-------
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
-------
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
-------
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^
ȣ
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
-------