business district and the urban areas, public
transportation would be interrupted.  The amount of disruption
to public transit would depend on the area affected by sewer
separation.  Table 5.61 lists the number of bus routes
affected by various CSO alternatives.  The degree of severity
is based on the number of total routes and importance of the
routes affected.

5.2.10  Archaeological and Historical Sites

5.2.10.1  No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would have no impact on arch-
aeological or historical sites in the planning area.  No new
construction would take place,  therefore, no archaeological
or historical sites would be destroyed or disturbed.

5.2.10.2  Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

The planning area is rich in historic and cultural resources.
Numerous historic structures reflecting a variety of architectural
styles and a number of archaeological sites have been identified.
Any new construction in the planning area could uncover
previously unknown archaeological sites.

Cultural Field investigations along the construction corridors
of the interceptor alignments have identified historical and
archaeological sites which are listed in Table 5.62.

As was discussed in Chapter 4, Affected Environment, the
Jones Island WWTP has been determined to be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.  A
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been prepared by the MMSD,
EPA, DNR, State Historic Preservation Officer  CSHPO), and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in order to
outline the specific actions necessary to avoid or mitigate
adverse impacts to the plant during rehabilitation and
expansion activities.  The MOA is included in the Final EIS
as Attachment A.

Based on preliminary surveys at the Jones Island site, the
SHPO and the MMSD's consulting archaeologist have concurred
that previous dredge, fill, and construction activities may
have destroyed some significant prehistoric or historic
                             5-153
-------
                       TABLE 5.61
         BUS ROUTES AFFECTED BY CSO ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives



Complete Separation



Inline Storage



Modified CST/Inline



Modified Total Storage
Routes Affected



      44



      44



      17



       1
Severity



Extreme



Extreme



Minor



Minimal
                         5-154
-------
                                  TABLE 5.62
           HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN INTERCEPTOR ROUTES
Interceptor          Type(s)

Franklin-Muskego     Archaeological Site
Underwood Creek
Root River
Oak Creek North
Franklin-Northeast
Prehistoric
Aboriginal Sites and
Historic Site

Archaeological Site
                     Prehistoric
                     Aboriginal Site
2 Archaeological
Sites
Prehistorical
Aboriginal Site
                     Historically
                     Significant
                     Structure
Location

Near Tess Corners
Creek in the
Construction
Corridor

Near the
Construction
Corridor

In Service Area -
Site is far from
the Construction
Corridor Area

In the
Construction
Corridor

In Service Area
                                             In Service Area
                        In Service Area
                                              Materials
                                              Recovered

                                              Prehistoric
                                              and Historic
                                              Artifacts
Aboriginal
Campsites and
Worksites

Prehistoric
Aboriginal
Occupation
Source:  MMSD
                                    5-155
-------
archaeological deposits.  However, as stated in the Jones
Island:  West Plant Preliminary Case Report, "it is not
possible to demonstrate that such sites do not exist in the
proposed expansion area".  Controlled test excavations were,
therefore, recommended.  These excavations were performed in
the summer of 1980 and recovered only a small amount of
historic material.  In view of the expense and technical
problems involved, the investigating archaeologist and the
SHPO recommended that no further work be done.  Additional
information may be found in Appendix II, Jones Island.

It is possible to generally discuss the impacts that could
occur in the CSSA.  It is anticipated that no standing
structures would be destroyed or relocated as a result of
sewer or storage facility construction.  Dropshaft facilities
would, however, be visible from some landmarks listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.  Due to the uncertainty
of the impact, the SHPO should be consulted to determine the
severity of these visual impacts.  New gravity storm sewers
would generally be placed under pavement at the same level
or above the existing combined sewers.  Thus, they would be
located in previously disturbed material.

The proposed dropshaft sites are along the Milwaukee and
Menomonee Rivers, which are also areas of relatively dense
concentrations of archaeological sites.  Construction activities
on three to five acres for each dropshaft could disturb an
unknown number of archaeological sites.  Many of these
dropshaft locations are in park-like open areas which may
not have been disrupted by previous construction.  Therefore,
additional field inventories should be performed and reviewed
by the SHPO prior to final design of dropshaft and storage
facilities.  Additional information concerning the location
of the archaeological and historical sites in the CSSA may
be found in Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow .

During construction, previously unidentified property which
could be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places may be encountered.  At that time, in accordance
with section 800.7 of the regulations for the Protection of
Historical and Cultural Properties (36 CFR Part 800}, construction
would have to cease until it could be determined by the SHPO
whether the site would be eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places.  Eligible" sites must be recovered in
compliance with the current Advisory Council procedures or
else avoided altogether.

It is in the purview of the SHPO to be consulted during all
phases of the facilities plan/environmental impact statement
process.  By reviewing preliminary plans for all projects,
the SHPO can determine impacts on identified historical/
                             5-156
-------
archaeological sites in the early stages of the project and
assist in mitigating any adverse impacts.  By reviewing
final design specifications, the SHPO can assure compliance
with federal regulations when unidentified properties are
discovered during construction.

5.2.11  Recreation and Aesthetics

5.2.11.1  No Action Alternative

A decision not to take action to upgrade the sewerage system
could affect recreational opportunities in the planning
area.  Increased flows to the WWTPs would increase the
frequency of sewer overflows and bypasses, adversely affecting
water quality.  With a continued decline in water quality,
beaches on Lake Michigan would still have to be closed
occasionally to protect public health.  Continued nutrient
loads to the Outer Harbor, Whitnall Park Pond, Big Muskego
Lake, and the near-shore portions of Lake Michigan could
increase algal growth in these surface waters thereby reducing
their general recreational and aesthetic value and that of
adjoining parks and parkways.  Floating debris in these
waters as a result of sewage overflows and bypasses would
also reduce their recreational and aesthetic value.

5.2.11.2  Local, Regional and Mosaic Alternatives

With implementation of any action alternative, all bypasses
and overflows of inadequately treated sewage would end.
Therefore, Lake Michigan beaches could be closed less frequently
for sewage-related problems.  Also, the abandonment of
public and private WWTPs could slightly improve the appearance
and recreational value of Big Muskego Lake and Whitnall Park
Pond.

Nutrient loads to the area surface waters would be reduced
under each alternative.  Algae would continue to be present,
but would be reduced in comparison to the No Action Alternative.

The abatement of CSO would reduce the amount of debris in
the lower reaches of the Milwaukee and Kinnickinnic Rivers.
However, debris would still be visible in these rivers from
runoff and discharges outside the planning area.

With any of the action alternatives, some sewerage facilities,
such as dropshafts, would have to be constructed in parks or
residential areas.  These facilities would be incompatible
with their surroundings.  In order to mitigate these potential
impacts to parkland, the U.S. Department of the Interior has
recommended the following actions  (Minor to McGuire, 1/12/81}:
                             5-157
-------
"1.  Vehicular and pedestrian access should be maintained.
     The potential for temporary entrances at new locations
     should be discussed with local park and recreation
     officials.

 2.  Barriers and/or buffers which minimize adverse noise
     impacts from construction equipment should be provided.

 3.  Disruption of utilities should be avoided.  For example,
     the loss of water service might cause the closing of a
     swimming pool.  Loss of gas or electricity could cause
     the closing of an entire recreational complex.

 4.  Vegetation in the area of construction should be protected
     from damage by heavy equipment.  Trunks of trees should
     be protectively wrapped (2 by 4 lumber may be wired
     together and wrapped around trees for protectionI.  Low
     branches which become damaged should be properly pruned.
     Small shrubs which might be lost should be temporarily
     transplanted and returned to their original location
     after construction.

 5.  All areas should be restored to the preconstruction
     condition.  Areas left bare by construction should be
     reseeded of sodded.  All trees and shrubs lost or
     damaged  should be replaced with landscaping material
     of at least equal size, value, and utility.

 6.  Soil compacted as a result of heavy machinery should be
     scarified or otherwise loosened to promote healthy
     plant growth.

 7.  All debris and surplus materials from construction
     should be removed from the area as construction progresses
     and not as a last minute cleanup effort.  All possible
     precautions should be taken to prevent soil poisoning
     by spills of toxic materials such as oils, fuels, and
     solvents."

There is the potential for using abandoned wastewater treatment
facilities for recreational purposes.  EPA encourages
recreational use of wastewater treatment and conveyance
facilities which are being planned, designed, and constructed.
This concept of dual use has been recently emphasized to
encourage community participation in the planning of wastewater
treatment facilities and to provide an opportunity for the
fullest utilization of every public dollar spent.  There are
many opportunities for dual use through the coordination and
incorporation of recreation facilities and open space in the
development of new wastewater treatment and conveyance
systems and the modification of existing systems, particularly
                            5-158
-------
in urban areas where land is at a premium.

The MMSD has recommended that the South Shore WWTP be expanded
by enclosing 30 acres and filling in 12 acres of Lake Michigan
to the north of the existing site.  Since the expansion
would take place at lake level, it should not greatly increase
the visibility of the facility except to lakefront property
directly adjacent to the South Shore WWTP.  The MMSD plans
to landscape their property thereby reducing the plant's
visibility and providing a more aesthetically pleasing view.
The MMSD is also investigating the possibility of integrating
recreational facilities into the lakefill.  This issue is
discussed further in the Addendum to Appendix III, South
Shore.

5.2.12  Energy Consumption

5.2.12.1  No Action Alternative

The wastewater treatment facilities in the planning area
require energy to operate.  Most of the energy they use
is purchased as fuel oil, electricity, or natural gas,
although the South Shore WWTP also produces electricity with
on-site generators fueled by methane gas, a by-product of
anaerobic digestion.  The No Action Alternative would not
significantly affect energy consumption at the WWTPs because
there would be no new construction or improvements to existing
facilities.  It is assumed that energy consumption would
increase at a rate proportional to increases in wastewater
flow.  Table 5.63 presents the year 2005 energy consumption
of the Jones Island, South Shore, and local WWTPs, and the
MMSD conveyance system.  Of the estimated 2949 billion BTU
(3,111 billion kJ) per year required by this alternative,
natural gas would supply 78%, electricity 10.6%, and digester
gas  (used at the South Shore WWTP) 8.5%.  The remaining 2.9%
would be supplied by fuel oil and diesel fuel.

Because of the unpredictable rises of energy prices in the
future, an energy cost sensitivity analysis has been prepared.
This analysis evaluates how the cost of operating the sewerage
facilities in the planning area would change if the cost of
one energy source doubled.  The analysis was conducted for
each type of fuel used by the sewerage facilities.  Increases
in the price of natural gas were found to have the most
serious consequences for the costs of operating sewerage
facilities in the planning area with the No Action Alternative,
A doubling of the price of natural gas would increase the
cost of the energy used by these sewerage facilities by
80.3%.
                             5-159
-------
                               TABLE  5.63
                           NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
                           YEAR 2005 ENERGY USE
                               (Billion BTU)
Facility

Jones Island
South Shore
Local WWTPs
MMSD Conveyance

Total

Electricity
152.01
50.06
105.80
17.32
Natural
Gas
2196.68
52.88
0.0
0.0
Diesel
Fuel
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
Fuel
Oil
76.19
0.0
0.78
0.0
Digester
Gas
0.0
249.83
0.0
0.0

Total
2424.58
352.77
112.58
17.32
   325.19
2249.56
6.0
76.97  249.83
2907.55
                            NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
                            YEAR 2005 ENERGY COST
                                 ($  x 1000)
Facility

Jones Island
South Shore
Local WWTPs
MMSD Conveyance

Total

Electricity
501.5
165.2
349.2
57.2
Natural
Gas
4942.5
119.0
0.0
0.0
Diesel
Fuel
0.0
0.0
17.2
0.0
Fuel
Oil
214.1
0.0
2.2
0.0
Digester
Gas
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Total
5658.2
284.2
368.6
57.2
  1073.2
5061.5
                                           17.2
        216.3
                                             0.0
                  6368.2
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Fuel Oil:
Diesel Fuel:
Digester Gas:
1 kwh    = 10,500 BTU
1 Therm  = 100 ft  = 100,000 BTU
1 gallon = 142,500 BTU
1 gallon = 140,000 BTU
1 Therm  = 167 ft  = 100,000 BTU
1 BTU =1.06 kilojoule CkJ)
                                  5-160
-------
5.2.12.2  Local Alternative

The energy requirements of the Local Alternative would be
less than those of the No Action Alternative.  The reduction
of 23.9.% to 26.4%  (depending on the chosen CSO alternative)
would be due primarily to changes in the processes at the
Jones Island WWTP.  The facility now uses 2196 billion BTU
of natural gas.  Approximately 260 billion BTU of this
amount is lost as waste heat from the sludge drying operation.
The rehabilitation and expansion of the WWTP would eliminate
the Milorganite process as well as the wasted energy associated
with the process.  In addition, anaerobic digesters would
be added for sludge processing.  The methane that is a by-
product of this process would be converted to energy, significant
ly reducing the need for natural gas.

Table 5.64 compares the energy required for the Local and No
Action Alternatives.  Of the estimated 2094 billion BTU
(2209 billion kJ} that would be used each year by the WWTPs
and the MIS system with the Local Alternative, electricity
would supply 58.9% and digester gas  (used whenever possible
to operate treatment plants) 34.7%.  The remaining 6.4% of
the energy requirement would be supplied by natural gas and
diesel fuel.

A sensitivity analysis was also performed for the Local
Alternative.  For this analysis, it was assumed that the
Inline Storage Alternative would be implemented for CSO
abatement and peak wastewater flow control.  Energy costs
with the Local Alternative would be most sensitive to variations
in the cost of electricity.

5.2.12.3  Regional Alternative

With the Regional Alternative, energy consumption in the
year 2005 would be reduced between 33.1% and 35.7% (depending
on the chosen CSO alternative) from the requirements with
the No Action Alternative.  The reduction in energy use
would result from the elimination of Milorganite production
and the abandonment of local WWTPs.  The future energy
requirements are shown in Table 5.65   Of the 1825 billion
BTU ,(1925 billion kJ} that would be used each year by the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs and the MIS system,
electricity would supply 53.5% and digester gas 39.5%.  The
remaining 7% would be supplied by natural gas, diesel fuel,
and fuel oil.

A sensitivity analysis, assuming the implementation of the
Inline Storage Alternative was performed for the Regional
Alternative.  This analysis determined that these energy
costs would be most sensitive to variations in the price of
                             5-161
-------
                                   TABLE 5.64

                               LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
                         YEAR 2005 ENERGY USE  (BILLION BTU)
                          COMPARED TO NO ACTION  ALTERNATIVE
Facility
Electricity
Jones Island       735.63
South Shore        192.57
Local WWTPs        262.36
MMSD Conveyance     49.98
CSO/Peak Flow       46.90
Facilities ( !•)
Natural
Gas

 0. 0
47. 50
 0. 0
 0. 0
 0. 0
                       Diesel
                       Fuel
Fuel
Oil
                       29.61   0.0
                       49.42   0.81
                        0.45   0.0
                        0.0    0.0
                        0.0    0.0
Digester
Gas
                                                               Total
       274.15   1039.39
       447.18    737.48
         4.47    267.28
         0.0      49.98
         0.0      46.90
Total No
Action Alt.

 2424.88
  352.77
  112.58
   17.32
    0 . 0
Total
                  1287.44
                            47.50
                                     79. 48
                                              0. 81
                                                     725.80  2141.03
                                                                        2907.55
                               LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
                             YEAR 2005 ENERGY  COST
                       COMPARED TO NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
                                  ($ X 100)
Facility
Electricity
Jones Island   $2,427.6
South Shore       635.5
Local WWTPs       865 . 8
MMSD Conveyance   164.9
CSO/Peak Flow     154.8
Facilities
Natural
Gas
$ 0
106. 9
0
0
0
Diesel
Fuel
S 84 .
141.
1.
0
0

. 7
, 3
, 3


Fuel
Oil
$ 0
2. 3
0
0
0
Digester
Gas
$ 0
0
0
0
0
Tota
$2 , 512
886
867
164
154
1
. 3
. 0
. 1
. 9
. 8
Total No
Action
$5,658.
284.
368 .
57,
0.
Alt.
2
, 2
6
, 2
, 0
Total           4,248.6       106.9    227.3    2.3      0       4,585.1    6,368.2

Electricity:   1KWH  = 10,500 BTU
Fuel Oil:   1  gallon  = 142,500 BTU
Digester Gas:   1  Therm  = 167 ft3   100,000 BTU
Natural Gas:   1 Therm = 100 ft3 = 100,000 BTU
Diesel Fuel:   1 gallon  =  140,000 BTU
1 BTU = 1.06 kilojoule(kJ)

(1)  Assumes  Inline  Storage as the CSO/Peak Flow Facilities  Alternative.
     For Comparative purposes see Table 5.63.
Source:  MWPAP  and  ESEI
                                      5-162
-------
                                 TABLE  5.65
                           REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
                 YEAR  2005  ENERGY  USE  (IN BILLION BTU)
                 COMPARED  TO  THE NO ACTION  ALTERNATIVE
Facility

Jones Island
South Shore
Conveyance
CSO/Peak Flow
Facilities (1)

Total
Electricity
                            Natural
                            Gas
    735.63    0.0
    192.57   47.50
     48.20    0.0
     46.90    0.0
                       Diesel
                       Fuel
        Fuel
        Oil
29.61   0.0
49.42   0.81
 0.0    0.00
 0.0    0.0
Digester
Gas	

274.15
447.18
  0.0
  0.0
 Total

1039.39
 737.48
  48.20
  46. 90
                 1023.30
                            47.50
                                     79.03
                                             0. 81
                                                    721.33
                                                              1871.98
Total No
Action Alt

2424.58
 352.77
  17.32
   0 . 0
                                                                        2907.55*
                           REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
                           YEAR 2005 ENERGY COST
                   COMPARED  TO NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
                            ($  X 1000)
Facility
Electricity
Jones Island  $2,427.6
South Shore      635.5
Conveyance       159.1
CSO/Peak Flow    154.8
Facilities
Total
                3377.0
Natural
Gas
S 0
106. 9
0
0
Diesel
Fuel
$ 84.7
141. 3
0
0
Fuel
Oil
$ 0
2. 3
0
0
Digester
Gas
5 0
0
0
0
Total
$2,512.3
886 . 0
151.9
154 . 8
Total No
Action Alt
$3,658.2
285.2
365 . 6
57.2
                             106.9
                                      226 . 0
                                              2. 3
                                                                3712 . 2
                                                                         6368.2
Electricity:  1 KWH =  10,500  BTU
Natural Gas:  1 Therm  =  100  ft3 = 100,000 BTU
Fuel Oil:  1 gallon =  142,500 BTU
Diesel Fuel:  1 gallon = 140,000 BTU
Digester gas:  1  Therm = 157  ft  = 100,000 BTU

1 BTU = 1.06 kilojoule (kJ)

•Total includes 112.58 BTU for local plants

(1)  Inline storage is assumed as the CSO/ Peak Flow Facilities Alternative.
     For Comparison see  Table 5.63
Source:  MWPAP  and  ESEI
                                       5-163
-------
electricity.

5.2.12.4  Mosaic Alternative

The Mosaic Alternative would have energy requirements very
similar to the Regional Alternative.  The only difference
would be that the South Milwaukee WWTP would require 22.68
billion BTU  (23.93 billion kJl for operation C82% of which
would be electricityl, compared to 3.8 billion BTU  (4.0
billion kJ) for connection to the MMSD system.  Table 5.66
outlines the detailed energy requirements of the Mosaic
Alternative.

The energy requirements outlined above for the Local, Regional,
and Mosaic Alternatives have all assumed implementation of
the Inline Storage Alternative.  If another of the final
four CSO abatement/peak wastewater flow control alternatives
were selected, the total energy requirements of each system-
level would change.  Table 5.67 shows the annual energy
requirements of each of the four alternatives and how their
energy requirements affect the total system-level requirements
of the Local, Regional,and Mosaic Alternatives.

A detailed discussion of energy requirements for the various
components of the Local, Regional, and Mosaic Alternatives
may be found in Appendix II, Jones Island; Appendix III,
South Shore; Appendix V, Combined Sewer Overflow; Appendix
VI, Local Alternatives; and Appendix VIII, Interceptor
Alignment.

5.2.13  Resource Consumption

None of the Final Alternatives would affect mineral resources
in the planning area.

5.2.13.1  No Action Alternative

Wastewater treatment plants consume the major portion of all
resources used by sewerage facilities in the planning area,
including chemicals for phosphorus control, sludge thickening,
and disinfection.  The resources consumed in the conveyance
system are negligible.  The resource consumption of the No
Action Alternative was calculated by adjusting exisitng
consumption fay the expected future wastewater flows.  Quantities
required are detailed in Table 5.68.

5.2.13.2  Local Alterantive

Resource requirements for the operation of 8 public and 2
private treatment plants included in the Local Alternative
are detailed in Table 5.69.  It is assumed that conveyance
                             5-164
-------
                                        TABLE 5.66
                                    MOSIAC ALTERNATIVE
                            YEAR 2005 ENERGY USE  (BILLION BTU)
                           COMPARED TO THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Natural
Facility
Jones Island
South Shore
South Milwaukee
Conveyance
CSO/Peak Flow
Facilities 
-------
                             TABLE 5.67

                     ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT

                CSO/PEAK FLOW STORAGE ALTERNATIVES
Complete
Sewer Inline Modified CST/
Separation Storage Inline Storage
Electricity 4.30 4.47 9.29
(106 KWH)
Diesel Fuel ~ ~ 1350.00
(Gallon)
Equivalent Energy 45.05 46.90 97.73
(109 BTU)
Local Total 2139.18 2141.03 2191.86
Modified Total
Storage
11.30
1700.00
118.91
2213.04
 (109 BTU)

Regional Total
   (109 BTU)

Mosaic Total
  (109 BTU)
1870.12

1888.60
1 BTU= 1.06 Kilojoule  (KJ)

Source:  MMSD
1871.97

1890.45
1922.80

1941.28
1943.98

1962.46
                               5-166
-------
                              TABLE 5.63


                  TREATMENT PLANT RESOURCE CONSUMPTION
                         NO ACTION - YEAR 2005
                                                      Pickle
                                            Ferric    Liquor
                                    Polymer Chloride  T/yr
                                    T/yr    T/yr
Caddy Vista
Muskego NE
Muskego NW
N.B. Regal Manors
Germantown
Thiensville
School Sisters of Notre
  Dame
WEPCO
South Milwaukee
Jones Island
South Shore

TOTAL
NA
NA
NA
49
NA
49
   0.8  —

        00

NA

1771.5  —

1771.5  1825.0
NA
1825.0
                          as Fe
NA
                            52.0
                            49.2

                            94.7
00
NA
1825.0
1478.3
Chlorine
T/yr

NA
  3.3
  3.2
 11.2
  6.9
  2.3
  0.2
  0.6
NA
912.5
522.8
          3499.2   1463.0
T = Tons
                                 5-167
-------
and CSO facilities would expend no significant resources.

Materials required for construction cannot be quantified
because the plans are not specific enough at this time.
Massive amounts of concrete and reinforcing steel would be
required to construct the proposed facilities.

5.2.13.3  Regional Alternative

With the Regional Alternative, the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs would treat all wastewater flows in the planning
area.  As a result, the annual consumption of alum, ferric
chloride and polymer would be reduced.  The consumption of
pickle liquor and chlorine would increase from the No Action
Alternative.  Table 5.70 compares the resource consumption
of the final alternatives.

5.2.13.4  Mosaic Alternative

The Mosiac Alternative is also similar to the Local Alter-
native except that only the Jones Island, South Shore, South
Milwaukee, WEPCO, and School Sisters of Notre Dame WWTPs
would be in operation.

A comparison of resource consumption with the Local, Regional,
and Mosaic Alternatives can be found in Table 5.70.

5.2.14  Engineering Feasibility

5.2.14.1  No Action Alternative

The MMSD projected the flows that would be conveyed to each
WWTP in the planning area in the year 2005, assuming that
the growth forecasted by SEWRPC would occur.  Analysis of
each public wastewater treatment facility in the planning
area was performed to determine its ability to treat these
projected wastewater flows.  The WWTPs were evaluated for
hydraulic capability and ability to meet the tentative WPDES
effluent limits set by DNR.

To determine hydraulic capacity, average daily base flows
(ADBF) and maximum flows to each WWTP were reviewed.  For
each WWTP, the current average hydraulic capacity of each
WWTP was compared to the ADBF projected over the planning
period.  It was determined by this evaluation that only four
public treatment facilities would have the capacity to
adequately treat year 2005 projected daily flows.  These are
the Jones Island, South Shore, South Milwaukee, and Caddy
Vista WWTPs.
                              5-168
-------
                                      TABLE   5.68

                              RESOURCE CONSUMPTION YEAR 2005


                                   Ferric     Pickle       Act.          Fly             Sulfur
Local System        Alum  Polymer  Chloride   Liquor       Carbon Lime   Ash   Chlorine  Dioxide
Level Alternative   T/yr  T/yr     T/yr       T/yr as Fe   Ib/yr  T/yr   T/yr  T/yr      T/yr

Caddy Vista                                                                      1.4
Muskego NE                                                                      24.1
New Berlin SE                                                                   65,6
Germantown                                                                      30.9
Thiensville         143   0.358                                                  5.7
Sisters of Notre
  Dame         _                                                                 0.5
WEPCO                                                                            1.2
South Milwaukee           4.4      338                                          36,5
Jones Island              290     2400        1697         2860    9500  6700  1055      352
South Shore               510                 3030         2860                 700      350
Conveyance Systems
  (includes MMSD
  collection
  system)
CSO System


TOTALS              143   800     2738        4727         572C   9500   6700  1900      702

Regional System Level
Alternative	

Jones Island              290     2400        1697         2860   9500   6700  1055      352
South Shore               510                 3030         2860                 700      350
Conveyance Systems
  (includes MMSD
  collection
  system)
CSO System


TOTALS                0   800     2400        4727         5720   9500   6700  1755      702

Preferred System
Level Alternative

Sisters of Notre
  Dame                                                                          0.50
WEPCO                                                                           1.20
South Milwaukee           4.4      338                                         36.5
Jones Island              290     2400        1697         2860   9500   6700  1055      352
South Shore               510                 3030         2860                 700      350
Conveyance System
  (includes MMSD
  collection
  system)
CSO System


TOTALS                0   804     2738        4727         5720   9500   6700  1793      702
                                 5-169
-------
The analysis of ADBF of a WWTP does not reflect the over-
loading that can occur during wet weather.  The second
analysis compared present and year 20.05 maximum daily flow
to each plant's peak hydraulic design capacity.  This
evaluation indicated that the South Milwaukee WWTP would be
the only treatment facility in the planning area that would
be able to adequately treat year 2005 maximum daily wastewater
flows.

The DNR has set tentative effluent limits for the planning
period.  The future limits are equal to, or more stringent
than current limits, and the only existing WWTPs that have
the equipment necessary to meet them are the South Shore,
Jones Island, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville WWTPs.
However, Jones Island, South Shore, and Thiensville would
have overloading problems during wet weather that would lead
to inadequate sewage treatment and effluent violations.  The
South Milwaukee plant has the hydraulic capacity to treat
year 2005 maximum flows, but problems in facility operation
could result in occasional violations.

In addition, portions of the MMSD conveyance system are in
disrepair.  The failures of this system greatly contribute
to the MMSD's infiltration and inflow problems.  With the No
Action Alternative, these sewers would continue to deteriorate
throughout the planning period, thereby increasing the total
volume of wastewater in the system and further taxing treatment
facilities.

The eight private WWTPs that would operate under the No
Action Alternative were also evaluated.  Five of the WWTPs
would not have the equipment to meet tentative future standards:
the Cleveland Heights Grade School in New Berlin, New Berlin
Memorial Hospital, the Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant in
Mequon, the Highway 100 Drive-in Theater, and St. Martins
Road Truck Stop in Franklin.  Only three private treatment
facilities; Wisconsin Electric Power Company CWEPCO)  in Oak
Creek, the School Sisters of Notre Dame in Mequon, and the
Muskego Rendering Company, are meeting their current limits.
Although the WWTP at the Muskego Rendering Company has
recently expanded its hydraulic capacity to 83,000 gallons
(314 m ) per day, the plant discharges its effluent to
absorption ponds that have a capacity of only 25,000 gallons
C95 m3) per day.  The ponds are adequate for present discharge
rates, but flows to the WWTP are expected to double during
the planning period.  With the No Action Alternative, the
absorption ponds would be hydraulically overloaded.  Effluent
limits could also be violated due to high influent BOD.
Only the WEPCO and School Sisters of Notre Dame treatment
facilities would be able to treat future wastewater loadings
adequately to meet the stringent year 2005 effluent limits.
                             5-170
-------
5.2.14.2  Local Alternative

Although, the first phase of facilities planning does not
include actual design of sewerage facilities, a preliminary
evaluation was made of the technical feasibility of the
alternatives.  This evaluation included an investigation of
whether the techniques included in the alternative had been
used successfully in other cities and what the consequences
of a system breakdown would be.  Basically, all the alter-
natives that survived preliminary screening could be implemented
successfully.  In evaluating the technical feasibility of an
alternative, several assumptions had to be made.  These
assumptions are listed below.

1.   All critical components would be provided with backup
     equipment for use during maintenance procedures and in
     the event of the component's failure.

2.   All facilities would be equipped with a secondary power
     supply that could be used if a power failure occurred.

3.   Critical components would be equipped with protective
     mechanisms that would relieve them in case flows increase
     beyond peak capacity.

4.   Maintenance procedures and schedules would be developed
     and followed for all equipment.  These procudures would
     include periodic inspections of all equipment and
     structures.

The Local Alternative would include the operation of the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs and six smaller WWTPs.
The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would continue to
treat the majority of the wastewater flows in the planning
area.  The basic treatment processes at these WWTPs have
been proven feasible.

The other treatment plants in the planning area would be
much smaller in capacity, most less than 10 MGD (0.44 nr/sec).
These facilities would use either the activated sludge
process or land application of effluent by infiltration-
percolation.  The activated sludge process has been widely
used and is a proven wastewater treatment technique.  If the
facilities are properly designed and constructed,  the process
could be used successfully.  Because activated sludge treatment
uses biological organisms, flows should be fairly constant.
Dramatic increases or decreases in flows could destroy the
biological communities.
                             5-171
-------
Land application has been proposed at the Muskego Northeast,
New Berlin Southeast, and Germantown WWTPs.  The infiltration-
percolation technique has been used successfully for many
years in climates similar to Wisconsin's.  The sites for
these ponds should be carefully selected based on soil
quality and the depth to groundwater.

The conveyance system required by the Local Alternative
would include gravity sewers and force mains.  Gravity
sewers do not require pumps for conveyance of wastewater
flows.  They are the most reliable means of conveying
wastewater.  If properly designed and constructed,gravity
sewers would require little maintenance and would have a
long service life.  No difficult or innovative construction
techniques would be required to install gravity sewers.

Force mains would also be constructed to implement the Local
Alternative.  This type of sewer requires pump stations and
pressure resistant force mains.  Pump stations should be
equipped with multiple pumps for use during maintenance
procedures, for emergency back up, and for peak flow demand.
The pump stations and force mains would require more maintenance
than gravity sewers.

The Complete Sewer Separation Alternative for abatement of
CSO would require separation of building plumbing systems.
The separation could cost up to $4,000 per house, and this
cost might have to be borne by the property owner (pending a
ruling on a MMSD legal staff opinion that this cost would be
borne by MMSD).  Property owners may be reluctant to spend
that amount of money.  Also, the inspection of all buildings
to ensure that they are adequately separated would be difficult.
Many of the buildings in the CSSA are older structures, and
care should be taken to preserve their structural integrity.

All the other proposed CSO and peak flow storage alternatives
would require tunnelling in both deep rock formations and in
the softer, surficial glacial deposits.  Deep rock deposits
are generally dolomite, a limestone-like substance.   While
the dolomite is impervious, fissures in the rock structure
can convey large amounts of groundwater.  Lining of tunnels
would be required but may prove unnecessary depending on the
structural quality of the bedrock.  Generally, the dolomite
is a good construction medium with minimal need for structural
bracing during construction.

Soft ground tunnels would involve more risk; tunnelling
could degrade the structural quality and bearing capacities
of upper layers of the geologic strata which could lead to
the settling of buildings, the disruption of utilities,
cracking of pavement, and, in extreme cases, the collapse of
                             5-172
-------
buildings and streets.  Extreme caution would be necessary
for this type of construction, especially in highly urban
areas.

The proposed subsurface construction would create large
volumes of spoil materials.  Table 5.70 gives a comparative
approximation of the amount of spoil that would be generated
by different alternatives.  Disposal of such large amounts
of material would require a well designed disposal system.
The MMSD has tentatively identified four options for spoil
disposal and utilization:  MMSD use, public projects, marketing,
and disposal.

MMSD use of spoil material is limited by the court-ordered
construction schedule of the various components of the MFP.
Using spoil material for the initial lakefilling at the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs is not feasible because
any lakefill that might occur at these WWTPs would be
necessary prior to the major deep rock tunnel and cavern
construction that would supply most of the spoil material
generated by the MFP.  However, the MMSD has identified the
additional 18 acres of lakefill which the MMSD has proposed
for possible future plant expansion as the optimum alter-
native for spoil disposal.  MMSD preference for this alter-
native is largely due to the size of its fill requirement
C355,000 cubic yards), its freedom from scheduling constraints,
and the fact that both crushed dolomite and overburden could
be used.  However, there is no guarantee that this additional
18 acre lakefill will be necessary or approved.  Other
potential MMSD uses for the crushed dolomite include bankfill
material and a concrete aggregate.  In order to use the
excavated dolomite for these purposes, it would have to be
processed by crushing and screening.

Potential public projects which could utilize MMSD spoil
material include Milwaukee Department of City Development
plans to expand the Summerfest grounds and Milwaukee County
Park Commission plans for filling lakefront areas between
Bender Park and South Shore Park.  Schedules for these
projects are compatible with MMSD excavation schedules.
However, these projects are still in the planning stage.
Required funds and permits have not been obtained at this
time.

Sale of the mineral dolomite to local quarry companies would
be possible if the dolomite could not be used by the MMSD or
by public projects.  After processing, the dolomite could
be used as construction aggregate, roadstone, railroad
ballast, fill, and agricultural lime.  Local quarry com-
panies have expressed interest in purchasing the dolomite.
                             5-173
-------
                           TABLE 5.70
                  SPOIL MATERIAL GENERATED

                        (XlO  cubic yards)
                                          1)
Alternative
Rock
                        2)
Overburden
Total
Complete Sewer      1.534
  Separation

Inline Storage      2.876

Modified CST/       5.402
  Inline Storage

Modified Total      5.402
  Storage
                 6.920


                 7.368

                 3.324


                 4.977
                    8.454


                   10.244

                    8.726


                   10.379
1)  Includes spoil material generated for CSO abatement and peak
    wastewater control alternative assuming a 48% level of I/I
    reduction.  Should conditions arise which cause the storage
    volumes to change, as outlined in Chapter 3, Section 3.9,
    the volume of spoil material would change.

2)  Assumes a 1.2 expansion factor from the in-situ to the
    excavated state.
Note:  Where excavated material meets design specifications,
       it may be used as backfill material.

Source:  MMSD Draft Inline Storage Facility Plan, 1981. and
         ESEI, 1981.
                            5-174
-------
Transportation costs and the potential for oversupplying the
local market are problems with this option.  Quarry operators
in Chicago have indicated during telephone conversations
with the MMSD that the sale of dolomite from the Tunnel and
Reservoir Project (TARPl has influenced quarry operations in
the Chicago area.  Much of the excavated dolomite from TARP
has been bought by quarry companies, stockpiled, and filtered
into the local market slowly to help maintain a stable
market.  Nevertheless, some reductions in quarry operations
have occurred.

It is possible that an oversupply of mined rock could also
reduce operations and employment in Milwaukee area quarries.
However, stockpiling and the greater than normal demand for
aggregate due to MMSD construction requirements should minimize
these impacts.  A possible benefit of marketing the crushed
dolomite would be the extension of life of existing quarries.

If none of the above uses of the excavated dolomite or re-
moval overburden are possible, direct disposal would be
necessary.  Chapter NR 180 of the Wisconsin Administrative
Code governs solid waste management procedures in Wisconsin.
Specifically, any disposal operations must be operated in a
"nuisance-free and aesthetic manner" and must avoid areas
within wetlands, critical habitat areas, and areas in which
operation may be detrimental to surface water or groundwater
quality.  Several inactive quarries in the Milwaukee area
have been identified as possible disposal sites.  Any selected
disposal site would have to be approved by the DNR.

Regardless of how the excavated spoil is ultimately used or
disposed of, it is very likely that temporary stockpiles at
worksites or central storage areas would be necessary.
These stockpiles would have to meet the requirements of
section NR 180.07, "Storage Facility Requirements."

The availability of some construction material may be severely
limited.  Concrete,  for example, is in short supply.  In
1979, the U.S. had to import 11% of the year's demand for
concrete.  The deterioration of concrete producing equipment
will offset capacities created by new construction of production
facilities.  Present concrete production capacity in the
U.S. is projected to be 80 million tons C73 million metric
tonsl annually  CENR - 6/19/801.  Table 5.71 is a summary of
the concrete required for construction of most of the components
for CSO and peak flow storage.  As can be seen, the concrete
requirements of the MFP would in some cases be in excess of
1% of the national annual concrete production.
                             5-175
-------
                          TABLE 5.71

                     CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS

                   CSO/PEAK FLOW ALTERNATIVES  **


                               Concrete Required  (1)
Alternative                 Cubic Yards           Ton*

Complete Separation         261,538               529,615 (0.66%)

Inline Storage              402,589               815,242 (1.02%)

Modified CST/Inline         390,288               790,333 (0.99%)

Modified Total  Storage      396,840               803,602 (0.71%)

1/2 yr. LOP  Inline         282,442               571,946 (0.71%)
*   Parenthetical  numbers reflect percentage  of  U.S.  Annual
    Concrete Production  Capacity.

**  Reflects requirements of sewer construction,  deep tunnels,
    drop shafts,  storage caverns, near-surface collection and
    storage silos.   Control structures, screening facilities,
    drop shaft  energy  disapation chambers,  connections to caverns,
    and outfall work  are not included.

(1)  Requirements  based upon the assumption  of 48% removal of I/I.
    Should conditions  arise which cause the storage  volume to
    change as outlined in Chapter 3, Section  3.9,  these require-
    ments would change accordingly.
Source:  MMSD and  ESEI
                             5-176
-------
5.2.14.3  Regional Alternative

A preliminary analysis was also performed to evaluate the
technical feasibility of the components of the Regional
Alternative.  The analysis of the technical feasibility of
the Regional Alternative used the assumptions that were
discussed for the Local Alternative:  critical components
would be provided with backup equipment, all facilities
would be equipped with a secondary power supply in case of a
power failure, critical components would be equipped with
relief devices, and proper maintenance and inspection
procedures would be followed.

With the Regional Alternative, all WWTPs in the planning
area, except Jones Island and South Shore, would be abandoned.
The wastewater flows that had been treated at the abandoned
WWTPs would instead be conveyed to either the Jones Island
or South Shore facilities.  Since the flows from the abandoned
WWTPs would increase flows to Jones Island and South Shore
by only 5%, the processes proposed for the Local Alternative
could successfully treat the increased capacity.

The wastewater flows from all abandoned WWTPs except Thiensville
and Caddy Vista would be diverted to new or existing intercepting
sewers.  The sewers connecting the abandoned treatment
facilties to the interceptors would either be gravity sewers
or force mains.  Both conveyance systems are feasible,
although force mains would require more maintenance and
backup power sources.  Most interceptors would be gravity
sewers.

The wastewater flows from the Thiensville WWTP would be
conveyed to the Northwest Side Relief System.  The sewers
included in this proposed system would be designed to
incorporate the flows from the Thiensville WWTP as well as
the other flows in the system's service area.

The sewage flows from the abandoned Caddy Vista WWTP would
be connected to a local sewer system in the southern part of
the City of Oak Creek.  The local sewer system could adequately
handle these increased flows until late in the planning
period.

5.2.14.4  Mosaic Alternative

Because the Mosaic Alternative is so similar to the Regional
Alternative, the issues of technical feasibility are the
same.  The difference between the two alternatives would be
the operation of the South Milwaukee, School Sisters of
Notre Dame, and WEPCO wastewater treatment facilities.  An
                             5-177
-------
appraisal of these facilities  (see Chapter III), indicated
that they could meet future WPDES permit standards without
bypassing.  Therefore, these facilities are considered
technically feasible.

5.2.15  Legality

The planning for the MFP has been guided by a number of
legal requirements, the most significant of which are EPA
and DNR regulations, the U.S. District Court Order, and the
Dane County Court Stipulation.  With the Local Alternative,
several individual communities or sanitary districts—
Thiensville, Germantown, New Berlin, Musekgo, Caddy Vista,
and South Milwaukee — would operate their own WWTPs.
Accordingly, they would not be under the requirements of the
U.S. District Court Order or the Dane County Stipulation,
although the MMSD would still have to meet those requirements.
Other legal issues affect all local system-level actions.
These are discussed below for each designated management
agency.

5.2.15.1  MMSD

With any final alternative, the MMSD would be responsible
for four components of the MFP:  the operation of the Jones
Island and South Shore WWTPs, the construction of CSO and
I/I abatement facilities, the construction of expansion and
relief sewers, and the development of a solids disposal
program.  The MFP evaluated a variety of alternatives to
select the final Local System-Level Alternative that would
meet both the Dane County and U.S. District Court require-
ments and all other Federal, State, and local laws.

The key requirement of the U.S. District Court Order is the
elimination of all dry and wet weather bypassing in the
MMSD.  All discharges of "human fecal waste from the com-
bined sewer system must be eliminated with provision of
storage for the largest storm on record since 1940."  Any
overflows caused by a storm of greater magnitude must receive
primary treatment and disinfection before discharge.
Bypassing must be eliminated at the WWTPs, and the treatment
plant effluent must meet limitations stricter than EPA and
DNR requirements.

MMSD appeals of this court order have lessened these re-
quirements.  On April 26, 1979, the Federal Court of Appeals
in Chicago rejected the stringent effluent limits and substituted
the DNR secondary effluent limits.  On May 1, 1980, the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a stay of the District Court and Court
of Appeals rulings pending the final ruling on the case
which will likely occur in 1981.
                             5-178
-------
With the stay of the U.S. District Court Order, the Dane
County Court Stipulation establishes the legal requirements
for the MFP.  The Dane County Stipulation essentially sets a
schedule for actions required in order for MMSD to meet
existing EPA and DNR regulations.  There are four requirements
the MFP must comply with:  WPDES effluent limitations must
be met at all WWTPs; dry and wet weather overflows from the
separated sewer areas must be eliminated; a cost effective
means of abating CSO and meeting applicable water quality
standards must be determined; and a solids management program
must be developed.

The components of the action alternatives have been developed
to meet all of the requirements of both the U.S. District
Court Order (as modified by the Court of Appeals) and the
Dane County Court Stipulation.  The recommended CSO Alter-
native would eliminate overflows up to the storm of record
for the District Court Order and could be modified to a
level to meet applicable water quality standards for the
Dane County Court Stipulation, if the Supreme Court rules in
favor of the MMSD.  See Chapter 3, Section 3.9 for a discussion
of alternatives to meet DNR water quality standards.

Two legal issues remain.  The first is the District Court
requirements for primary treatment and disinfection of any
overflows that occur from a storm greater than the storm of
record.  The Inline Storage Alternative would separate
combined sewers in the public right-of-way, thus reducing
CSO volumes by 70% and limiting possible inflow from the
remainder of the CSO system.  The MMSD has recommended that
screening and chlorination facilities not be built because
the possibility of overflows is remote.  If this portion of
the District Court Order is upheld by the Supreme Court, the
MMSD would have to approach the District Court for a ruling
on the screening facilities.

A second question arises regarding the achievement of water
quality standards required by the Dane County Court Stipu-
lation.  No MFP alternative alone would achieve these water
quality standards Csee Appendix VII, Water Quality).  The
DNR must determine whether the MMSD has to undertake further
analysis of alternatives to achieve these standards or
whether the issue of water quality standards could be delayed
until completion of the planning stages of the MFP.

The remainder of the MMSD actions would meet EPA and DNR
regulations and the two court requirements.  Both Jones
Island and South Shore would meet their WPDES permit ef-
fluent limits.  Dry weather bypassing would be eliminated
throughout the MMSD service area.  Wet weather bypassing
would be eliminated in the separated sewer area.  Also, the
                             5-179
-------
construction of facilities would proceed under the schedule
imposed by the Courts.

Other executive orders and legislation establishing federal
policies on wetlands, floodplains, and the protection of the
cultural environment have also affected the development of
the final alternatives.  These issues have been addressed in
separate sections of this Chapter.

5.2.15.2  Local Agencies

With the Local Alternative, Thiensville, Germantown, New
Berlin, Muskego, and Caddy Vista would operate local WWTPs
during the planning period.  The Regional 208 Plan would
have to be amended to incorporate these five communities as
"designated management agencies" for treatment of sanitary
sewage.  Currently, only the MMSD and South Milwaukee have
been so designated within the planning area.

As designated management agencies, each of the local communities
would be required to prepare a facilities plan addressing
specific issues of their proposed treatment facilities.
Specific treatment alternatives would be developed and
analyzed for cost effectiveness and possible impacts to the
natural and man-made environments, as required by EPA and
DNR regulations.  The selected treatment alternative would
have to meet WPDES effluent limits and conform to all other
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

The treatment alternatives for the local communities analyzed
as part of the MFP have been identified only as feasible
concepts.  If the concept is found to be part of the cost-
effective, environmentally  sound solution to the existing
water pollution problems, it would undergo further legal
analysis as part of a specific rigorous facilities plan and
environmental assessment.
                             5-180
-------
        ATTACHMENT A




   MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT




JONES ISLAND WWTP - WEST PLANT
-------
Advisory
                                               ,
 Council On                                ,
 Historic                      P    r
 Preservation
 1522 K Street, NW
 Washington. DC 20005
    33 1981
Mr. Charles H.  Sutfin
Director,  Water Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn  Street
Chicago, IL 60604

Dear Mr. Sutfin:

Enclosed is the Memorandum of Agreement reflecting the  agreement to
mitigate the adverse effects of the Treatment Facilities Improvement
Project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on the Jones Island  West Plant reached
by the consulting parties.

Please sign and date this agreement and forward it to Richard A. Erney,
Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer, for his  dated signature.
Thereafter, it must be returned to the Council for ratification by the
Chairman.   The agreement will become final 30 days after receipt by the
Chairman or earlier if ratified by the Chairman.

The ratified Memorandum of Agreement will constitute  the Council's
comments in accordance with Section 800.6(c)(3) and completes your
responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Council's regulations.

Thank you for your  cooperation.

Sincerely,
        A* c v>^vwro..k

Jordan E. Tannenbaum
Chief, Eastern Division
  of Project Review

Enclosure
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1522 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
                         MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT


     WHEREAS, the Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA), proposes to provide
funding for the improvement of sewage treatment facilities in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin; and,

     WHEREAS, EPA, in consultation with  the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), has determined that this undertaking as proposed would have
an adverse effect upon the Jones Island  West Plant, a property eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places; and,

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320), and Section
800.4(d) of the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Council), "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part
800), EPA has requested the comments of  the Council; and,

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 800.6  of the Council's regulations,
representatives of the Council,  EPA, and the Wisconsin SHPO have consulted
and reviewed the undertaking to  consider feasible  and prudent alternatives
to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate the  adverse effect;

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutally agreed that implementation of the undertaking
in accordance with the following stipulations will satisfactorily mitigate
adverse effect on the above-mentioned property.

                              Stipulations

EPA will ensure that the following measures are carred out.

1.   Prior to any demolition or  alteration of the  Jones Island West Plant,
     EPA will record the Jones Island West Plant so that there will be a
     permanent record of the history and present appearance of the Plant
     and sewage treatment process.  EPA, in consultation with the Wisconsin
     SHPO, will first contact the National Architectural and Engineering
     Record (NAER) (Lake Central Region, Federal Building, Ann Arbor,
     Michigan 48107), to determine what  documentation is required.  All
     documentation must be accepted by NAER and the Council notified of its
     acceptance, prior to any demolition or alteration.  EPA will also
     provide copies of this documentation to the Wisconsin SHPO, Milwaukee
     Metropolitan Sewerage District Archives, and  the Milwaukee Historical
     Society.
-------
Page 2
Memorandum of Agreement
Environmental Protection Agency
Jones Island West Plant

2.   In cooperation with the Wisconsin SHPO, EPA will prepare a brochure
     based on the information in the above referenced documentation.  This
     brochure will document the significance of the Jones Island West Plant
     and will be made available to the general public.
    T

3.   Final plans for the proposed improvements will be developed in consultation
     with the Wisconsin SHPO to ensure that, to the fullest extent possible,
     portions of the Jones Island West Plant which can feasibly be retained
     will be retained and reused as part of the improved facilities.

4.   Plans and specifications for any rehabilitation work needed for buildings
     to be retained will be developed in consultation with the Wisconsin
     SHPO and will be consistent with the recommended approaches in the
     Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation."

5.   Prior to any alteration or demolition of the Jones Island West Plant
     the Wisconsin SHPO, or his designee, the Milwaukee Historical Society
     will be given a reasonable opportunity to select architectural elements
     from the buildings or portions of buildings that will be lost through
     demolition or alteration for curation or use in other projects.  EPA
     will be responsible for ensuring the careful removal of these elements
     and will deliver them without cost to the SHPO or the Milwaukee Historical
     Society.  The Wisconsin SHPO will notify the Council when all selected
     architectural elements have been salvaged.

6.   Within 90 days after completion of the project, EPA will notify the
     National Register of any changes in the Jones Island West Plant so
     that the records of this eligible property may be kept current.

7.   Failure to carry out the terms of this Agreement requires that EPA
     again request the Council's comments in accordance with 36 CFR Part
     800. If EPA cannot carry out the terms of the Agreement, it shall not
     take or sanction any action or make any irreversible commitment that
     would result in an adverse effect with respect to National Register or
     eligible properties covered by the Agreement or would foreclose the
     Council's consideration of  modifications or alternatives to the
     proposed Treatment Facilities Improvement that could avoid or mitigate
     the adverse effect until the commenting process has been completed.

8.   If any of the signatories to this Agreement determine that the terms
     of the Agreement cannot be met or believes a change is necessary, that
     signatory shall immediately request the consulting parties to consider
     an amendment or addendum to the Agreement.  Such an amendment or
     addendum shall be executed in the same manner as the original Agreement.

9.   Within 90 days after carrying out the terms of the Agreement, EPA
     shall provide a written report to all signatories to the Agreement on
     the actions taken to fulfill the terms of the Agreement.
                                        Executive
                                        Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
-------
Page 3
Memorandum of Agreement
Environmental Protection Agency
Jones Island West Plant
                                        Environmental Prota^ion Agency
                                                                      (date)
                                        Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Off:
                           (date)
Chairman
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
-------
GLOSSARY
-------
                       GLOSSARY
Activated Sludge:  Sludge floe produced in raw or settled
      wastewater by the growth of zoogleal bacteria and
      other organisms in the presence of dissolved oxygen
      and accumulated in sufficient concentration by returning
      floe previously formed.-'-

Acute Toxicity:  Any toxic effect produced within a short period
      of time, usually up to 24-96 hours, resulting in severe
      biological harm and often death.^

Ad Valorem:  A tax or duty levied in the form of percentage
      of value of property.

ADBF:  Average Daily Base Flow.

Aeration:  The bringing about of intimate contact between air
      and a liquid by one or more of the following methods:
      (a) spraying the liquid in the air, (b) bubbling air
      through the liquid,  (c) agitating the liquid to promote
      surface absorption of air.l

Aerated Lagoon:  A natural or artificial wastewater treatment
      pond in which mechanical or diffused-air aeration is
      used to supplement the oxygen supply.-'-

Aerobic:  Requiring, or not destroyed by, the presence of
      free elemental oxygen.1

Algae:  A class of plants, including single cell plants and
      common sea weeds. ^-^

Allocation System:  Section of the Dane County stipulation
      requiring that the MMSD and the DNR, "establish rules
      and regulations to restrict the amount of wastewater
      discharged to the sewerage system of the District
      each year."^

Anaerobic:  Requiring, or not destroyed by, the absence
      of air or free  (elemental) oxygen.^

Annual Capital Expenditures:  The dollar amount of bonds
      assumed to be issued annually to finance MMSD
      improvements.
-------
Aquifer:  A porous, water-bearing geologic formation,
      generally restricted to materials capable of yielding
      an appreciable supply of water.

Basic Industry:  Firms serving markets outside the area of
      their location (exporting products).

Benthos:  The plant and animal life whose habitat is the
      bottom of a sea,  lake or river.9

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD):   The quantity of oxygen
      used in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter
      in a specified time, at a specified temperature, and
      under specified conditions.  (2) A Standard test
      used in assessing wastewater strength.

Biodegradable:  The process of decomposing quickly as a
      result of the action of microorganisms.9

BOD:  Biochemical Oxygen Demand.

Bypass:  Diversion of untreated wastewater from a sewage
      facility into a body of water,  or to the effluent
      channel of a wastewater treatment facility.

CFS:  Cubic Feet per Second.

Chlorination:  The application of chlorine to drinking water,
      sewage, or industrial waste for disinfection or
      oxidation of undesirable compounds.

Chronic Toxicity:  Any toxic effect which causes poisonir.g,
      death or damage to an organism by prolonged exposure
      which may range -from several days to weeks, months, or
      years.^

Clarifiers:  A unit of which the primary purpose is to
      reduce the concentration of suspended matter in a
      liquid. Usually applied to  sedimentation tanks or basins.

Combined Sewer:  A sewer intended to receive both wastewater
      and storm or surface water.

Construction Grants Program:  Section 208 of PI 92-500 creates
      a funding program for improvements to municipal waste-
      water treatment facilities.

CSO : Combined Sewer Overflow.

CSSA:  Combined Sewer Service Area.

DATCP:  Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
      Consumer Protection.

BCD.  Milwaukee Department of City Development.
                              ii
-------
Debt Limit:  The maximum amount of debt that a governmental
      unit may incur under constitutional, statutory, or
      charter requirements.  The limitation is usually a
      percentage of assessed valuation.

Debt Service:  Principal plus interest that a bond issuer
      pays the bond buyer over the maturity period of the
      bond(s).

DNR.  Department of Natural Resources  (Wisconsin).

DOA:  Department of Administration (Wisconsin).

Draw Down Effect:  A lowering of groundwater levels due to
      pumping.

Dry Industry:  Industry that does not use or discharge large
      quantities of water.

Effluent:  Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely
      treated, or in its natural state, flowing out of a
      reservoir, basin, treatment plant, or industrial treatment
      plant, or part thereof.1

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement.

Emergent Plants:  Plants anchored below water level and
      growing above water level, such as a rush or cattail.

Equalized Property Value:  The full market value of property
      as determined by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue,
      Bureau of Property Tax.

EPA:  Environmental Protection Agency  (U.S.).

Eutrophication:  The normally slow aging process by which a
      lake evolves into a bog or marsh and utimately assumes
      a completely terrestrial state and disappears.  During
      eutrophication, the lake becomes so rich in nutritive
      compounds, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, that
      algae and other microscopic plant life become super-
      abundant, thereby choking the lake.^

Exporting Industry:  Firms serving markets outside the area
      of their location  (exporting products).

Facilities Plan:  Section 208 of PL 92-500 provides funding
      for the planning of municipal wastewater treatment.
      These planning documents  (such as the MWPAP) are
      facilities plans.

Fauna:  Animal life.
                              iii
-------
Fiscal Impact Analysis:  An evaluation of the net public costs
      or revenues resulting from actual or planned growth.2

Flow Augmentation:  The increase in stream flow by artificial
      means.

FNSI:  Finding of No Significant Impact.

Forage Fish:   Non-game fish such as the common shiner and
      fathead minnow.

General Obligation Bond (G.O. Bond):   Validaly issued and
      legally binding evidence of indebtedness secured by
      the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the
      issuer.7

Glacial Drift:  A general term for all types of glacial
      deposits.3

Grit Chamber:  A dentention chamber or an enlargement of a
      sewer designed to reduce the velocity of flow of the
      liquid to permit the separation of mineral from organic
      solids by differential sedimentation.

Groundwater:   The supply of freshwater under the earth's
      surface in an aquifer or soil that forms the natural
      reservoir for Man's use.

Hydraulic Head:    (1) The height of a column of fluid necessary to
      develop a specific pressure.  (2) The pressure of water at
      a given point in a pipe arising from the pressure in it.H

Hydrocarbon:   Any of the class of compounds consisting
      solely of carbon and hydrogen.

Hydrology:  The science dealing with the properties, distribution,
      and circulation of water and snow.9

I/I:  Infiltration and Inflow.

Igneous Rocks:  Rocks that crystallize from a melt within,
      Or at the surface of the earth.^

Indirect Fiscal Impacts:   The revenues and costs to a community
      associated with growth inconsistent with the 208 plan.

Induced Growth:   The magnitude, timing, location, and density
      of residential development has been projected for a
      proposed sewer service area, with and without the
      proposed sewerage facility.  The difference between
      the two projections represents the induced growth
      attributable to the proposed facility.

                              iv
-------
Infill Development:  Locating new development in existing
      urban aread, where most public services are already
      available.

Infiltration:   (1) The flow or movement of water through
      the interstices or pores of a soil or other porous
      medium.   (2)  The quantity of groundwater that leaks
      into a pipe through joints, porous walls, or breaks.^

Inflow:  Clearwater which enters a sewer system.  Although
      generally rainwater entering through manholes covers and
      illegal drain connection, it also includes cooling water,
      sump pump water and other clearwater which would normally
      not need treatment.

Influent:  Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into
      a reservoir, basin, or treatment plan, or any unit
      thereof.1

Inner Harbor:  The Lake Michigan estuary-affected regions of
      the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers.

Interceptor Sewers:  Sewers used to collect the flows from
      main and trunk sewers and carry them to a central
      point for treatment and discharge.^

Land Application:  A process of wastewater treatment by
      which treated wastewater is sprayed or spread on
      agricultural land.

Leapfrog Development:  A development pattern whereby vacant,
      developable area-s adjacent to existing urban develop-
      ment are bypassed in favor of inexpensive, agricultural
      tracts.

Macroinvertebrates:  Those animals lacking a backbone which are
      observable with the naked eye.

Mesotrophic:  The condition of a water body which is characterized
      by moderate nutrient concentrations and aquatic plant growth,
      moderate water transparency, and eccassional-periods of
      low oxygen content.

Metamorphic Rock:  Any change in the composition, texture,
      internal structure, etc., of a rock produced by
      temperature, pressure, or migrating fluids. -*

MGD:  Million Gallons per Day.

Mg/1:  Milligrams per Litre.
-------
Mixing Zone:  An area contiguous to a point source pollution
      discharge where receiving water quality may not meet appli-
      cable water quality standards.

MMSD:  Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

MWPAP:  Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program.

NAAQS:  National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

NEPA:  National Environmental Policy Act.

Nitrification:  The processes by which ammonia is oxidized to
      nitrite and nitrite is oxidized to nitrate.

Nitrifying Bacteria:  Organisms which belong to the family Nitro-
      bacteraceae and which are active in the processes of nitri-
      fication.

Nonpoint Source Pollution:  Pollution originating from areas other
      than specific discrete sources.  Nonpoint sources would in-
      clude urban and rural storm water runoff, atmospheric dep-
      osition, livestock wastes, construction activities, and mal-
      functioning septic systems.

NPDES:  National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.

Old Field Vegetation:  An abandoned agricultural field which
      is undergoing succession to a grass, shrub, or forest
      environment.

Oligotrophic Lake:  Lake or other contained water body poor
      in nutrient.  Characterized by low quantity of
      planktonic algae, high water transparency with high
      dissolved oxygen in upper layer, adequate dissolved
      oxygen in deep layers, low organic deposits colored
      shades of brown, and absence of hydrogen sulfide
      in water and deposits. ^

O&M:  Operation and Maintenance.

Organic Matter:  Referring to or derived from living organisms.
      In chemistry, any compound containing carbon.

Outer Harbor:  The Lake Michigan area enclosed with the the Milwaukee
      breakwaters.
                               VI
-------
Overlapping Per Capita Debt:  The consideration of debt
      from more than one municipal corporation.  For example
      the same property may be taxed to support city debt
      service as well as county debt service.  When the total
      debt from all government bodies of a local jurisdiction
      is divided by that jurisdiction's population, an
      overlapping per capita debt is obtained.

Palezoic:  The second era of the geologic time scale.
      230-600 million years ago.3

Particulates:  Finely divided solid or liquid particles in
      the air or in an emission.  Particulates include
      dust, smoke, fumes, mist, spray and fog.9

Pathogens:  Disease-carrying microorganisms such as the
      typhus or polio viruses.

PCBs:  Polychlorinated Biphenyls.

Per Capita Income:  Total personal income received in an
      area during a year divided by the area's population.

pH:  The reciprocal of the logarithm of the hydrogen-ion
      concentration.  The concentration is the weight of
      hydrogen ions, in grams, per liter of solution.
      Neutral water, for example, has a pH value of 7 and
      a  hydrogen-ion concentration 'of lo-'.

Phytoplankton:  The floating plants of a body of water, often
      microscopic.

Piezometric Surface:  The level to which water will rise in
      a. tightly cased well.  In an unconfined aquifer the water
      table represents the piezometric surface.

PPL:  Project Priority List.

Precambrian:  The oldest, major division in the geologic
      time scale; equivalent to about 90% of geologic time.^

Present Worth:  Present worth analysis is a method of determining
      the present value of future money receipts and disbursements
      Net Present worth equals the present worth of benefits minus
      the present worth of costs.

Primary Environmental Corridor:  Wetlands, woodland, flood-
      plain and wildlife habitat preserved from development
      by the 208 Plan.
                              VII
-------
Primary Treatment:  The first stage in wastewater treatment
      in which substantially all floating and setteable
      solids are mechanically removed by screening and
      sedimentation.^

Pumpage:  The withdrawal of water from an aquifer by wells or
      other mechanical means.

Re-aeration:  The absorption of oxygen into water under
      conditions of oxygen deficit. ^

Real Growth Rate:  The net annual growth rate of property
      value after having been discounted by the inflation
      rate.  A genuine increase in property value holding
      all other variables constant.

Residence Time:  The time it would take for the full volume
      of a lake to be replaced by inflowing waters.

Residual Chlorine:  The chlorine that remains following
      initial contact with the wastewater.  Residual chlorine
      includes free chlorine and chloramines.

Revenue Bonds:  A bond payable from charges made for services
      provided.  The  borrower obligates to operate the utility
      system to provide sufficient net revenues to meet the
      obligations of  the bond issue.

RIMS:  Regional Industrial Multiplier System; an input-
      output model developed by the U.S. Department of
      Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis  (BEA).  This
      model is used by the MWPAP to estimate the net
       (negative vs. positive) economic impacts of the
      project.

Secondary Impact:  The significance of the projected induced
      growth is measured in relation to the growth outlined
      in the SEWRPC Year 2000 Land Use Plan.  A secondary
      impact exists when the difference between the Land
      Use Plan and the induced growth is meaningful.

Secondary Wastewater Treatment:  The treatment of wastewater
      by biological methods after primary treatment by
      sedimentation. -1-

Sewer Moratorium:  A halt in the construction of sewer
      extensions, imposed on a community by the DNR.

SEWRPC:  Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
                             Vlll
-------
Sludge:   (1) The accumulated solids separated from liquids,
      such as water or wastewater, during processing, or
      deposits on bottoms of streams or other bodies of
      water.  (2) The precipitate resulting from chemical
      treatment, coagulation, or sedimentation of water or
      wastewater.

SMSA:  Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.

SSES:  Sewer System Evaluation Study.

Suspended Solids:  Solids that either float on the surface of
      or are in suspension in  water, wastewater, or other
      liquids, and which are largely removable by laboratory
      filtering.1

TARP:  (Tunnel And Reservoir Project) A combined sewer and
      flood control program under construction by the Metro-
      politan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, consisting
      of 131 miles of tunnelled sewer and 3 aerated storage quarries,

Total Ammonia-Nitrogen:  The total concentration or amount of
      nitrogen in the form of ammonia.

Total Nitrogen:   The sum of the various forms of nitrogen
      compounds  (e.g. nitrates, nitrites, ammonia, and or-
      ganic) .

Turbidity:  The cloudy condition of water due to the sus-
      pension of silt or finely divided organic matter.

Ultimate Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD ult):  The measure of
      the total oxygen necessary to complete biologically de-
      grade all organic matter in a water sample.  The analysis
      procedure assumes that it is equal the BOD exerted over
      a 20 day period.  Ultimate BOD is approximately 1.5 times
      as large as the BOD exerted over a 5 day period (6005).

Un-ionized Ammonia:  Expressed as NH-j, un-ionized ammonia has one
      less hydrogen ion than does the ionized ammonia, NH4+.
      The un-ionized form of ammonia is toxic to fish and aquatic
      life.

Urban Sprawal:  The patter of low density residential
      development (and accompanying low population density)
      fostered by the availability of developable land which
      is easily served by public utilities and highways.
-------
User Charge System:  A system to distribute annual operation
      and maintenance costs of sewerage facilities to the
      users of the system.  The MMSD's User Charge System
      was put into effect on January 1, 1980.

Value Added:  The wholesale price of a good minus the cost
      of materials.

WAC:  Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan):   General guide for
      water quality management in Southeastern Wisconsin,
      completed in 1979 by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
      Planning Commission, prepared under Section 208 of
      the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) .

WEPA:  Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act.

WEPCO.  Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

Wet Industry:  An industry that uses and discharges large
      volumes of water during the manufacturing process.
      The discharge is referred to as process wastewater.
      Examples include brewing, leather tanning, and food
      processing.

WSP:  Wastewater System Plan.

WWTP:  Wastewater Treatment Plant.
                                                           9
Zooplankton:  Planktonic animals that supply food for fish.
                              x
-------
                    SOURCES FOR THE GLOSSARY
 1.  American Public Health Association, et al., ed.,
          Glossary:  Water and Wastewater Control Engineering
          (1969)

 2.  Robert W. Burchell and David Listokin, The Fiscal Impact
          Handbook (New Brunswick, NJ. Rutgers, 1978)

 3.  R. K. Paull and R. A. Paull, Geology of Wisconsin and
          Upper Michigan  (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1977).


 4.  Lennos L. Moak,  Administration of Local Government Debt,
          (Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers Association,
          1970).

 5.  William Davis, The Language of Money,  (Boston:  Houghton-
          Mifflin Co., 1970).

 6.  Resolution of Dane County Circuit Court, File Number
          77-132-92 (2) .

 7.  Robert P. Hanson, ed. , Moody's Municipal and Government
          Manual, Volume 1, (New York:  Moodys Investor
          Service, Inc., 1980).

 8.  SEWRPC, Planning Report 25, A Regional Land Use Plan and
          a Regional Transportational Plan for Southeastern
          Wisconsxn--2000, Volume I.  (Waukesha, Wisconsin,
          1975).

 9. Gloria J. Studdard, ed., Common Environmental Terms
          (Washington:  U.S. EPA, 1974).

10.  The American Geological Institute, Dictionary of
          Geological Terms  (Garden City, NY:  Anchor Press/
          Doubleday,  1976).

11.  Daniel N. Lapedes, ed., Dictionary of Scientific and,Tech-
          nical Terms, 2nd Edition  (New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill,
          1978).

12.  Wisconsin Administrative Code

13.  U.S. E.P.A., Quality Criteria for Water,  (Washington, D.C.
          Government Printing Office).

                               xi
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvord, Burdick and Howson, 1954.  Report on Separation of Storm
     and Sanitary Sewage in Areas Served by Combined Sewers.
     Metropolitan Sewerage Commission.  Milwaukee, WI.

        , 1956.  Report on Intercepting Sewers and Sewage
     Treatment, Milwaukee Metropolitan Area.  MMSD.  Milwaukee,
     WI.

     	, 1957.  Special Summary of Report on Intercepting Sewers
     and Sewage Distict.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

     	, 1958.  Report on Design of Puetz Road Sewage Treatment
     Plant and Main Intercepting Sewers.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

     	, 1970.  Design Criteria and Proposed Programming, South
     Shore Waste Water Treatment Plant Sewerage Commission of the
     City of Milwaukee, WI.

        , 1971.  Report on Northeast Side Sewer Systems.  Metro-
     politan and City Sewerage Commission,  Milwaukee, WI.

     	, 1972.  Report on Pollution Abatement in the Lincoln
     Creek Area.  fiMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

        , 1974a.  Environmental Assessment:  Northwest Branch
     Main Relief Sewer System.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	, 1974b.  Report on Sludge Disposal, South Shore Waste-
     water Treatment Plant.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

American Geological Institute, 1976.  Dictionary of Geological
     Terms.  Garden City, NY:  Anchor Press/Doubleday.

American Public Health Association, 1969.  Glossary:  Water and
     Wastewater Control Engineering.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1970,  Manual of Practice 9;
     Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers.  New
     York: ASCE.

        , .1977.  Manual of Practice 8; Wastewater Treatment Plant
     Design.  Mew York:  ASCE.
-------
Aware, Inc., 1974.  Process Design Techniques for Industrial
     Waste Treatment.  Edited by C. E. Adams, Jr. and W.W.
     Eckenfelder, Jr.  Nashville, TN.

Babbitt, Cleasley and Doland, 1967.  Water Supply Engineering.
     New York:  McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Earret, G. V., and Blair, J. P., 1976.  Industrial Development
     Potential.  School of Business Administration.  University
     of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Barton-Aschman Assoicates, Inc., 1973.  Comprehensive Plan, 1973:
     City of Oak Creek.  Barton-Aschman Assoicates, Inc.  Chicago,
     IL.

Bayside, Village of, 1973.  Selected Codes.  Bayside, WI. .

Becker, G. C., 1976.  Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan
     Region.  Volume 17:  Inland Fishes of the Lake Michigan
     Drainage Basin.  Argonne National Laboratory.  ANL/ES-40.
     U.S. ERDA.  Argonne, IL.

Beverstock, F., and Stackert, R. P., eds., 1972.  Metropolitan
     Milwaukee Fact Book:  1970.  Milwaukee Urban Observatory.
     Milwaukee, WI.

Brown Deer, City of, 1977.  Zoning Code.  Brown Deer. WI.

Bruhy, M. E. and Overstreet, D. F., 1977.  Phase I Inventory of
     The Franklin-Muskego Interceptor Route Under Task 2-1.3.2.3.
     7.2.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

Burchell, R. W., and Listokin, D., 1978.  The Fiscal Impact Hand-
     book.  Center for Urban Policy Research.  New Brunswick, NJ.

California, State of, Office of Planning and Research, 1978.
     Economic Practices Manual.  Sacramento, CA.

Camp, Dresser and McKee,  Inc., 1978a.  Preliminary Total Solids
     Management Program.  f!MSD«  Milwaukee, WI.

         , 1978b.  Total Solids Management Program.  Volume I.
     MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

    	, 1978c.  Total Solids Management Program.  Volume II.
     MMSD.  Milwaukee, "WI.

        , 1978d.  Total Solids Management Program.  Volume III, and IV
     Apprendices A-Q.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

     	, 1978e   Total Solids Management Program:  Public
     Involvement Report, August 1978.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.
                              Kill
-------
Christensen, K., 1976.  Social Impacts of Land Development.
     The Urban Institute.  Washington, D.C.

Citizen's Governmental Research Bureau, 1978a.  20th Annual
     Municipal Budget Bulletin.  Washington, D.C.

	, 1978b.  27th Annual Property Tax Rate Bulletin.
     Washington D.C.

    	,  1980a.  Bulletin Volume 68, No. 3.  Washington, D.C.

    	,  1980b.  Bulletin Volume 68, No. 6.  Washington, D.C.
City Planning Associates, Inc., 1961a.  Development Plan,
     New Berlin, Wisconsin.   Part 1.  City of New Berlin.
     New Berlin, WI.

        ,  1961b.  Development Plan, New Berlin, Wisconsin.
     Part 2.  City of New Berlin.  New Berlin, WI.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 6.  Preparation
     of Environmental Impact Statements.

           Part 35.  Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works,
     Construction Grants Program.

    	.   Part 50.  National Primary and Secondary Ambient
     Air Quality Standards.

    	.   Part 1500.  Preparation of Environmental Impact
     Statements.

The Commission on State-Local Relations and Financing Policy,
     1977.  Recommendations of the Commission on State-Local
     Relations and Financing Policy, January, 1977.  State of
     Wisconsin.  Madison, WI.

Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc., 1981.  Report on the Evalua-
     tion of the Potential for Groundwater Pollution from Storage
     Tunnels in the Niagaran Formation Proposed by the Milwaukee
     Metropolitan Sewerage District.  Caldwell, NJ.

Cudahy, City of, 1977.  Municipal Code.  Cudahy, WI.

Dane County Circuit Court, 1077.  Case No. 152-342.  Sewerage
     Commission of the City of Milwaukee and the Metropolitan
     Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee versus The
     Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  Madison, WI.
                              xiv
-------
 	,  1977.   Resolution Adopting Rules to Implement the
      Waste Load Restrictions and Apportionment Section as
      Provided in the Stipulation Approved by the Circuit Court
      of Dane County Relative to Case 152-342.  File No. 77-132-
      92 (2) .  Madison, WI.

Davis, William, 1973.  The Language of Money.  Houghton-Mifflin
      Co.  Boston, MA.

Devaul, Robert, W, 1967.  Trends in Groundwater Levels in Wisconsin
      through 1966., WGNHS Information Circular No. 9.  Madison,
      WI.

EcolSciences, Inc., 1977.  Handbook for Evaluation of Secondary
      Environmental Impacts of Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
      Vienna, VA.

         , 1979.  Technical Memorandum:  Review of Population
      Forecasts for Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
      Facilities Plan.  Milwaukee, WI.

Elm Grove, Village, 1973.  Codes and Ordinances.  Elm Grove, WI.

Engineering New Record "Cement Faces Chronic Shortages".  ENR.
      June 19, 1980.  Vol. 204 No. 25.   McGraw Hill, Inc.  New
      York, NY.

Erickson, Robert M., 1972.  Trends in Groundwater Levels in
      Wisconsin, '67-'71, WGNHS Information Circular No. 21.
      Madison, WI.

Ferebee, J.L., 1932.  Reports, Note and Data Pertinent to
      Expansion of Existing Sewage Treatment and Sludge Disposal
      Facilities.  Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee.
      Milwaukee, WI.

Ferebee, J.D., Townsend, S.W., and Hatton, T.C., 1932.  Report
      Upon Proposed Extension to Existing Sewage Treatment Plan.
      Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee.  Milwaukee, WI.

	, 1933.  Report Upon The Probable Future Sanitary
      Requirements in the Water-Sheds of the Milwaukee, Menomonee,
      Kinnickinnic and Root Rivers, and Oak and Sauk Creeks.

Fitzgerald, M., et. al., 1977.  Manual for Evaluating Secondary
      Impacts of Wastewater Treatment Facilities.  EPA-600/5-78-
      003 U.S.
                                xv
-------
 Foley, F.C., Walton, W.C., and Drescher, W.J., 1953.  Ground-
       water Conditions in the Milwaukee-Waukesha Area Wisconsin,
       USGS Water Supply Paper 1229.  Washington, D.C

Fox Point, Village of, Wisconsin, 1974.  Selected Codes.
       Fox Point

 Franklin Common Council, 1974.  Franklin, Wisconsin Zoning
       Ordinance.  Franklin, WI.

 Gebert, W.A., and B.D. Holmstrom, 1974.   Low-flow Characteris-
       tics of Wisconsin Streams  at Sewage-Treatment Plants.
       U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigations.  Washington, D.C.

 Glendale, City of, 1973.  The Glendale Zoning Ordinance.
       Glendale, WI.

 Great Lakes National Program, 1978.  Lake Michigan Study:  Some
       Preliminary Findings.  EPA.  Washington D.C.

 Green, J.H., and Hutchinson, R.D.  Groundwater Pumpage and Water
       Level Changes  in the Milwaukee-Waukesha Area, Wisconsin,
       1950-61, USGS  Water Supply Paper/809-I.  Washington D.C.

 Greendale, Village of, 1976.  Selected Codes and Standard Speci-
       fications.  Greendale, WI.

 	, 1976.  Zoning District Map.  Greendale, WI.
 Greenfield, City of, 1977.   Selected Codes.  Greenfield, WI.

 Hales Corners, Village of,  1978.  Selected Codes.  Hales Corners,
       WI.

 Harland, Bartholomew and Associates, 1976.  Final Report on the
       Comprehensive Plan.  Glendale, WI.

 Huddleston, T.R.,  and Schein, F.,  1976.  Economic Change and the
       Urban Poor:   An Analysis of Changes in the Milwaukee Low
       Income Area and the SMSA.  Wisconsin Planning Office.
       Madison, WI.

 International Joint Commission, 1977a.  Menomonee River Pilot
       Watershed Study.  Windsor, Ontario.

         ,   1977b.   Land Use and Land Use  Practices in the Great
       Lakes Basin.  Windsor, Ontario.
                            xvi
-------
Kinney, K.S., 1978.  Industrial Drain Hurting Area's Economic
      Vigor.  Milwaukee Journal, March 26, 1978.  Milwaukee, WI.

Lathy, Jr., R.F., et. al.,  1980.  Treatment Plant Odors and
      Neighbors:  A Case Study.  Journal of the Water Pollution
      Control Federation, Vol. 52, No. 7.  July, 1980.
      Washington, D.C.

Lin, C.K., 1971.  Availability of Phosphorus for Cladophera
      Growth in Lake Michigan.  Proc.  14th Conf.  Great Lakes
      Res.:  39-43.

Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H., 1975.
      Hydrology for Engineers.  McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

McFadzean and Everly, Ltd.  1974.  Design Program Report for
      Community Center Park - Greendale, Wisconsin, City of
      Greendale.  Greendale, WI.

Meadows, G.R., and Call, S.T., 1977.  Property Value Trends
      and Resident Attitudes as Guides to Neighborhood
      Revitalization:  A Case Study of Milwaukee, Milwaukee
      Urban Observatory.  UWM.  Milwaukee, WI.

Meinholz, T.L., Kruetzberger, w.A., Harper, M.E., and
      Fay, K.J., 1979.  Verification of the Water Quality Impacts
      of Combined Sewer Overflow.  EPA-600/2-79-155.  Municipal
      Environmental Research Laboratory.  Cincinnati, OH.

Meinholz, T.L., Kruetzberger, W.A., Kobriger, N.P., and
      Harper, M.E., 1979.  Water Quality Analysis of the Milwaukee
      River to Meet PRM 75-34  (PG-61) Requirements.  Rexnord
      Environmental Research Center.  Milwaukee, WI.

Menomonee Falls, Village of, 1973.  Zoning Ordinances.  Menomonee
      Falls, WI.

Mequon, City, of, 1976.  City of Mequon Code of Ordinances.
      Chapter 4:  Zoning Code.  Mequon, WI.

Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce,  1978.  Economic
      Fact Book on Metropolitan Milwaukee.  MMAC.  Milwaukee, WI.

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1980.  Ground-
      water Monitoring Program, Mainstream Tunnel System, Addison
      Street to 59th Street, Revised Report.  Chicago,  ILI
                          xvi i
-------
Milwaukee Common Council, 1977.  Milwaukee Code of Ordinances.
      City of Milwaukee.  Milwaukee, WI.

Milwaukee County, 1979.  Statistical Report of Property Valuation.
      Milwaukee, WI.

Milwaukee Department of City Development, 1976.  Overall Economic
      Development Program.  DCD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	, 1977a.  Historical Trends:  A Summary.  DCD.  Milwaukee,
      WI.

     	, 1977b.  Population Projections.  DCD.  Milwaukee, WI.
        ,  1977c.  Toward A Comprehensive Plan.  A Preservation
      Policy for Milwaukee.  DCD.  Milwaukee, WI.

      	, 1978a.  1978 City of Milwaukee Housing Survey:  General
      Results.  DCD.  Milwaukee, WI.

        , 1978b.  Major Linkages Among Manufacturing Industries
      With the Milwaukee Metropolitan Area.  DCD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1978c.  Future Economic Trends:  An Overview.  DCD.
      Milwaukee, WI.

Milwaukee Health Department, 1976.  Beach, River and Harbor
      Pollution Research.  Milwaukee Health Department.  Milwaukee,
      WI.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 1976.  Facilities Plan.
      MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1976-1980.   WPDES Permit Monitoring Data.  Unpublished.
        , 1977a.  Environmental Assessment - Hales Corners
      Interceptor.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.
                           xvi 11
-------
	,  1977b.   Environmental Assessment - Memononee Falls-
 Germantown Interceptor.   IMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	.  1977c.   Environmental Assessment - Northeast Side
 Relief Sewer System.   FiMSD.   Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1977d.   Environmental Assessment - Root River Inter-
 ceptor.   MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1978a.   Waste Load  Allocation Procedures.   MMSD.
 Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1978b.   User Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery
 Program,  Volume I:   Final Reports,  Interim  Reports,
 Technical Memorandum.  MMSD. Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1978c.   User Charge and Industrial Cost Receovery
 Program,  "olume II:   Technical  Memorandum.   MMSD.
 I-ilwaukee,  O.

	,  1978d.   Comprehensive Facilities  Plan:  T'ork  Plan.
 "MMSD.  rilwaukee WI.

    ,  1978e.   Unpublished  Biological Sampling Data.
 MWPAP.   Milwaukee, WI.
	,  1978f.  Caddy Vista  Interceptor, Environmental
  Inventory.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1978g.  Northridge Interceptor, Environmental
  Inventory.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1978h.  Oak Creek Interceptor, Environmental
  Inventory.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

    ,  19781.  Mitchell Field  Interceptor, Environmental
  Inventory.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1978j.  Franklin Northeast  Interceptor,  Environmental
  Inventory.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

    ,  1978k.  Pilot Plant  Investigations:   Preliminary Phase
  I  Technical Report.  MMSD.   Milwaukee, WI

    ,  19781.  Franklin-Muskego Interceptor, Environmental
  Inventory.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

    ,  1978m.  r'"-otal Solids Management, Environmental
  Assessment.   'USD.  Milwaukee,  VII.

	,  J979a.   T, astewater System Plan,  South Shore Environ-
 mental Assessment Element.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1979b.   Energy Impact and Resource Recovery Analysis.
 MMSD.  March 1, 1979.   Milwaukee, WI.
                              xix
-------
    _, 1979c.  Probability Curves from Hydrocomp Simulation.
 Model.  SEWRPC.  Waukesha, WI.

 	, 1979d.  Wastewater System Plan, Combined Sewer Overflow
 Element.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

 	, 1979e.  Combined Sewer Overflow Characterization,
 Storage and Pilot Plant Treatment.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

 	, 1979f.  Oak Creek Southwest Interceptor, Environmental
 Inventory.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

    _, 1979g.  Infiltration/Inflow Analysis:  Executive
 Summary.  IIMSD-  Milwaukee, WI.

 	, 1979h.  Infiltration/Inflow Analysis:  Volume I, Part I:
 District-Wide Analysis.  MMSD.  riilwaukee, WI.

    , 1979i.  Infiltration/Inflow Analysis:  Volume II, Part II:
 Community Summaries.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

 	, 1979j.  Infiltration/Inflow Analysis:  Volume III, Fart II
 Community Summaries.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

    , 1979k.  Infiltration/Inflow Analysis:  Volume IV, Part II:
 Community Summaries.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.
	,  19791.   Infiltration/Inflow Analysis:  Volume V, Part
 III:   Appendices A-P.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI
    _,  1979m.   Infiltration/Inflow Analysis:  Volume VI, Part
 III:   Appendices Q-,c.   MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	__,  1979n.   Wastewater System Plan, Environmental Assess-
 ment  Bibliography.   MMSD.   Milwaukee, WI.

	,  I979o.   Wastewater System Plan, Jones Island Facilities
 Plan  Element:  Planning Report.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

   ,   1979p.   Wastewater System Plan, Jones Island Facility Plan
"Element:  Environmental Assessment.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1979q.   "Economics Procedures Manual" Technical Memo-
 randum.   5/2-13.   February 14,  1979.

	,  1979r.   Wastewater System Plan,  South Shore Facilities
 Plan  Element.   MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	  ,  1979s.   Wastewater System Plan,  Muster Facilities  Plan.
 MMSD.  Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1979t.   Wastewater System Plan,  Environmental Assesment.
 MMSD.  Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1980a.   CSO.   MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

                          xx
-------
   ,  1980b.   Environmental  Assessment,  Volumes  2,  2A,  and
 2B.   MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1980c.   Franklin  Muskego  Interceptor  Facility Plan
 Element.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	,  1980d.   Franklin  Northeast  Interceptor  Facility Plan
 Element.   MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1980e.   Jones Island  Facility  Plan  Element.   MMSD.
 Milwaukee, WI.

   ,  1980f.   Mitchell  Field  South Facility  Plan Element.
 MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1980g.   Northridge  Interceptor  Facility Plan Element.
 MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1980h.   Oak  Creek Interceptor Facility  Plan Element.
 MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1980i.   Solids Management.,  Facility Plan Element
 Volumes 1 and 2.   MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

   ,  1980j.   South  Shore  Facility Plan Element.   MMSD.
 Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1980k.   Underwood Creek Interceptor Facility Plan
 Element.  MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	•,  19801.   Wastewater System Plan,  Volumes  A,  B,  C,  D.
 MMSD.   Milwaukee,  WI.

   ,  1981a.   "Inline  Storage Facility Plan",  Appendices 4A,
 4B and 4C,  Draft Document.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1981b.   "Infiltration/Exfiltration  Analysis, Draft Docu-
 ment.   Milwaukee,  WI.

	,  1981c.   Transmission of Unpublished Data,  February 13,
"Correspondence,  Fred Meinholz  (MMSD)  to Jay Hockmuth (VJDNR) .

	,  1981d.   Transmission of Unpublished Data,  February 18,
 Correspondence Fred Meinholz (MMSD)  to  Jay  Hockmuth (WDNR).

	,  1981 e.   Transmission of Unpublished Data, March 10,
"Correspondence Robert Larget (MWPAP)  to Herbert Gurschke
 (MMSD).
                     xxi
-------
        , 1981f.  Transmission of Unpublished Data, March 25
      Correspondence, James Wilson  (MWPAP) to Jim Ibach  (MMSD).

      	, 1981g.  Exhibit A, Summary of Support Documentation
      For Recommended Alternatives.  Unpublished.

        _, 1981h.  Exhibit B, Effects of Recent Planning
      Outputs on the Recommended Facilities.  Unpublished.

      	, 1981i.  Exhibit C, Summary-Amendment 7 to Task
      Order 3:  CSO Abatement Plan to Comply with Dane County
      Court Stipulation.  Unpublished.

      	, 1981J.  Exhibit D, Role of Instream Measures in the
      WPAP.  Unpublished.

Milwaukee Public Schools, 1978.  Enrollment Analysis:  1963-1983.
      Milwaukee Public Schools.  Milwaukee, WI.

Moak, Lennox L., 1970.  Administration of Local Government Debt.
      Chicago:  Municipal Finance Officers Association.

Moody's, 1980.  Moody's Municipal and Government Manual, Volume I.
      Robert P. Hanson, ed.  New York:  Moody's Investor Service,
      Inc.

Muller, T., 1976a.  Economic Impacts of Land Development.  The
      Urban Institute.  Washington, D.C.

        , 1976b.  Fiscal Impacts of Land Development.  The Urban
      Institute.  Washington, D.C.

Municipal Ordinance Service, Inc.  1977.  Zoning Code of Brookfield,
      Wisconsin.  City of Brookfield,  Brookfield, WI.

	, 1978.  Zoning Code of City of Brookfield, Wisconsin.
      Brookfield, WI.

Muskego, City of, 1972.  Selected Codes.  Muskego, WI.

New Berlin, City of, 1978.  Zoning Ordinance.  New Berlin, WI.

Newman, Donald G., 1977.  Engineering Economic Analysis.  San
      Jose, CA:  Engineering Press.

Oak Creek, City of, 1977.  Selected Codes.  Oak Creek, WI.

O'Neel, W.G., Davis, A.L., and Van Dusew, K.W., 1975.  SAM:
      Wastewater Collection System Analysis Model, User's Manual.
      CH2M Hill.  Corvallis, OR.

                          xxii
-------
Ozaukee County, 1979.  Statistical Report of Property Valuation.

Paul, R.K., and Paul, R.A.,  1977.  Geology of Wisconsin and
      Upper Michigan.  Dubuque,  IA:  Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

River Hills, Village of,  1975.  Selected Codes and Ordinances.
      River Hills, WI.

St. Francis, City of, 1964.   Ordinances.  St. Francis, WI.

Schaenman, P.S., 1976a.  Using an Impact Measurement System to
      Evaluate Land Development.  The Urban Institute.  Washington,
      B.C.

	, 1976b.  Measuring Impacts of Land Development.  The Urban
      Institute.  Washington, D.C.

Shorewood, Village of, 1977. Selected Codes.  Shorewood, WI.

Slater, T.M., and Barry, J.T., 1975.  Brown Deer Land Use Study.
      James T. Berry, Inc; Kahler Slater & Pitzhugh Scott, Inc.
      Brown Deer, WI.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission,  1971.
      Population of Southeastern Wisconsin:  1960 and 1970.
      Waukesha, WI.

	  , 1972a.  The Economy of Southeastern Wisconsin.  Technical
      Report No. 2.  Waukesha, WI.

      	, 1972b.  The population of Southeastern Wisconsin.  Tech-
      nical Report No. 11.  Waukesha, WI.

        , 1974.  A Regional Sanitary Sewage Plan for Southeastern
      Wisconsin.  Planning Report, 16.  Waukesha, WI.

      	, 1975a.  A Regional Housing Plan for Southeastern
      Wisconsin.  Planning Report No. 20.  Waukesha, WI.

      	, 1975b.  A Regional Land Use Plan and A Regional Trans-
      portation Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin.  Volume I.  Plan-
      ning Report No. 25.  Waukesha, WI.

      	, 1976.  Digital Computer Model of the Sandstone Aquifer in
      Southeastern Wisconsin, Technical Report No. 16.  Waukesha,
      WI.
                           xxi 11
-------
   ,  1977.   A Regional Park and Open Space Plan for South-
 eastern Wisconsin for the Year 2000.   Planning Report No.  27.
 Waukesha,  WI.

	,  1978a.  A Regional Land Use Plan and Regional Trans-
 portation  Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin.  Volume II.  Plan-
 .ning Report No.  25.   Waukesha, WI.

	,  1978 b.   Printout:  Housing Units by Sewer Interceptor
 by Year.  Waukesha,  WI.

	,  1978c.   Printout:  Land Use Data for Northeast Side
 Relief System East for Years 1963 and 1970.   Waukesha, WI.

	,  1978d.   Printout:  Land Use Date for Northeast Side
 Relief System East for Years 1970,  1985 and 2000.
 Waukesha,  WI.

	,  1978e.   Printout:  Regional Housing Study:  Land Use
 Controls Inventory.   Waukesha, WI.

   ,  1978f.   Printout:  Total Population for Milwaukee
 Metropolitan Sewerage District by Quarter.   Waukesha,  WI.

	,  1978g.   Printout:  Total Population by  Sewer Interceptor
 by Year.   Waukesha,  WI.

   ,  1978h.   Data Pertaining to Sewer Service Area Employment
 Allocations:   1972,  1985 and 2000.   Waukesha,  WI.

	,  1978i.   SEWRPC Newsletter.   Volume 18,  No.  13.
 Waukesha,  WI.

	,  1978J.   Village of Butler Zoning Ordinance.   Waukesha,
 WI.

	,  1978k.   Codes and Ordinances of the Village of
 Germantown,  WI.   Chapter 17:   Zoning Ordinance.  Waukesha,
 WI.

   ,  19781.   Water Quality of  Lakes and Streams in Southeastern
 Wisconsin:   1967-1975.   Technical Report No.  17.   Waukesha,
 WI.

	,  1978m.   Lake Michigan Estuary and Direct  Drainage Area
 subwatersheds Planning  Program Prospectus.  Waukesha, WI.

   ,1979.   A Regional Water Quality Management Plan for
 Southeastern Wisconsin - 2000.   Vols.  I,  II and III.
 Waukesha,  WI.

	,  1980.   A Regional Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance
 Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin:  2000.   Planning Report
 No.  28.   Waukesha,  WI.
                     xxiv
-------
Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc., 1982.  CSO Facilities Plan Out-
      line for Chapter 2.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

        _, 1978b.  CSO Facilities Plan.  Chapter 4.  MMSD.
      Milwaukee,  WI.

     	,  1978c.   CSO Facilities Plan.  Volume II, Chapter 6:
      Alternative Development and Analysis.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

        ,  1978d.   CSO Facilities Plan.  Appendix 10:  Conveyance,
      Storage and Treatment, and Evaluation.  MMSD.  Milwaukee, WI.

	, 1978e.  CSO Facilities Plan.  General Summary of
      Selected Alternative for Out-of-Basin Concept.  MMSD.
      Milwaukee, WI.

Studdard, Gloria J., ed.,  1974.  Common Environmental Terms.
      USEPA.  Washington D.C.

Tec-Search, Inc., 1969.  Germantown, Wisconsin:  Comprehensive
      Plan.  Tec-Search, Inc.  Wilmette, IL.

Thiensville, Village of, 1974.  Selected Codes.  Thiensville,
      WI.

Tiebout, Charles M., 1962.  The Community Economic Base Study.
      New York:  Committee for Economic Development.  New York,
      N.Y.

Torrey, M.S., 1976.   Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan
      Region.  Volume 3:  Chemistry of Lake Michigan.  Argonne
      National Laboratory.  ANL/ES-40.  U.S. ERDS.  Argonne, IL.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977.  Storage, Treatment, Overflow,
      Runoff Model "STORM".  Davis, CA.

        , 1979.  "Draft Plan of Study - Chicagoland Underflow Plan,
      Phase I, General Design Memorandum."  Chicago, IL.

U.S. Congress, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.  P. L. 95-95,
      95th Congress.  Washington, D.C.

	, Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977.  P.L. 95-217,
95th Congress.  Washington, D.C.

	, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
      P7 L. 92-500, 92nd Congress.  Washington, D.C.

	, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  P.L. 91-
      190 as amended by P.L. 94-83.  94th Congress.  Washington,
      D.C.
                            XXV
-------
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 77-2246,
      People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, and
      People of the State of Michigan, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,
      vs. City of Milwaukee, The Sewerage Commission of the City of
      Milwaukee, and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the
      County of Milwaukee, Defendants-Appellants.  Chicago, IL.

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
      Eastern Division - Case No. 72-C-1253, 1977.  People of The
      State of Michigan vs. The City of Milwaukee, et. al.  Judgment
      Order.  Chicago, IL.

          1980.  People of the State of Illinois and the People of
      The State of Michigan vs. The City of Milwaukee, et.al.,
      Amended Judgment Order.  Chicago, IL.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1971.  General
      Population Characteristics:  Wisconsin 1970 Census of Popu-
      lation.  Publication PCG-B51 Wis.  Washington, D.C.

          1972a.  1970 Census of Population Detailed Characteristics-
      Wisconsin.  Washington, D.C.

     	, 1981.  1980 Census of Population and Housing, Preliminary
      Reports.  Washington,  D.C.


        ,  1972b.  1970 Metropolitan Housing Characteristics:
      Milwaukee,  WI.  SMSA.  GPO..  Washington, D.C.

     	,  1972c.   1970 Census of Housing.  Volume I:  Housing
      Characteristics for States, Cities & Counties; Part 51,
      Wisconsin.   GPO:.  Washington, D.C.

        ,  1974a.   Wisconsin 1972 Census of Retail Trade.  RC 72-A-
      50.   Washington D.C.

     	,  1974b.   1972 Census of Wholesale Trade:  Area Series,
      Wisconsin.   Washington, D.C.

     	,  1975a.   Wisconsin 1972 Census of Manufactueres.   MC 72
      (3)-50.  Washington, D.C.

     	,  1975b.   1972 Census of Selected Service Industries:
      Area Series, Wisconsin.   GPO.  Washington, D.C.

     	, 1977.  Annual Housing  Survey  1975:  Milwaukee, WI.,
      SMSA.  Series H-150-75.   GPO.  Washington, D.C.
                          XXVI
-------
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1975.   Analysis
      of the Current Housing Market Situation - Milwaukee, Wisconsin
      Second Draft.  U.S.  Depart of HUD.   Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.   "Wastewater Treatment
      and Reuse by Land Application", 2 Volumes.  EPA 660/2-73-006b.
      Office of Research and Development.   Washington,  D.C.

          1975a.  Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabili-
      tation.   Office of Water Program Operations.   EPA-430/9-75-
      021.  Washington,  D.C.

     	,  1975b.   Cost-Effective Comparison of Land Application
      and Advance Wastewater Treatment.  Office of  Water Program
      Operations.  EPA 430/9-75-016.   Washington,  D.C.

     	,  1975c.   Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan.   Office
      of Water Program Operations.   EPA-430/9-76-015.  Washington, D.C.

     	, 1975d.  Cost of Wastewater Treatment by  Land Application
      Office of Water Program Operations.   EPA-430/9-75-003. Washington

     	,  1976a.   Application of Sewerage Sludge to Cropland:
      Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants
      and Animals.  Office of Water Program Operations.  EPA-430/
      9-76-013. Washington D.C.

     	,  1976b.   Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Waste-
      water Treatment Works.   Office of Water Program Operations.
      EPA-430/9-76-003.    (MCD-20)  Washington, D.C.

     	, 1976c. Draft EIS on the Tunnel Component of the Tunnel
      and Reservoir plan proposed by the Metropolitan Sanitary
      District of Greater Chicago,  59th to Addison  St., Chicago,
      IL.

     	,  1976d.   Model Plan of Study.  Office of Water Program
      Operations.  EPA-430/9-76-004.   Washington,  D.C.
        ,  1976e.  Quality Criteria for Water.  Office of Water
      Planning and Standards.  Washington, D.C.

     	,  1977a.  Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
      Systems.  Part 1:  On-Site Disposal/Septage Treatment and
      Disposal.  EPA Technology Transfer.  EPA-625/4-77-011.  EPA.
      Washington, D.C.

     	,  1977b.  Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
      Systems.  Part 2:  Pressure Sewers/Vacuum Sewers.  EPA

                              xxvii
-------
 Technology Transfer.   EPA-625/4-77-011.   Washington, D.C.

	,  1977c.   Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
 Systems.   Part 3:  Cost/Effectiveness Analysis.   EPA
 Technology Transfer.   EPA-625/4-77-011.  Washington, D.C.

	,  1977d.   Process Design Manual:  Wastewater Treatment
 Facilities for Sewered Small Communities.  EPA Technology
 Transfer.   EPA-625/1-77-009.  Washington, D.C.

	,  1977e.  October,  21,  Issuance To All Interested Govern-
 ment Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens.   EPA-Region V.
 Chicago,  IL.

	,  1978a.  Analysis  of Operation and Maintenance Costs for
 Municipal  Wastewater  Treatment Systems.   EPA 430/9-77-015.
 Office of  Water Program Operations.  Washington,  D.C.

	,  1978b.  Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
 Conveyance Systems:   1973-1977.  Office  of Water  Program
 Operations.   EPA-430/9-77-015.  Washington, D.C.

	,  1978c.  Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
 Treatment  Plants:  1973-1977.  Office of Water Program
 Operations.   EPA-430/9-77-013.  Washington, D.C.

	,  1978d.  Design Seminar Handout, Small Wastewater Treat-
 ment Facilities.   Washington.
     1978e.   "Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal
 Wastewater Treatment Works - Evaluation and Control of
 Site Aesthetics,  Air Pollutants,  Noise and Other Opera-
 tion and Construction Factors."  (MCD-32)  EPA 43019-76-003
 Washington, D.C.
_ ,  1978f.   "Energy Conservation in Municipal
 Treatment".   (MCD-32)  EPA 430/9-77-011.   Washington,  D.C.


_ ,  1978g.   Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment
 Manual.   (Draft)   EPA-43019-78-009 .  Municipal Environ-
 mental Research Laboratory.  Cincinnati, OH.

_ ,  1978h.   Process Design Manual:  Municipal Sludge  Land-
 fills.  EPA  Technology Transfer.  EPA-625/1-78-010 .
 Washington,  D.C.

_ ,  1978i.   Report to Congress on Control of Combined Sewer
 Overflow in  the United States.  EPA-430/9-78-006 .
 Washington,  D.C.
                        xxviii
-------
        , 1978J.  Sludge Treatment and Disposal.  Volume I:
      Sludge Treatment.  EPA-62514-78-012.   Environmental Rese-
      arch Information Center.  Cincinnati, OH.

     	, 1978k.  Sludge Treatment and Disposal.  Volume II:
      Sludge Disposal.  EPA-625/4-78-012.  Environmental Re-
      search Information Center.  Cincinnati, OH.

     	, 19781.  March 23, Issuance to All Interested Govern-
      ment Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens.  EPA - Region
      V.  Chicago, IL.

     	, 1979.  STORET listing for Lake Michigan Basin.
      Washington, D.C.

        , 1980.  Lawrence Avenue Underflow Sewer System Interim
      Report, Planning and Construction.  EPA 600/2-80-014, Munici-
      pal Environmental Research Laboratory.  Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.  Topographic Maps of the Milwaukee
      Area, 1%'.   USGS.  Washington, D.C.

Washington County, Wisconsin, 1979.  Statistical Report of Pro-
      perty Valuation.  Wisconsin Department of Revenue:  Bureau
      of Property Tax.  Madison, WI.

Waukesha County,  Wisconsin, 1979.  Statistical Report of Property
      Valuation.   Wisconsin Department of Revenue:  Bureau of Prop-
      erty Tax.  Madison, WI.

Wauwatosa,  City of, Wisconsin, 1978.  Municipal Codes.  Wauwatosa,
      WI.

West Allis, City of, Wisconsin, 1975.  Revised Municipal Code.
      West Allis, WI.

West Milwaukee, Village of, Wisconsin, 1972.  General Ordinances.
      West Milwaukee, WI.

Whitefish Bay, Village of, Wisconsin, 1972.  General Ordinances.
      West Milwaukee, WI.

Wisconsin Administrative Code.  Natural Resources Chapter,  (var-
      ious section).  Madison, WI.
                              XXIX
-------
Wisconsin Department of Administration, 1977.  Official Population
      Estimates for 1977.  DOA.  Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
      Farmland Preservation Act, 1978.  Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, 1978.
      Employment Review:  The Milwaukee Area.  Wisconsin Job  Service.
      Milwaukee, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1968.  Report on an
      Investigation of the Pollution in the Milwaukee River Basin
      made during 1966 and 1967.  Madison, WI.

         , 1969a.  Reports on the Investigation of the Pollution
      of the Milwaukee River, Its Tributaries, and Oak Creek made
      during 1968 and 1969.  Madison, WI.

      	, 1969b.  Little Muskego Lake.  Lake Use Report FX-10 WDNR.
      Madison, WI.

        _, 1971.  Big Muskego Lake.  Lake Use Report FX-3.  WDNR.
      Madison, WI.

	, 1976.  Southeastern Wisconsin River Basins:  A Drainage
      Basin Report.  WDNR.  Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 1978.  Comparisons Among Major
      Property Tax Relief Programs.  DOR.  Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 1979.  Wisconsin Tax Burden Study.
      Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, 1974.  An Environmental Study
      of the Ecological Effects of the Thermal Discharges from
      Point Beach, Oak Creek, and Lakeside Power Plants on Lake
      Michigan.  Volume 2 Limnetics, Inc.  Milwaukee, WI.

Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act of 1972.  1971 Assembly Bill
      975.  Chapter 274.  Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Statutes, 1977, various chapters (34th Edition), Madison,
      WI.

Wisconsin Water Pollution Control Laws of 1978, Chapter 147:
      Pollution Discharge Elimination.   Madison, WI.
                               XXX
-------
COORDINATION
-------
                           Coordination:
         Agencies and Individuals Receiving the Draft EIS
A. Federal
     Senator William Proxmire
     Senator Gaylord Nelson
     Representative Toby Roth
     Representative F. James Sensenbrenner
     Representative Les Aspin
     Representative Alvin Bahlus
     Representative Robert Kastenmeier
     Representative David R. Obey
     Representative Henry S. Reuss
     Representative Clement Zablocki
     Council on Environmental Quality
     Department of Housing and Urban Development
     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
     Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
     Department of Labor
     Department of Commerce
     Department of Interior
     Department of Agriculture
     US Fish and Wildlife Service
     Department of Transportation
     US Army Corps of Engineers
     National Park Service
     US Geological Survey
     USEPA Regional Offices
B. State
     Office of the Governor
     Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources—Southeast District
     Wisconsin Department of Administration
     Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services
     Wisconsin Department of Local Affairs and Development
     Wisconsin Department of Transportation
     Wisconsin Department of Justice
     Wisconsin Department of Industry Labor and Human Relations
     Wisconsin Department of Business Development
     Wisconsin Department of Revenue
     Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
     Wisconsin Department of Agriculture
     State Historical Society
                                  XXXI
-------
C. Local
     Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
     City of Muskego
     City of West Allis
     City of St. Francis
     City of South Milwaukee
     City of Oak Creek
     City of Glendale
     City of Milwaukee
     City of Mequon
     City of New Berlin
     City of Greenfield
     City of Wauwatosa
     City of Franklin
     City of Cudahy
     City of Brookfield
     Village of Hales Corners
     Village of River Hills
     Village of Fox Point
     Village of Bayside
     Village of Germantown
     Village of West Milwaukee
     Village of Shorewood
     Village of Greendale
     Village of Butler
     Village of Elm Grove
     Village of Whitefish Bay
     Village of Brown Deer
     Village of Menomonee Falls
     Village of Thiensville
D. Groups and Citizens

     Citizen Advisory Committee for the Draft EIS,
       Cindy Roth, Coordinator

               Robert R.  Abrams
               Janis M. Arthur
               Carole Ann Earth
               Jeanette Bell
               Donald K.  Builey
               P.  Ciccantelli
               Thomas Crawford
               James Doetze
               Honorable Lynn Eley
               Thomas J.  Farrahy
               Gerard Froh
               Norman Gill
               Honorable Chester Grobschmidt

                                 xxxii
-------
            James E. Grootemaat
            Randolf A. Gschwind
            J. E. Hackel
            Honorable Francis P. Havey
            Henry Kolbeck
            Suzane Kraase
            Charles E. Kroeger
            Jan Marsh
            Shirley Mueller
            Helen C. Newman
            Leonard Pampel
            Suzanne Ratkowski
            Terry Rozga
            Marvin Schroeter
            Gerald M. Schwartz
            David Sharpe
            Hall Smith
            Brien Sobanski
            Thomas Spellman
            Dawn Marie Staccia
            Gail Miller Wray
For a complete list of individuals and agencies receiving the
DEIS, contact U.S. EPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
                             XXXI11
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
-------
                            List of Preparers
United States Environmental Protection Agency

     Chief of EIS Section
     Project Officer
Eugene Wojcik
Michael 0'Toole
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

     MMSD Environmental Impact Coordinator

     Special Assistant to MMSD Projects
     Environmental Engineer-MMSD Unit Leader

     Environmental Engineer-Municipal Wastewater
     Section
     Planning Analyst

     Environmental Engineer-Wastewater EIS
     Unit-Bureau of Environmental Impact
     Environmental Engineer-Water Quality Manage-
     ment
     Environment Specialist-Water Quality Manage-
     ment
     Director, Bureau of Environmental Impact
Steve Ugoretz
Dorothy Harrell*
Jay Hochmuth
Charles Burney
Michael Desrosier*

William Baunann
Sharon Meier
Michael Llewelyn

Roger Fritz

Thomas Bennwitz

Roger Bannerman
H.S. Druckenmiller
ESII
     Principal in Charge
     Senior Project Manager
     Senior Project Manager

     Project Managers
     Principal Authors

           Editor

           Engineering
Edward F. Bradley
Thomas L. Meinholz
John H. Baldwin

Kevin J. Fay
Edward J. Powelson
Robert Evangelist!
Peter R. Spinney
Melissa M. McGuire

Kevin J. Fay
Robert Evangelisti
Mark G. Madden
King K. Moy
Steven C. Schory
Reed Rodenkirch
Scott Stanke
Mary P. Kerr
*Incumbent during the preparation of the Draft EIS.
                  XXXIV
-------
           Socioeconomics
           Natural Science
     Typists
Wapora, Inc.*
     Project Administrator and Editor
     Senior Enviornmental Engineer
     Senior Water Quality Scientist
     Health Scientist
Edward J. Powelson
Mark A. Vannucci
Louise M. Palagano
James W. Hock

Richard J. Fulk
David L. Haselow
David B. Kendziorski
Bruce F. Leon
Suzanne S. Skone
Sally A. Arnold

Gloria Logan
DeAnn Calhoun
E. Clark Boli
J.P, Singh
Mirza Meghji
Gerard Kelly
Sjibcontractors

Consoer, Townsend & Associates

     Assistant Vice President
     Associate
     Engineer
     Engineer
     Engineer
     Engineer

Converse, Ward, Davis, Dixon, Inc.

     Project Manager
     Staff Consultant
     Senior Geologist
     Chief Geologist
Raymond J. Avendt
Wen C. Huang
Peter V. Cavagnaro
Stanley A. Labunski
Shin A. Ann
Louann Bewersdorf
Peter Spinney
Issa S. Oweis
Syed A. Pasha
Charles S. Robinson
Harper - Owes

     Engineer
     Scientist
     Scientist

Real Estate Research Corporation

     Vice President
     Principal Counselor
     Senior Analyst
     Senior Analyst
     Senior Analyst
Martin Harper
Clay Patmont
Starr Dehn
Margary al Chalabi
Stephen B. Friedman
Roberta  Walker
Sholom Gliksman
Valerie Kretchmer
•Original EIS consultant for CSO analysis which was incorporated
 into this document
                     XXXV
-------
                              INDEX

Access (plus Traffic) - 1-21, 3-132, 4-1, 5-145

Aesthetics - see Recreation

Agricultural Land - 1-20, 1-28, 5-61

Air Quality - 1-18, 1-19, 1-21, 2-6, 3-125, 4-1, 4-21, 4-40, 5-38

Algae - 3-123, 4-15 thru 19, 5-31, 5-32, 5-36

Ammonia -

     Toxicity - 1-21, 1-26, 3-114, 3-122, 3-123, 4-10, 4-12, 4-14,
     5-12, 5-19, 5-24, 5-25, 5-31

     Un-ionized - 1-26, 1-28, 1-31, 3-114, 4-10, 5-2, 5-3, 5-6,
     5-8, 5-31, 5-32

Aquatic Biota - 3-40, 3-123, 4-1, 4-16 thru 21, 5-34

Aquifer - see Groundwater

Archaeological Resources - 3-42, 4-1, 4-81, 5-153

Big Muskego Lake - 3-121, 4-14, 4-18, 4-35, 5-7

Biochemical Oxygen Demand - 3-104, 3-121, 4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 5-2,
     5-3, 5-6, 5-8, 5-12, 5-14, 5-19, 5-24, 5-25, 5-67

Bonding - 3-127, 5-90, 5-91, 5-106, 5-110

Bypasses - 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-14, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-35

Caddy Vista WWTP - 1-7, 1-9, 1-20, 2-8, 3-71, 3-98, 3-102, 3-121,
     4-9, 4-13, 5-2

Cadmium - see Metals

Chlorination/Chlorine - 1-30, 3-67, 3-70, 3-113, 4-10, 5-2, 5-3,
     5-6, 5-8

Clean Air Act - 2-6, 3-2, 3-4

Clean Water Act of 1977 - 1-1, 1-4, 2-5, 4-35, 4-38, 4-40

Coastal Zone Management Act - 4-37

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO, 1-2, 1-4, 2-5, 3-78,  3-122, 4-2,
     4-11 thru 13, 4-51, 4-52, 5-19
                            XXXVI
-------
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
     Abatement - 1-6 thru 8, 1-11, 1-15, 1-32, 2-6, 2-7, 3-76,
     3-80, 3-115, 4-35, 5-19,  5-21, 5-22
     Effects of - 3-91, 4-11,  5-10

Combined Sewer Service Area (CSSA) 1-18, 2-3, 3-23, 4-12, 5-12,
     5-18, 5-20

Complete Sewer Separation Alternative 1-11, 1-18, 3-87, 5-19

Construction - 1-21, 3-41, 5-70, 5-48, 5-71, 5-137

Control Options - 3-5

     Source Control - 3-5
     Conveyance and Storage - 3-6
     End-of-Pipe - 3-7
     Instream - 3-9

Copper - see Metals

Cost - 1-22, 3-97, 3-120,  3-127 thru 3-129, 5-81
     CSO Abatement/Peak Flow Attenuation Alternatives - 1-13,
     1-15, 1-22, 1-25, 1-28, 3-86, 5-151
     EPA's Preferred Alternative - 1-32, 3-120, 5-122
     System Level Alternatives - 1-22, 3-26, 3-33, 3-36, 3-44
     thru 47, 3-54, 3-57,  3-59, 3-128, 3-130, 5-82, 5-102, 5-106

Cost Distribution Methods - 5-89, 5-92
     Individual Community Financing - 3-129, 5-93, 5-114
     District Wide Financing - 5-93, 5-125
     Other Methods - 5-94, 5-120

Dane County Circuit Court Order 1-4, 1-13, 2-5, 2-6, 3-1, 3-77,
     3-79, 3-80, 3-91, 3-93, 4-35, 5-81

Deep Tunnels - 1-18, 1-25, 3-124, 3-132

Deer Creek - 4-4, 4-14, 4-18

Department of Natural Resources  (DNR) 1-1, 2-5, 3-37, 3-93

Disinfection - 1-30, 3-67, 3-70, 3-113, 4-10, 5-6, 5-8

Dissolved Oxygen - 4-4, 4-8, 4-9, 4-12 thru 14, 4-16 thru 18,
     5-2, 5-3, 5-10, 5-12, 5-23

Draw-down Effect - 5-55

Economic Impacts - 3-131,  5-114, 5-127, 5-128

Economy 4-1, 4-54, 5-127,  5-128

                            xxxvii
-------
Effluent - 5-29

     Characteristics - 5-30
     Discharge - 5-29
     Limits (Standards)  - 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 5-2, 5-29

Employment - 4-57, 4-64, 4-69, 5-130

Employment Impacts of MFP - 1-18, 3-132, 5-130

Energy - 4-83, 3-42, 3-133, 3-134, 5-159

Engineering Feasibility - 3-42, 3-134, 5-168

Environmental Corridors - 2-6

Environmental Impact Statement Requirements - 2-4, 2-7, 2-8

Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA)  - 1-1, 2-5, 3-37, 3-112

EPA Preferred Alternative - 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 1-31, 1-32, 1-33,
     3-112, 5-1, 5-32, 5-34, 5-122

Fecal Coliform Bacteria - 5-2, 5-6, 5-8, 5-17, 5-19

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 - 1-4, 2-4

Fiscal Impacts - 1-27, 1-28, 5-78, 5-114

     Indirect Fiscal Impacts - 5-75
     of CSO Abatement - Peak Flow Attenuation Alternatives - 3-86
     of System-Level Alternatives - 3-127, 5-85

Floodplains - 2-5, 4-1,  4-31, 4-32, 4-39, 5-57

Fox River Basin - 4-2, 4-4, 4-14

Funding

     Federal - 2-4, 2-5, 4-49, 4-50, 4-52, 5-89
     State - 4-49, 4-50, 4-52, 5-89

Future Development (Secondary Growth Impacts) 1-21, 3-41, 5-70,
     5-72, 5-73, 5-76, 5-77

Geology - 4-26, 4-27

Germantown WWTP - 1-7, 1-8, 3-20, 3-100, 3-123, 4-9,  5-3

Groundwater - 1-21, 1-25, 3-40, 4-1, 4-2, 4-28, 4-31, 5-45

Historical Resources - 4-37, 5-153

                            xxxviii
-------
Industrial Pretreatment - 1-31

Infiltration and Inflow (I/I)  - 1-2, 1-4, 1-6, 1-25, 1-29, 3-5,
     3-22, 2-3, 3-24

Inline Storage Alternative - 1-7, 1-11, 1-18, 3-85

Inner Harbor - 1-25, 4-2,  4-9, 5-12

Instream Measures - 3-9, 5-29

Interceptors - 1-6, 1-21,  2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 1-31, 2-8, 3-71, 4-35

     Caddy Vista - 2-8
     Franklin-Muskego - 1-11,  3-73, 3-74
     Franklin-Northeast - 1-11, 1-31, 3-73, 3-74
     Hales Corners - 1-11, 1-31, 3-74, 3-75
     Menomonee Falls-Germantown - 1-11, 1-31, 3-74, 3-75
     Northeast Side Relief - 1-31, 3-74, 3-76
     Oak Creek (North of Ryan  Road) - 1-11, 1-31, 3-73, 3-74
     Oak Creek (South of Ryan  Road) - 2-81
     Oak Creek Southwest - 2-8
     Root River - 1-11, 1-31,  3-74, 3-75
     Underwood Creek - 3-74, 3-75
     Ryan Creek - 2-8
     Underwood Creek - 1-11, 1-31

Jones Island WWTP - 1-4, 1-9,  3-9, 3-100, 4-9, 4-10, 4-15, 4-19,
     4-22

     Expansion - 1-15, 2-7, 4-38, 3-43, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-70
     Lakefill - 1-27, 5-32
     Outfall - 1-21, 1-26, 4-16, 5-31
     Treatment - 1-9, 1-32, 3-15

Kinnickinnic River - 2-2,  4-1, 4-2, 4-10, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 4-17

Lake Michigan - 1-20, 1-27, 2-2, 4-1, 4-9, 4-10, 4-15, 4-19, 4-20,
     3-122, 5-33

Lakefill - 1-19, 1-26, 1-27, 1-30, 1-32, 5-32, 5-173

Land Application - 1-10, 1-20, 1-31, 1-33

Landfill - 1-10, 1-20, 1-31, 1-33

Land Use - 2-6, 3-41, 4-1, 4-40, 4-48

Lead (see Metals)

Legal Requirements - 2-4,  4-35, 4-51
                            xxxi x
-------
Legality - 4-1, 4-35 thru 4-51, 5-178

Level of Protection - 1-29, 3-112

Local System-Level Alternative  (Final) - 1-9, 1-19, 3-2, 3-26,
     3-33, 3-100

Master Facilities Plan  (MFP) - 1-1, 1-4, 2-1, 3-1, 4-35, 4-38,
     4-48, 4-64

Menomonee River - 2-2, 4-1, 4-2, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-17, 4-27,
     4-83, 5-12

Metals - 1-31, 5-12, 5-14, 5-17, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-24, 5-25

Metropolitan Intercepting Sewers (MIS) - 1-2, 4-12, 4-13

Milorganite - 1-10, 1-20, 1-21

Milwaukee County Debt Limit - 3-130

Milwaukee River - 1-20, 2-2, 4-1, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-16, 4-17,
     4-27, 4-83, 5-12

Mitigative Measures - 1-27, 1-31

MMSD Planning Area - 2-3, 4-1, 4-2, 4-11, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34

MMSD Recommended Plan - 1-6, 3-109, 5-1, 5-32

Modified GST/Inline Alternative - 1-13, 3-87, 5-29

Modified Total Storage Alternative - 1-13, 1-18, 1-28, 1-29, 3-91

Mosaic System-Level Alternative (Final) - 3-2, 3-106, 5-35

Muskego Northeast WWTP - 1-9, 1-10, 4-9, 3-18, 3-102, 5-3

Muskego Northwest WWTP - 1-7, 1-9, 3-19, 4-9, 4-35, 5-7

Muskego Rendering Company WWTP - 1-10

National Environmental Policy Act  (NEPA) - 4-37

National Historic Preservation Act - 4-37

New Berlin WWTP - 1-7, 1-8, 4-9, 4-14

New Berlin Southeast WWTP - 4-32

Nitrogen - see Ammonia
                              xl
-------
No Action Alternative - 1-14, 3-98

Noise - 3-41, 4-1, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 5-138

Non-point Source Pollution - 1-4, 4-4, 4-11, 4-12, 4-40

Oak Creek - 3-73, 4-2, 4-4, 4-13, 4-18

Odors - 1-19, 2-1, 3-40, 4-1, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 5-38, 5-43

Organic Pollutants - 5-12

Outer Harbor - 1-26, 3-122, 4-9, 4-10, 4-15, 4-19, 5-29

Outfall - see Jones Island Outfall or South Shore Outfall

Particulates - 5-43

Pathogens - 1-4, 1-14, 3-10, 3-13, 4-4, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 5-2, 5-31

PCE's - 4-15, 4-19

Phosphorus - 4-9, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-19, 5-32

Phytoplankton - see Algae

Planning Area - see MMSD Planning Area

Plant Nutrients - 4-8, 4-9, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15

Point Source Pollution - 4-4

Pollutant Loads - see Water Quality

Population - 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56

Prime Agricultural Land - 2-6, 3-40, 5-61

Property Taxes - 4-74

     Average - 1-23, 1-24, 4-74, 4-75
     Existing - 4-69, 4-73, 4-75
     Industrial - 4-64, 4-67, 4-69

Public Health - 2-1, 2-2, 3-41, 3-132, 4-1, 4-12, 4-21, 4-29, 5-141

Recreation and Aesthetics - 3-41, 4-1, 4-24, 4-39, 4-40, 4-81, 4-82,
     4-83, 5-157

Regal Manors WWTP - 1-9, 3-19, 4-14, 5-7

Regional Plan C208 Plan) - 2-3, 4-40, 4-42

                             xli
-------
1
Regional System Level Alternative - 1-19, 3-2, 3-36, 3-105, 5-102

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - 4-37

Resources - 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 5-164

River and Harbor Act of 1899 - 4-37

Root River - 1-20, 4-2, 4-4, 4-9, 4-13, 4-14, 4-17, 4-18

Safety - 5-144

School Sisters of Notre Dame WWTP - .1-10, 4-9

Scour - 1-15, 1-18

Screening of Alternatives - 3-1, 3-37, 3-82

     Primary - 3-42
     Secondary - 3-43

Sediment Loadings - 5-23

     Quality - 1-18, 4-15

Sewers

     Combined - 1-2, 2-3, 4-35, 5-152
     Separated - 1-2, 1-11, 2-3, 2-4, 4-35

Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) - 1-6, 1-25, 2-6, 2-7, 3-25,
     4-75

Sludge - 3-70, 4-24

Soils - 4-1, 4-27, 4-29, 4-48

Solids Handling (or Management) - 1-6, 1-10, 1-19, 1-20, 1-31,  1-33,
     2-6, 2-7, 3-22, 3-70, 3-114, 4-35

South Milwaukee WWTP - 1-7, 1-9, 3-19, 3-102, 4-9

South Shore WWTP - 1-9, 1-15, 1-19, 1-20, 1-27,  1-30,  2-7,  3-16,
     3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-100, 4-9, 4-15, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19,  4-22,
     4-26

     Outfall - 4-16, 4-19

Suspended Solids - 4-8, 4-9, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14
                                      xlii
-------
System Levels

     Local - 1-7
     Mosaic - 1-7
     Regional - 1-7
     Subregional - 1-7

Tess Corners Creek - 4-9, 4-13, 4-18, 4-35

Thiensville WWTP - 1-7, 1-9, 1-20, 3-21, 3-100, 4-2, 4-9, 4-12,
     5-10

Threatened and Endangered Species - 2-5, 4-1, 4-20, 4-21, 4-39,
     5-37

Topography - 4-1, 4-27

Toxic Substances - 3-6, 4-4, 4-10, 4-19

Traffic - see Access

Transportation - see Access

Treatment Plants - see individual names

Unionized Ammonia - see Ammonia

U.S. District Court Stipulation - 2-5, 2-6, 4-35

User Charge for distributing MMSD operation and maintenance costs
     - 1-22, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-72, 4-75

Wastewater Conveyance - 1-6, 1-11, 1-21, 1-31, 1-33, 2-8, 3-71,
     3-104, 3-105, 3-109, 3-111, 3-115

Wastewater Treatment - 1-1, 1-5, 1-7, 1-30, 1-32, 2-8, 2-11, 3-66,
     3-68, 3-100, 3-105, 3-106, 3-112, 3-115, 4-9

Water Quality

     Existing - 2-1, 2-2, 2-10, 3-120, 4-11
     Objective (DNR) 1-4, 1-5, 4-5, 4-7, 4-11
     Future - 1-15, 3-120, 5-2
     Standards - 1-29, 2-5, 2-6, 3-91, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-12, 4-13,
     4-38

Wet Industries - 4-69, 4-75

Wetlands - 2-5, 4-1, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-39, 5-59

Whitnall Park Pond - see Water Quality
                              xliii
-------
Wildlife Habitats - 4-1, 4-33, 5-60



Wisconsin Electric Power Company WWTP - 1-10, 4-9



Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) - 4-37



Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) - 2-5



Zinc - see Metals



Zooplankton - see Aquatic Biota
                             xliv
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street,, Boom 1670
Chicago,. IL   60604
--------------



































2
OS
«s
a
EH
tn

e
w
J
«C
D
01

as
S

U

z
a

z
aj
§
0
tn
HH
S



































































































o
•H
4-1
ro
a
a1


'O
c
fl


«
H


































a

01

c

-H
U
18




18

31
CJ
C
18
• r4
&H
(d


tn
^4
3)
4J
id
3
B 01
C U
~H 18
01 UH
rl iH
Id 3
z cn









31 31

id -H
•H J
7
g.r4
4J
01 18
4J 3

M ^


rH
18
c
o

4J
Id
31

O
31
a.

 J3



CJ1

TJ
C
«J
c:
•H VO
E
C
rH 01
X Ol
Oi 3
£ 4J
3)

_
rH
id 01
UH
.~ 1
• • Id
C S

Is *
rH rH 3)
XX 01
Ol Ol 3
S g -U
S
'•O P* _-p



c

01

^


•o
31

0

tn

a a.






X

g


o
CJV
CO





X
id
g
fa
0
01
CO







1
1

















1
1












•
X
id
g

b
Q
31
CO








rH
Id
3
18
z








31

3
4J
id

U
a
g
31
E-








1












1
1










1
1

















1
1















1
1








X



rH
X
i"
o
o



tn
T3
•H
r-4
O
Ul

1
r-4
o
US
I/I

a


<

id
£
rH
X
o>
g

in

O


X
18
g
rH
X

s

,
o


a
X
18
g

X
Ol
g


d









X

G

\
01
e
in

o




•
X
18
S

,_4


g


O

d


.
X
id
£

rH
X
Is

o
0
d










01
c


o


u


X

g

X

1 g
1
in
o

d

X



X

1 g
1
in
o

d







i i
i )





**• .••*
n !H
01 01
§j
c
3 -n
-2 5



^ X
(d n3
S g
rH rH 1
X X 1
£ S

ro y3





X
18
g

rH
X
01
1 g
1

o

d




X


rH
X
01
1 =
1
CN
0
d
z
t
id
C
0
E
id I

c
0 "3
g D
J| N
C
rH O
Id H

O C



























































































..
cn
s

o
li-l
•^
8

rH
18
0

'i.
X
r8
&

rH
g
0
O
rH
X

Q
0
rH
Id
g

rH
g
O
0
rH
X

0
rH

X



rH
g
O
0
rH
^~
o
CN






,
X

s

rH
g
0
0
rH
0
O
CN




X

g

rH
E


0
rH


O



,
X
id
e

rH
g
O
O
rH
X
o
o
CN





C
id



O
•rH
4J

s
o
lU
o














X
g

rH
g
0
0
i—4
^>
o
o
CN

X
18
g

rH
g
O
0
rH
^
O








%
18
g

rH
g
0
0
rH
0
O
T




X
rd
g

rH
£

O
o
rH


O



.
X
18
S

rH
g
O
O
s
o





tn
31


S
18
UH
O

df>
O
































































0
M

Q-


•0
c
id

CN
O
rH
£
Z
„
01



01
>
•H
4J
fl
U
4J
Ul
•-H
1

c
cn
c
o
u
M
•-4
3

D
0
li
3

^1
4-5